Birmingham Byzantine and

Ottoman Studies

Abouf tlıe series

Biııniııglıa111 Byzantine ancl Ottoıııan Stuclies is clevotecl to tlıe history, culture ancl
archaeology of the Byzaııtine aııcl Ottoıııan worlcls of tlıe East Mecliterraneaıı region
from tlıe fifrlı to the twentietlı centuıy. lt provicles a fonını for tlıe publication ofresearclı
coıııpletecl by sclıolars fronı the Centre for Byzantine, Ottonıan ancl Modern Greek
Stuclies at the Uııiversity of Birnıinghanı, aııcl tlıose witlı similar researclı iııterests.

A bout tlıe volııme

Tlıis book focuses on llıe iıııpact of political İ·elatioııs \Vitlı tlıe Eııst, especially tlıe
fİ/luslinı caliplıate, cluriııg tlıe reign of tlıe last iconoclııst eıııperor of Byzııntium,
Theoplıilos (829-842), reinterpretiııg tlıe rnajor events of the period aııcl tlıeir
chronology. Separate sections are clevotecl to tlıe influence ofArmenians at the court,
the enrolnıeııt of Persiıın rebels against the caliplıate in the Byzaııtine army, the
contiııuous warfare with tlıe Arabs ancl cultural exchange with Baghdacl, the K.hazar
problem, and the attitucle of the Christian Melkites towards the iconcıclast emperor.
The final chapter reassesses the inıage ofthe emperor as a goocl ruler, building on the
conclusions of the previous sections.

About the aııtlıor

Juan Signes Codofier is Professor ofGreek Philology at the University ofValladolicl,

Spain. He has a particular interest in Byzantiııe history ofthe ninth centuıy ancl in the
historical literature ofByzantium. With Michael Featherstone he is publishing a new
edition of' Theophanes Continuatus (in the Corpııs fo11tiıı111 historiae Byzantinae,
series Berolinensis), ancl arnongst his many aıticles is one relatecl to the present
volunıe, "Melkites and icon worship during the iconoclastic periocl", in Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 67 (2014) 135-187.
 Birmingham Byzantine and
Ottoman Studies

Arclıitectııre and Hagiography in the Ottoman Eıııpire

Tize Politics of Bektashi Shrines in tize Classica/ Age
. Zeynep Yürekli

Tlıe Cıılt oftlıe lvfot/ıer of God in Byzantiwn

Texts and lınages
Edited by Leslie Brubaker and Mary B. Cunninglıa;n

Arı cıııd !denli(\! in Thirteenth-Centw:ı,• By::.antium

Hagia Sophia cmd the Empiı-e of Trebizond
Antony Eastrnond

Fcıınine and Pestilence in the Late Roman and Earzv Byzantine Empire
A Systematic Sıırvey of Sııbsistence Crises and Epidei'nics
Dionysios Ch. Stathakopoulos

Chıırch Law and Chzırch Order in Roıne and Byzantium

A Comparative Stzıdy
Clarence Gallagher

Byzantium in the Jconoclast Era (ca 680-850): The Soıırces

An Annotated Survey
Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon
THE EMPEROR THEOPHILOS
AND THE EAST, 829-842
 BIRMINGHAM BYZANTINE AND
OTTOMAN STUDIES
Volurne 13

General Editors

Leslie Brubaker
A.A.M. Bryer
Rhoads Murphey
John Haldon

Centre for Byzantine, Ottornan and Modem Greelc Studies

University of Birrningharn
The Emperor Theophilos
and the East, 829-842
Court and Frontier in Byzantium during the
Last Phase of Iconoclasm

JUAN SIGNES CODONER

University of Va!ladolid, Spain

Bogazici University Library

l l il l l l l l l l l l il l l l l 1 1 1 1
39001107129757

ASHGATE
,çj Juan Signes Codoner2014

Ali riglıts reserved. No part of tlıis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmittcd in any fomı or by any means, electronic, meclıanical, plıotocopying,
recording or otlıerwise witlıout the prior penııission oftlıe publislıer.

Juan Signes Codoner has asserted his right under the Copyriglıt, Designs and Pateııts Act,
1988, to be identified as tlıe author of this work.

Published by
Ashgate Publishing Limited Aslıgate Publishing Coınpany
Wey Court East 11 O ClıerryStreet
U nion Road ·suite3-I
Famhanı Burlingtoıı, VT05401-3818
Surrey, GU9 7 PT USA
England

www.ashgate.com

Britislı Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Signes Codoiier, Juan.
The Eınperor Theophilos and tlıe East, 829-842: Court and Frontier in Byzantiunı
duriııg the Last Plıase of lconoclasnı. - (Biııninglıam Byzantine and Ottoman
Studies; v.13) •
1. Tlıeoplıilos, Eınperor of Constantinople, d. 842 2 . Byzantine Empire- History-
Tlıeophilus, 829-842. 3. Byzantine Empire- Politics and govemment- 527-1081 .
4. Byzantine Empire- Relations- Orient. 5. Orient- Relations- Byzantine Enıpire.
I. TitleII. Series
949.5'02-dc23

The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows:

Library ofCongress Control Number: 2012952409

ISBN 9780754664895 (lıbk)

ISBN 9781409469865 (ebk-PDF) .
ISBN 9781409469872 (ebk-e-PUB)

Birminglıam Byzantine and Ottonıan Studies

Volume13

/) MIX
..J�
!'..�s
Paper from
responslble sources
Printed in the U nited Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited,
FSC" C013985
at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DTI I HD
 Contents

List of Maps and Figures

Preface

Introduction

SECTION I: PROLEGOMENA TO A REIGN: INTERNAL CONFLICT

IN THE EMPIRE UNDER LEO V AND MICHAEL H

Baclc to lconoclasrn! 13
1.1 Leo's Seizure ofPower and the Re-establishment oflconoclasın 13
1.2 Iconoclasm in Anatolia 20
1.3 Thomas' Icon Worship, and the Melkite Patriarch ofAııtioclı 25
1.4 The lconoclasm of theAmorians 28

2 Unrest at the Eastern Border 33

2.1 The Tourrnarchai of the Phoideratoi 33
2.2 The Outbreak of the War at the East 40
2.3 AnAnny ofBarbarians? 45
2.4 Fracture in the Empire 52

SECTION II: THE AR.MENIAN COURT

3 Family Ties: Leo theArmenian and Michael ofAmorion 63

3.1 The Empress Thekla and the Family ofBardanes the Turk 63
3.2 Michael's ConspiracyAgainst Leo 65
3.3 The Execution ofLeo's Murderers 68

4 Parties at the Court: TheArmenian Marriage ofTheophilos 73

4.1 Dating the Mmiage 73
4.2 Theodora's Faınily 74
4.3 · John the Grammarian: Relatives and Influence 78

5 The Elusive Manuel theAımenian 83

5.1 Why Amalekites? 83
5.2 Manuel's Service Under Michael I, Leo and Michael II 87
5.3 Dating Manuel's Exile (1) 90
5.4 The Akrites Manuel 94
5.5 Dating Maııuel's Exile (il) oo

.t.ı:.tnı::.'7ı::.
VI Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos and tlıe Eası. 829-842

6 The Daughter of Constantine VI and her Stepson 103

6. 1 Ma�ring a Nun to Obtain Legitimacy 103
6.2 Euphrosyne's Banishment from the Palace and the Retum of
the "Amıenian Party'' 105

The Armenian Family Network 111

7. I Theophilos' Armenian Relatives 111
7.2 Kaisar Alexios Mousele: His Career and Imperial Ambitions 115

8 Opposition to the Emperor 125

8.1 Checking Aristocratic Resistance 125
8.2 Manuel and Theop�obos: Rivals or Targets of the "Romans"? 132

SECTION III: SUPPORTING THE PERSIAN UPRISJNG AGAINST

THE ABBASIDS

9 Some Remarks on the Khurraınite Movement 139

10 Naşr the Khurramite 145

10.1 The Literary Sources 145
10.2 The Tourmarches ofthe Phoideratoi and the Persian Tourma 149

11 Theophobos and his Father 153

11.1 Birth and Courtly Upbringing ofa Noble Persian Youth 153
11.2 The Identity ofTheophobos' Father 161
11.3 Theophobos Patrician and Kaisar and his MaıTiage to
Theophilos' Family 164
11.4 Theophobos Exousiastes ofthe Persians 168

12 A Persian Basileus? 173

12.1 Dating the Uprising ofthe Persians 173
12.2 Whose Usurpation Came First? 176

SECTION IV: WARFARE AGAINST THE ARABS

13 Invasion or Civil War? Thomas the Slav and the Arabs 183
13.l Thomas' Stay in the Caliphate and the Two Thomases 183
13.2 Arab Troops in Thomas' Army 196
13 .3 The Arab Conquest ofCrete 200
13.4 The Strategy ofthe Caliph 208

14 Campaigning in Cilicia and Cappadocia in 830-833 215

14.1 Ma'mün's invasion ofCappadocia in 830 215
14.2 Theophilos' First Triuınph and his Campaign in Cilicia in 83 l 218
 Coııteııts vii

14.3 The Dating ofMa'rnün's Second Campaign in Cappadocia 224

14.4 The F ortress ofLoulon 30
14.5 Exchange of Letters Between the Emperor and the Caliph,
and Ma'rnün's Stay in Egypt 234
14.6 Some Conclusions on the Chronology ofthe Campaigns
of831-832 238
14.7 Ma'rnün's Third Campaign in Cappadocia in 833 241

15 Byzantine Expeditions in Westem Arrnenia Between 834 and 836 245

15.1 Stephen ofTaron on the Carnpaigns ofTheophilos 246
15.2 The Abasgian Campaign and the Iberian Bagratids 250
15.3 The Arrnenian Bagratids 256
15.4 A Tentative Chronology for the Caınpaigns ofthe Years
834-837 257
15.5 · The Supposed Attack ofthe Melitenians in 835 259

16 The Second Triumph ofTheophilos in 837 263

16.1 · Michael the Syrian on the Campaign of837 263
16.2 Armenian Chroniclers on tlıe Campaign of837 270

17 Theophilos' Defeat at Anzes and the Capture ofArnorion in 838 279

17. I A Retaliatoıy Campaign for the Plundering ofSozopetra? 279
17 .2 The Route Towards Arnorion 287
17.3 The Treacheıy 293
17.4 Theophilos' Offer ofPeace 297
17.5 An Assessment ofthe Amorion Campaign 304

18 After Amorion: Theophilos' Last Years 313

18.1 The Conspiracy of' Abbas 313
18.2 Diplomacy in the West ... 316
18.3 ... and War in the East 328

SECTION V: THE IliliAZAR JFLANK

19 The Embassy to the K.hazars and the Building ofSarice! 337

19.1 The Dating ofthe Embassy ofPetronas Karnateros (I) 337
19.2 Against Whom was Sarice! Built? 343
19.3 The Thema ofthe Klirnata and the Province ofGotthia 345

20 Rus, Slavs and Bulgars in the Steppes 349

20.1 The Embassy ofthe Rus and the Dating ofthe Embassy of
Petronas K.amateros (II) 349
20.2 When did the Khazars Convert to Judaism? 355
20.3 Tlıe Alliance ofTheophilos with Bulgars and Slavs 362
viii Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası, 829-842

SECTION VI: THE MELKITES

21 The Letter oftheThree Melkite Patriarchs toTheophilos 367

21.1 An InterpolatedText 367
21.2 Patchwork in the Letter'sTitle and Protocol 371
21.3 The Jerusalemite Synod of the Melkites 378
21.4 The Unmentioned Icons in the Original Core of the Letter 384
21.5 The Closing of the Letter 390
21.6 Wishing Yictory on the Emperor 394
21. 7 The Melkite Patriarchs after 843 399
21.8 Where and by Whom was the Forgery Made? 405

22 Apocalyptics and Expectations of Political Change in the Realrn

ofthe Abbasids 409

SECTION VII: CULTURAL EXCHANGE WITH THE ARABS

23 Sorne Prelirninary Matters 423

24 A Bidirectional Exchange? 429

24.1 Byzantine Cultural Influence in the East 429
24.2 The Road to Baghdad 439

EpilogueThe Image ofTheophilos as a Ruler 449

A Chronology ofTheophilos' Reign 461

Abbreviations 467
Soıırces 469
Bibliography 473
Index ofNames and Places 507
 List of Maps and Figures

Maps

Peoples supposedly recruited intoThomas' army as mentioned

by the Continuator and Genesios 47
2 Routes of the campaigns of 830, 831, 832 and 833 with the
names of the places involved 217
3 Byzantine expeditions in western Arn1enia between 834 and 836 249
4 Scheme of the campaign ofTheophilos in the east in 837
according to Michael the Syrian 269
5 Campaign ofTheophilos in the east in 837 according to
the Armenian sources 273
6 Mu'taşim 's campaign against Amorioıı in 838 ·288
7 Amorion, topographical site plan by S. Ayda!. Courtesy
of the Amorium Excavations Project. 295
8 West and central Meditenanean Sea, c. 838 322
9 Rus, Magyars and Khazars during the reign ofTheophilos 345

lFigures

Seal of Nasir, as ı:oup�uipx;rıç ı:ô'ıv <potospa.ı:rov, Zacos and Veglery

(1972) vol. 1.3, 1760, nos 3148a and b (present whereabouts
unknown) 150
2 Seal ofTheophobos as patrikios. Nr. 4 in the Dunn Catalogue
(1983). The Henry BarberTrust Collection SL4, University of
Birmingham, UK. Courtesy of the Barber Institute ofFine Arts,
Birmingham 164
3 Seal ofTheophobos as eçoucnmnııç ı:ô'ıv ffapcrô'ıv.
Dumbarton Oaks DO 58.106.3767. © Dumbarton Oaks,
Byzantine Collection, Washington D.C. 169
4 Follis withTheophilos triumphant, holding labarum
with cross in right hand, globe cnıciger in left hand. Found
in the Lower City Enclosure of Amorion, 2006. Courtesy of
the Amorium Excavations Project. 277
5 Organ. Heron of Alexandria, Pneıımatica I.42. After
Schmidt 1899 446
6 Singing birds. Heron of Alexandria, Pneıımatica Il.5.
After Schınidt 1899 447
X Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilu.ı· aııd ılıe Eası. 829-842

7 The London Charioteer silk ( detail), perhaps representing

Theophilos as a charioteer. Victoria and Albert Museuın
T.762-1892. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London. 453
 Preface

in the summer semester of 1988 I attended a seminar on Theophanes Continuatus

at the Freie Universitat Berlin conducted by the !ate Professor Paul Speck. it was
my first, abrupt introduction into the field of Byzantine Studies after my degree
in Classical Philology at the University of Salamanca. I was at that time unaware
that I was destined to work on this fascinating histoıy of the second iconoclasm
over the years that followed, until, under the stimulating direction of Professor
Antonio Bravo Garcia (Universidad Complutense of Madrid), in Salamanca in
September 1993, I finally obtained my PhD with a comparative study of the first
three books ofthe "Continuator" and the contemporaıy history ofGenesios. When
my research was published two years later in Amsterdam (Signes Codoiier I 995),
I stopped thinking about tbe text for several years and began working on other
authors and periods, for it seemed to me that I n�eded to deepen my knowledge of
f3yzantine literature and historiography.
it was only after more than 1O years that I came back to the text in 2006
on the occasion of a summer research stay of three months at the University of
Birmingham. There I met Leslie Brubaker and discussed with her the possibility
of publishing a historical monograph on the emperor Theophilos based mostly on
the evidence provided by the Continuator. She immediately welcomed my idea, so
I submitted to her a draft ofthe project even before leaving Birmingham at the end
ofAugust. The plan was approved some weeks later by John Smedley ofAshgate
Publishing. By then, during the 21st Intemational Congress of Byzantine Studies
held in London in 2006, I happened to meet Michael Featherstone (CNRS Paris),
who had been charged with editing the first four books ofTheophanes Continuatus
for the Series Berolinensis of the Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. He
generously offered to share with me the editing ofthe text, on which we have been
working since. This unexpected chance encouraged my research, for it offered me
the opporhmity to read the text intensively once again and thus appreciate better
its structure and the working method ofthe anonymous author who composed it
during the reign ofConstantine V II.
My research, however, proceeded more slowly than I had initially imagined,
especially because of the high number of complementary sources I needed to
check (Greek, Arabic and Armenian) and the ınany secondary issues that needed
to be dealt with. In order to consult bibliographies not available in Spain and
also to exchange points of view with foreign colleagues, new research stays in
Paris (2008), Oxford (2009, 2010) and Vienna (2010) were undertaken. I was even
granted a sabbatical by the University of Valladolid for the academic year 2009-
2010 to finish the work. 1 spent my leave mostly working at the Centro de Ciencias
Humanas y Sociales ofthe CSIC in Madrid.
XII Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd tlıe East, 829-842

At the end of this process the book had grown into twice its original intended
size, ınostly because of the necessity of dealing with minute textual problems,
\\'hich were not easy to tackle with passing references, but needed to be commented
upon in some detail.
ı relied on the assistance of nıany colleagues and friends whom I would tike
to mention here for their invaluable help. First of ali, mention must be made of
Michael Featherstone, my joint editor ofthe text, whose advice on many particular
details always proved useful. The passages quoted from the "Continuator", as well
as the English translation, are taken fronı our common, stili unpublished edition of
the text. Other colleagues contributed to correcting eıı-ors in the original manuscript
by reading the draft of sonıe sections: John Haldan (Chapters 1 and 1 O), Timothy
Greenwoocl (Chapters 15-16), Jonathan Shepard (Chapters 19-21), Joseph Munitiz
(Chapter 21), Marie-France Auzepy (Chapter 21) and Otta Kresten (Chapter 21).
Stephen Gero, James Howard Johnston, Clıris Lightfoot, Pagana Papadopoulou
and Mark Swanson, among others, also gave me their advice on ınany particular
0

issues. Many others also helped me with bibliographical enquiries and petitions
or just encouraged my work with their friendly support. On the financial side,
the study has been made possible to a great extent by funding provided by the
Spanish research project FFI2012-37908-C02-01. 1 ımıst also especially thank
Leslie Brubaker for the painstaking reading she made ofthe final draft ofthe book,
polishing my deficient English at many points and thus producing a correct text.
Finally, Arantxa and Micaela made my life easier and ınore colourful during
the long time it took for me to put my ideas in order. For the welcoıne pauses
needed during research I dedicate this book to them.
A note on the transcription ofnaınes: I have transliterated Greel< names except
for those _that are most common in Engl ish ( Constantine, John, Gregory, Theodore,
Peter, and alsa Nikaia, Cappadocia ete.). For the Arabic names I use diacritics
according to the usual norrns in English but avoid the article when at the beginning
of the name. I apologize for minor inconsistencies.

Valladolid, April 2013

 Introduction: Some Short Reınarks on the
Methodology and Purpose of the Book

The reign of Theophilos (829-842), the !ast iconoclast eınperor, has always
attracted historians of Byzantium, who teııd to regard it as a crucial turning
point in the history of the eınpire. However, the reasons for such an assessment
are difficult to ascertain. Ceıiaiııly, he enjoyed a relatively mild treatment in
the iconophile sources, at least in contrast with the demeaniııg accounts of his
iconOclastic forerunners, especially Leo Ill, Constantine V and Leo V. These same
sources have preserved some family scenes ofthe enıperor that rencler Theophilos'
figure nıore humane ancl even enable us to draw an approxinıate profile of his
character. A legendary halo of righteousness even surrounds Theophilos in some
later accounts.
But when we tıy to be nıore specific about his aclıievenıeııts and leave aside
aııy ronıanticism, we only fiııd what seems to be a striııg of militaıy defeats by the
Arabs, iııterspersed with some minor triumplıs, and a tenuous link with the origins
ofthe so-called Byzaııtine Renaissance. Moreover, Theophilos' posthumous fame is
usually connected with the good offices of his widow Theodora, who struggled to
preserve the memoıy of her husband against the thirst for retaliation of nıany icon
worshippers after 842 and, in order to achieve that, effectively managed her power as
regent ofher infant son Michael until 855. As the story goes, she promised to enforce
a new religious policy of icon worship only in exchange for an official absolution
by the Church of her !ate husband. Her attitude is quite understandable, as she was
defending the continuity of the dynasty embodied by her son. Theodora knew what
kind ofpropaganda could be levelled against dead emperors: the second Council of
Nikaia had already launched a slanderous campaign against the iconoclast rulers of
the eighth century, virtually effacing eveıy positive trace oftheir reigns and branding
them with infamous nicknames. Curiously enough, it was the iconophile Michael III
and not his father Theophilos who was to be denigrated after his cleath in 867 by the
official histoıiography of the new Macedonian dynasty and tlıerefore depicted as a
dissolute and incompetent drunkard.
Thus, inost modem historiography has become accustomed to portraying
Theophilos in a favourable light, taking at face value the legendary account that
makes ofhim a righteous and le.amed ruler, and excusing as bad luck his apparent
military failures against the Muslims. At least this is the attitude ofthe only cıment
monograph about Theophilos, written by John H. Rosser in 1 972 under the title
Theophilos the Unlııclcy (829/842): A Study of the Tragic and Brilliant Reign of
Byzantiııın s !ast !conoclastic Emperor. This thesis, althouglı not easily available,
has infl uenced the approach ofmaııy scholars since theıı, because Rosser undertook
2 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeop/ıilos aııd tlıe Eası. 829-842

a thorouglı researclı ofthe sources and was able to build on tlıem a consistent iınage
ofthe emperor. Warren Treadgold in his popular book The By:::antine Revival 780-
842 accepts this overall pattern and speaks of"brilliance at honıe" and "brilliance
abroad" wlıen outlining the main events ofhis reign before the defeat ofAmorion
in 838 tlıat is said to lıave triggered "Theophilos' depression". For Treadgold,
Theophilos was also an "unlucky enıperor", and although he concedes that his
good reputation was mostly an effect of his own propaganda, he states that "if
Theoplıilos had reigned 50 more years, as was quite possible in view ofhis youth,
he nıight well have become one of the greatest Byzantine nılers". 1 in his final
assessment ofTheophilos' career it does not matter apparently for Treadgold that
his nıilitary record could be, "to put it clıaritably", as he says, "disappointing".
in spite of the great number of studies devoted to particular aspects of
Theophilos's reign, this contradictory assessment renıains well establislıed in
modern research. There are however several reasons that coınnıend a reappraisal
of this image. The first has to do with the nature of the evidence. As a matter of
fact, tlıe positive evidence linking tlıe origins of the Byzantine Renaissance with
Theophilos is scanty, reduced in fact to the already mentioned legeııdary accounts
and therefore highly coııtroversial. And it is to be expected tlıat it will remain so
for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, Tlıeophilos' fame as patron ofthe arts and
the scieııces, no matter how probable, is mostly indirectly deduced through the
historical context.
The opposite is the case when we try to assess the military abilities of the
emperor, for we can now rely on a good number of sources. However, modern
authors have in general tended to ınagnify the impact of the taking of the city
of Amorion in 838 by caliph Mu'taşim, following closely the propaganda and
detailed accounts of the Arabic sources as well as the tendentious narrative of
later iconophile sources, which put the focus on the defeats ofTiıeophilos in the
battlefield in order to counteract the effects of the dynastic propaganda. üne of
our most important sources for Theophilos, the anonymous continuation of the
chronicle ofTheoplıanes written by order of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos,
provides the critics, so to say, with tlıe slogan they needed, for he writes tlıat
"[Theophilos] carried offno fitting exploits in war, but was always defeated and
returned in a manner unwortlıy ofan emperor" (ouoe 1:aı; tv n:oA.eftoıı; ıivopaya0iaı;
ıcawUiJA.roç tM+tPavsv, ıiAA' 111:nıı:6 1:s ad ıcai ou ıcaı:a pacrı.Ma un:fo1:psqısv).2
A more positive verdict is possible that will bring the military record into
accord with the cultural achievements ofTlıeophilos' reign. Tlıis appears highly
desirable and will probably account for the posthumous fame of the emperor,
which could not be sustained just through dynastic propaganda. As a matter of
fact, it appears that Theophilos' prestige as a ruler could not be assured in the eyes
of his contemporaries merely witlı a cultural programme, not even by slıowing
himself incomıptible, accessible to his subjects or righteous in the law court. It is

1 Treadgold { l 988) 328.

Tlıeoplı. Coııt. 111.2 (87.6-8).
 lııtrodııction 3

to be doubted whether these attitudes could ever have mattered for the Byzantines
if tlıey were accompanied by permanent failure in the battlefield or a financial
crisis. lt is rather to be surmised that Theophilos, despite serious setbacks such as
tlıe defeat at Aınorion in 838, effectively puslıed back the Arab military threat and
even won some reputation as an efficient nıler. it is upon tlıis basis that his image
ımıst have been built.
Another reason for writing a new study on Theophilos has undoubtedly
to do with tlıe markecl progress made in recent years in tlıe knowleclge of the
sources and the protagonists ofthe history ofninth-century Byzantium. Friedhelın
Winkelmann ancl his team of the Akaclemie der Wissenschaften in East Berlin
during the DDR periocl were pioneers in attempting a thorough review and
cataloguing of the available eviclence, thus paving the way for later projects.
Books Iike the Que!lenstııdieıı zzır herrschenden Klasse von Byzanz im 8. und 9.
Jalırhundert of 1987 or the Quellen zıır Geschichte des .fi'iiheıı Byzaıız 3 renıain
essential references. It is upon this basis that the imge Prosopographie der ınittel­
byzcıııtiııisc/ıen Zeit (PmbZ), conducted and led by Ralph-Johannes Lilie, again
at the Beri iner Akaclenıie, was nıade possible:1 The first part ("Erste Abteilung")
of this encyclopeclia, covering the years 641 to 867, appeared between 1998 and
2001 in six volumes "nach Vorarbeiten F. Winkelmanns". it not only provides
an exhaustive register of evet)' single source for every single person who playecl
sonıe role in the events of the time (be it an emperor or an anonymous person),
but it also makes a critical assessment of the often contraclictory evidence at
hand, certainly with occasional slips, but always prnviding an honest and reliable
interpretation ofthe facts. it should also be mentioned that the first volume ofthis
vast enterprise, titled Prolegomena, contains a detailed study ("Quellenkunde") of
the sources according to their nature and genres, which includes also 11011-Greek
texts and archeological material.
Simultaneously with the German Prosopographie, a parallel project appeared
under the auspices ofKing's College, London, the Prosopography ofthe Byzantine
Empire I: (641-867) (PBE) edited by Robert Martindale and covering exactly the
saıne period. 5 Although the English project is less detailed than the German, it
reınains nevertheless a very useful research tool, for it is published as an electronic
database, which not only ınakes consultation and search easier but will also
allow for peıınanent updating ofthe entries. Finally, scholars at the University of
Birıningham produced an even more detailed register of the sources in a volurne
written by two of its leading academics in the field of Byzantine Studies, Leslie
Brubaker imci John Haldon.6 With the title Byzantiııın in the Jconoclast Era (ca.
680-850): The Sources. An Annotated Sıırvey, this impressive study was conceived
as the introduction to the comprehensive historical study ofthe iconoclast period

3
Winkelmann (1987), Winkelnıann and Brandes (1990).
4
Lilie et al. (1998-2001).
Martindale (2001 ). The project is alreacly mentionecl in PınbZ vol. 1, 304-9.
'' Brubaker and Halclon (2001 ).
4 Tlıe E111peror Tlıenp/ıi/os aııd ı/ıe Eası. 829-842

that appeared in 2011' and that has as its lwo main foci the socioeconomic history
and nıaterial culture, in clear contrast to the more political approach of previous
work on the period.
Ali these publications and others ofa more limited focus but no less encyclopaedic
nature8 have thus provided scholars with tools and <lata that enable a more accurate
appraisal of the evidence. However, at the same time, they raise the bar for future
research and make it more difficult to present new results. In view of the Iarge
anıOLınt of evidence now available, it is therefore advisable to reduce the scope
of any new study on the period in order to gain a deeper insight into the problenıs
involved: overviews over a Iong period are possible only after decades of research
and ınostly conceivable only on a team basis. The main reason for this is that we
can no longer take the sources as "medieval databases", as was necessarily the case
before these new vast projects appeared, when scholars invested ınost oftheir time
stnıggling with texts in search of substantive <lata. Now that the data as well as the
sources that convey them are known, sonıething more is needed. This is mainly a
nıore careful approach to the texts that ımıst consider the aims and scope of their
authors, the sources they used or the literary codes that unavoidably detem1ined
their tas,k. New information will appear nıainly by'taking these aspects into account.
Curiously enough, this approach has been relatively neglected by historians of
the iconoclast period. A first symptom of this is that the most detailed historical
writings that cover the reign ofTheophilos, such as the chronicles ofthe Logothete
group and the Continuator of Theophanes, are stili waiting for a critical edition.9
This neglect extends also to many hagiographies of the period, which remain
badly edited, not to speak of dozens of minor sources. Consequently, not many
rnonographs on single works of the period have appeared in recent times, in
c.ontrast to the constant appearance of new studies on Byzantine texts before
the Muslim invasion or from the eleventh century onwards. However, there are
obviously exceptions to this general rule, personified mainly by the !ate Paul
Speck and more recently by Marie-France Auzepy, who represent two different
ınethodologies. Both have contributed in their way to disentangling the thicket of
fragmentaıy and biased reports produced by the iconophiles, which obscured to

7
Brubaker and Haldon (2011).
g See for instance Settipani (2006) for the Armenian prosopography; Thomas
and Roggema (2009) for the Christian Arabic sources and the interaction of lslam
and orthodoxy, or http://www.doaks.org/document/hagiointro.pdf for the Dumbarton
Oaks Hagiography Database. For the Arabic sources Vasiliev (1935), ( 1950) remains
unsurpassed.
'' Wahlgren (2006) has edited up to now only Version A of the Logothete, but his
edition ofVersion 8 and Pseudo-Symeon are stili to come. Michael Featherstone and I have
coınpleted the edition ofthe Continuator for tlıe Corpııs Fontiııııı Historiae Byzantinae, so
1 have been able to profit fronı it for the references to this text, altlıouglı tlıe printed version
will probably appear later tlıan the preseııt book.
 lıııroducıion 5

a great extent the eventual achievements of the iconoclast emperors. it is perhaps

worth commenting briefly on their work.
Before Speck, modern historians had always avoided paying too much
attention to the ınost evident pieces of slander against iconoclasts produced by the
iconophiles, as their partiality was blatant. However, as the scholars did not have
an alternative version for the events, in the end they became somewhat resigned
and endorsed the general assessment of cultural and economic decay that the
iconophile propaganda had produced for the long century before the "restoration"
of icon worship in 843. Legends like the burning ofthe university at the time of
Leo III or even the pact ofthis saıne emperor with a Jew to start the persecution of
icons were repeated in the ınanuals, 10 albeit with a sense of distaste and weariness,
as if these naive stories somehow reflected the general atmosphere of decadence
the iconophiles were denouncing.
Speck began scrutinizing one by one the pieces ofthe puzzle, and consequently
submitted many single texts to a painstaking analysis, revealing the patchwork
character of many compositions, the final result of a complex transmission
process. He detected inconsistencies and a randonı combination of sources, and
tried to reconstruct out of thern the iconoclast perspective. He also proved that
there were a good number of forgeries behincl many of the texts conceming the
iconoclast controversy. The iconophiles were in fact already used to altering or
interpolating pro-iconoclastic texts between 787 and 815 and then again after 843,
in order to hide or alter their original message. Nevertheless, they often worked
clumsily, not being able to erase ali traces of the original intent ofthe work. After
. Speck's research, many legends and stories now found an historical explanation.
However, Speck suspected more interpolations and forgeries than was
certainly the case and occasionally went too far in his minute reconstnıction of
the original texts, which was mainly hypothetical and unwarranted. Although his
intuitions were frequently sound, 11 his attempt to reconstruct in every single detail
the original wording of the text under consideration was sometimes excessive
and based on a chain of petitiones principii, whose accumulation made the
whole building tremble. 12 His preconception of what the text was supposed to
say (mostly guided by his vindication of iconoclast emperors against iconophile
propaganda) in fact deterrnined his analysis, which in many instances ignored
the authorial intention and dismembered the text into a disparate series of textual
fragments. The shortcomings of this procedure had already been denounced by

10 See now Speck (1974a) for the legend about the burning of the University of
Constantinople and its decay in the iconoclastic period and Speck (1990) for the legend of
the Jew who promised Leo III a long reign if he forbade icon worship.
11 See for example Speck (1984b), (1987) and (1998).
1" Tlıe metlıodology is questionable, for instance, in Speck ( 1988) and (2002). See
Chapter 21 of tlıis volume for a comment on Speck's analysis of tlıe Letter ıo Tlıeoplıilos.
6 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeop/ıilos cıııd ılıe Ecısı. 819-842

Jakov Ljubarskij in soıne ofhis publications, where he defended the personality of

the author against the abuses ofa ınore mechanical Quelleı?forschııııg. 13
A ınuch ınore careful and prudent approach to the texts was needed, such
as that offered by Marie-France Auzepy during the last 15 years.14 Instead of
explaining out probleınatic data in texts by nıeans of chance transmission and
ad hoc hypothesis, Auzepy closely scrutinizes the overall structure of the texts
under review and detects minor inconsistencies in order to prove their composite
nature. She avoids an exact explanation for every single problem she detects, but
convincingly finds a more I ikely bistorical and cultural context for the work under
review. She does not ignore the Qııe/!eı?forsclıııng, but recognizes the importance
of the author as well.
it is this middle way that we aim to follow in the present work when dealing with
pieces of evidence taken from the sources. Now, as we are not writing a succession
ofmonographic studies on single sources (as ınost ofAuzepy's studies are), but aim
to reconstruct a period aut ofthem (as was Speck's main purpose), it is our duty to
obtaiıı a coherent picture from disparate sources, which can certainly be regarded
as contradicting the philological ınethod. However, being coııscious ofthat, we will
try not to sacrifice or to force into the overall picture the partial conclusions obtained
through the detailed analysis ofthe texts, thus admitting exceptions and alternative
explanations to OLır interpretatioıı. As a coıısequence, our assessmeııt of the period
will be less evident or, so to speak, ınore coııtradictory, but it will be richer and,
we hope, closer to the complex reality ofthe empire. That our conclusions will be
perhaps more open to debate is not necessarily a deficiency ofthis method.
On the other hand, since we aim at mak/ng a partial historical account of
Theophilos' reign aut ofa relatively large number ofsources, we will evidently not
be able to provide a philological analysis ofali them when assessing the evidence
they bear. However, we will try at least to consider the context and intention ofthe
evidence given by the most important sources of the period, namely the histories
ofGenesios and the Continuator ofTheophanes, both written in the tenth century
during the reign of Constantine VII and at his request. 15 Alsa important will be
works such as the Annals of TabarT, the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian and the
famous Letter to Theophilos of the three Melkite patriarchs, which will be the
main focus ofanalysis in separate chapters or sections ofthe book.16
These works, along with some other minor texts, will be quoted in the following
pages ofthis book and their accounts will provide more often than not the starting

13 See especially Ljubarskij (1992), (1998). See also Mullett (1992).

1'1 Auzepy (1997), (1999) and her collection of articles (2007).
15 For the relationship between these two works see Signes Codofier ( l 995).
16 For TabarT and Michael the Syrian see especially Chapters 14-19. For Islamic
historiography see for instance Hibri (1999) and Robinson (2003). A good introduction to
the work of Michael is made by Weltecke (1997). For the Letter ıo Tlıeoplıilos see Chapter
26 and Speck (1990) 449-534, Gauer (1994), Munitiz, Chrysostonıides, Harvalia-Crook
and Dendrinos ( 1997).
 !11trodııctio11 7

point for the discussion. My nıethod will be the opposite of that followed by
Treadgold in his influential book quoted above, Tlıe Byzaııtine Revival: instead of
building a coherent narrative out ofthe <lata taken from the sources and relegating
to lengthy footnotes the discussion ofthe textual problems, I have preferred to put
the textual discussion into the main text (nıaking of it the core of the book) and
relegating the historical conclusions to the end of the corresponding chapter or
section. 17 This obviously nıakes reading more difficult for the average reader in
search ofa colıerent narrative of the peri od, but in exchange it provides a faithfül
picture of the process by which the conclusions are gained. The reader can thus
easily check the arguments at stake for every single passage and eventually refute
them ifunconvincing.
Moreover, the fact that I have always tried to let the sources speak for
themselves before proceeding to discuss the historicity of their accounts has
the advantage of preventing a good deal of unfounded speculation, because the
arguments thus renıain closely bound to the texts that trigger the discussion. In
fact, the permanent refe_rence to the sources obliges one to take them seriously and
not to discredit too quickly the i11formation they fı.ırnish ifit does not tally with mır
particular reconstruction ofthe events: in those cases wenmst do our best to look
for some likely cause for the clistorting version offerecl by a given source ancl not
to consider it just fanciful or legendary for no particular reason, as has too often
been the case in modern research when approaching Byzantine sources. This, I
concecle, is a difficult task, for it frequently occurs that no apparent reason for a
problematic statement emerges after a first reading. However, this book attempts
to centre the discussion in the internal logic ofthe sources and not only in the iogic
of the scholar at work. it is my hope that the narrative of the discussion process,
however technical it may be, ınay nevertheiess appeai to readers, especially if I
succeed in exposing the chain of facts according to their natura! order and the
relevance ofthe sources. Obviously ifthe conciusions turn out to be sound, or at
ieast likely, the effort will have been worth it.
This procedure of presenting and discussing the sources before coıning to
any conciusions takes more space than usuai in books on Byzantine history, the
consequence iogically being a book bulkier than I initially wisl;ıed. This circumstance
has forcecl a seiection oftopics, because a coınprehensive ınonograph on Theophiios
would have undoubtedly surpassed ıny own abiiities and turneci out to be unreaiistic.
So I decided to ieave out ofıny research essential aspects ofTheophilos' reign, such
as adıninistration and economy (which obviousiy need a broaderperspective, like the
one attempted in the recent book ofBnıbaker and Haidon), 18 but also the diplomatic
exchanges with the Latin powers, the ınilitary campaigns in the west (froın the
Danube frontier to Sicily), not to mention the iconociastic controversy within the
frontiers ofthe eınpire or the building activity ofthe emperor (ınainly attested in the

17
It is for tlıis reason that I lıave reduced to a minimum the bibliograplıical references
in the footnotes.
'" Brubaker aııd 1-laldoıı (2011 }.
s Tlıe Empernr Tlıeoplıilos cmd tlıe Eası. 819-842

capital), arnong many other topics. lnstead, I put the lens on the relationship ofthe
empire under Theophilos with its eastem neighbours, be they Amıenians, Persians,
Arabs or even Klıazars. The aıTangement of the subject matter is, however, neither
purely tlıematic (according to the nations involved) nor chronological, but combines
both factors and perhaps requires some explanation.
The revival oficonoclasm un der Leo the Armenian and Michael ofAmorion,
both soldiers of the eastern frontier, as well as the regional tensions between
westemers and eastemers as expressed mainly during the so-called civil war of
Thomas the Slav, will be the focus of Section I of the study, for it is against this
background that many ofthe events during Theophilos' reign are better understood.
Theophilos' interest in the east is also explained through the dominance of
Anııenians at the court, an aspect that links his reign with that ofhis predecessor
Leo the Armenian (Theophilos saw himself as an avenger of his assassination)
rather than with his father Michael. The evidence collected will allow a detailed
prosopographical analysis-of some of the most conspicuous agents of power at
the time, such as Manuel the An11enian or John the Grammarian (see Section
il). Again, the recruitment of Persians in the army since 833 was evidently a
countermeasure to check Abbasid aggressive canıpaigns in Anatolia (even since
the time of Thomas's usurpation), but also explains further the development of
later campaigns. it had internal consequences for the emperor (the usurpation of
the Persian Theophobos) that are also worth considering (see Section III).
That eastem policy was a priority for the empire during Theophilos' reign was
in the first instance a consequence of the threat posed by the Abbasids, since the
caliph Ma'nıün and his brother Mu'taşim took the field as many as four times
against the empire and caused Theophilos in tıım to react by personally leading
several campaigns beyond the eastem borders of Byzantine Anatolia, some of
them quite successful. The review and assessment of the main sources for these
military actions understandably constitute the longest section ofthe book and will
allow for a somehow improved and more detailed sequence ofthe events. There,
attention will also be paid to the war between Michael and Thomas (820-823),
which was a tuming point in the permanent crisis between the two rival powers,
since it was in fact triggered by the personal involvement ofMa'mün in Thomas's
usurpation (see Section IV).
The strategic importance ofthe Khazars, one ofthe main economic powers in
the Russian steppes and an important commercial partner ofthe Abbasid caliphate,
explains the renewed interest of the Byzantines in an alliance with them, which,
contrary to current chronology, is to be set at the beginning ofTheophilos' reign.
The shift to the Rus took place only towards 838 (see Section V).
The following section will explore the aim of the appeal addressed by the
Melkite patriarchs to Theophilos in 836 as put forward in the so-called Letter to
Theophilos, a rather problematictext that has been the subject ofmuch controversy.
Despite the current opinion that the Melkites were at the time fervent partisans of
icon worship, we will explore the possibility that they could have tried to come
to an agreement with tlıe emperor as a result of the recent military victories of
 /ııırodııction 9

Theophilos in the eastern border and of the apocalyptic prophecies that circulated
at the time and announced an impending end ofthe Abbasid caliphate (Section VI).
Next, the cultural exchanges with the Arabs, the so-called "road to Baghdad",
will be our focus, for the origins of the Byzantine revival of the nintlı century
are not to be explained without the contribution of the Abbasid phillıellenism,
however this phenomenon may be assessed (Section VII). Finally, we will try
to balance Theophilos' eastem policy against his image as a righteous ruler as
advanced in contemporary or later sources (see the Epilogue).
A new chronology of many of the events ofTheophilos' reign, made possible
only after painstaking analysis of the sources discussed througlıout this book, is
included in an appendix at the end of the study.
 SECTIONI
Prolegoınena to a Reign: Intemal
Con:flict in the Empire under Leo V
and Michael II

It seems inappropriate to examiııe Theophilos' reign without taking a look back

into some aspects ofthe policy ofhis two icoııoclastic predecessors, his godfather
Leo V the Armenian (8 I 3-820) and his father Michael II ofAmorion (820-829).
it is not only a matter of explaining Theophilos' personal relation with both of
them, the continuous and significant presence ofArmenians at the imperial court
since Leo's reign (see Chapters 3-8), or even the responsibilities Theophilos had
as youııg co-emperor after he was crowned by his father in 821 (see Chapter 4.1 ).
it is also to some momentous events in the reigns of Leo V and Michael II that
we will now direct our attention, for they will help us to understand conflicts
that later escalated or manifested themselves under Theophilos. These insights
will provide, so I hope, a valuable background for explaining some aspects of
Theophilos' eastern policy that constitute the main focus of the present research.
We will address first the causes of the return to iconoclasm under Leo. Thus we
will consider briefly whether the renewed hostility towards icon worship could
be linked with the eastern origins of the emperor and even whether Thomas's
uprising against Leo and Michael II was somehow triggered by the conflict over
images (Chapter 1 ). Then we shall explore the regional tensions between the
eastern and the western parts ofthe empire, and, more specifically, the role played
by some nations and peoples beyond the Byzantine eastern. frontier, who either
enrolled as "federates" in the army or, alternatively, suppoıted the usurpation of
Thomas (Chapter 2).
 G_hapter 1
Back to Iconoclasm !

1.1 Leo's Seizure of Power and the Re-establishment oflconoclasm

When in 813 Michael Rhangabe was defeated in a pitched battle in Versinikia by

the khan Krum, he fled hastily back to the capital with the remaining troops, closely
followed by the Bulgarian anny. We know about the immediately ensuing events
mainly through the chronicle of the contemporaıy iconophile monk Theophanes.
According to hinı, Michael consulted Leo, "patrician and comnıancler ofthe Eastern
aımy", clescribed as "pious, strenuous ancl resolved to any course ofaction" (eı'ıcrePei
ıcal avopeıoı:aı:cp ıcal ıcaı:a n:avm 7re1IOlT]�lEVcp), about the measures to be taken to
defencl the empire. Leo, the naırntive goes, remainecl with the thematic arıny outside
the walls ofConstantinople whereas the emperor en tereci the city. Michael apparently
wanted to abdicate ancl the patriarch Nikephoros was also counselling him to leave,
but his wife ancl some members ofhis staffpreventecl him from accomplishing his
will. However, when the generals and the population ofConstantinople hearcl about
the emperor's flight, they pushed Leo "to assume the governnıent ofthe Christian
state". Leo, Theophanes claims, was reluctant to make this rnove, for the situation
was very difficult and "he preserved himselftrı.ıe and loyal to the reigning emperors"
(eauı:ov n:poç ı:ouç pacr1Aeuovmç <pU!ı.U'C'CO)V op0ov ıcal aven:ipouıı.ov). But, as the
enemy appeared before the city, Leo wrote to the patriarch Nikephoros, "giving him
assurance ofhis orthodoxy" (ı:a. n:epl ı:fjç eauı:oü 6p0o8oi;iaç oıapı::pmoy�tevoç) ancl
asking him for his approval to seize power. He was then proclaimed "most lawful
emperor ofthe Romans" (tvvoµromı:oç pacr1Aeı'ıç 'Prowxirov) before the walls ofthe
city, and, after entering it, was crownecl by Nikephoros in Hagia Sophia. 1
There follow some lines clescribing the siege ofthe city by Knım ancl the failecl
attempt ofLeo to kili him in an ambush. Theophanes next describes how Knım raided
ancl bumt the palace of St. Mamas ancl, after besieging and taking Aclıianopolis,
relumecl home. Then the chronicle encls abrı.ıptly. Theophanes avoicls giving cletails
ofthe devastation caused by the Bulgarians in the suburban area ofthe capital and
in neighbouring Thrace, accurately described in the contemporary chronicle of
the Scriptoi- Incertııs,2 who intersperses his account with repeated allusions to the
inactivity of Leo.3 Particularly serious was the taking of the populous Adrianopolis,
whose inhabitants Krum deported to the north ofthe Danube, where they remained

1 Theoph. 502-503 (AM 6305).

Serip. ine. 344.4--347.11.
3 Serip. ine. 346.1.2: 6 M.wv nıç ır6tı.Eü)Ç oıiıc el;ıitı.0c:v; 346.22: ouoe TfjÇ JTOA.EWÇ
el;ıitı.0Ev; 347.9-1O: OÜTE aıiroç EÇ�tı.0Ev TfjÇ ır6tı.E{ı)(;.
 14 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıe.oplıilos aııd the Eası. "829-842

until the reign ofTheophilos. 4 But Theophanes mentions it only in passing, in the very
last sentence of his work. Did he feel uncomfortable by then with the course of events?
in any case. it was only the sudden death ofKrum on 14 April 814, while he
was preparing a final assault against Constantinople, that put a provisory end to
the Bulgarian offensive. 5 Leo then appointed a conımittee in the imperial palace
apparently to coınpile an iconoclastic.fiori/egiıım, which would lend support to his
iconoclastic views. The clash with the icon worshippers and patriarch Nikephoros
took place in Decenıber 814 and ended with the deposition of patriarch Nikephoros
on the first day of Lent 815 and the sumınoning of an iconoclastic council by the
new patriarch Theodotos after Easter.6
Theophanes probably wrote the final section of his chronicle before the death
ofKruın, for he does not nıention this event at all, although it could have ınade
a good conclusion to his work. Moreover, Theophanes ceıtainly completed his
narrative before the end of 814, when Leo asseınbled an iconoclastic committee
at the iınperial palace anct'thus resumed a policy against icon worship. After that
date, Leo could not lıave been described as oıthodox by the iconophile chronicler,
who rallied support against the iconoclasts aı'.d was exiled alongside Nikephoros
by the same emperor whom they had suppoıted in 813. it is natura! to infer that
both men already felt utterly disappointed by Leo in 815. 7
However, we ımıst not necessarily foflow the iconophile sources of the ninth
century, which depict the promotion of iconoclasm by Leo since 814 as proof of
his hypocrisy and deceitfulness, as if the eınperor had always been an adherent
of iconoclasm and "seized the very next opportunity to initiate an iconoclastic
program"8 after Krum and the Bulgarians were defeated. Could it also be that
Leo was in fact a tnıstworthy and faithful adherent of Michael and a pious icon
worshipper, as Theophanes depicted him in his chronicle? We enter here the
realm of conjectııre, for nobody can be sure of an eınperor's personal or religious
feelings and sympathies, especially if he had no Michael Psellos at his side to
depict his character. But we must not take it for granted that the emperor was
always a disguised iconoclast who kept concealed from ali his true intention to
restore iconoclasm before he gained power. Why not sııppose that the support he
gave to the iconoclasts since 814. was not a result of his personal stance but of
the circumstances of power? Has not pragmatism always beeri one of the main

4
See Chapter20.1 for the retum ofthe Byzantine exiles during the reign ofTheophilos.
For the war against Krum in Leo's reign, see Soplıoulis (2012) 245-64.
5 For more details about the beginning ofLeo's reign see Treadgold (1988) 200-214.
6
Alexander(l958) 111-35.
7 Mango and Scott ( 1997) LVI-Lvıı. it is to be taken into account tlıat Theophanes may
not have written in person the final section ofthe chronicle, for he contracted kidney disease
in 809-81 O and was bedridden to the end ofhis life. On the other hand, ifhis chronicle, hostile
to icoııoclasm, could not have been published before 842, it remains uııexplained why its final
section was not modified by tlıen. For that see again Mango and Scott (1997) LXı-Lxıı .
" Alexander (1958) 126.
 Bcıck ıo /coııoc/cıs111! 15

motives behind every ruler's decision, as when Henry IV of France converted to

Catholicism in 1593 in order to preserve his throne? As Brubaker and Haldon put
it, "we should not assuıne that pragmatism and ideological conviction are somehow
ınutually exclusive".9 Let us explore the possibility that Leo was not the fürious
iconoclast depicted by iconophile propaganda. This can eventually shed some light
on his tragic end and the ensuing war that divided the empire into two halves.
Michael was a fervid adherent of icon worship and also probably responsible
for disnıissing many of Nikephoros' soldiers because of their iconoclastic
leanings. 10 But Leo, whom Nikephoros had banished after 808 for taking part in
Arsaber's uprising, was released by Michael from his exile and enrolled amongst
the staff-bearers of the palace before being appointed general of the Anatolikoi. 11
Perhaps Leo aıtfully concealed his true religious feelings in order to make progress
through the army, but it is also conceivable that he eamed his post not only for
his military competence but also for other personal qualities the pious Michael
Rhangabe appreciatecl in the men of his entourage.
Moreover, if we consider Leo's family entourage, we find ınany icon
worshippers among theın, who even corresponded with the Stouclites. As we will
see in Chapter 3, Leo was closely related to the family of Bardanes the Turk,
whose ınembers ali seem to be iconophiles. Bardanes's daughter and Leo's cousin
Eirene had a close relationship with Theodore Stouclites, as did also tlıe sister of
the empress Theodosia, the protospatharia Albaneka. A Stoudite ınonk was sent to
negotiate the sun-ender to Michael II of Gregory Pterotos, cousin of Leo, during
the civil war.'2 Leo's own wife Theodosia returned to icon worship after Leo's
deatlı, as revealed in a letter from Theodore Stoudites. 13 üne or even two of Leo's
sons were tonsured as monks after the fail of their father and were remembered
for their orthodoxy and piety to the point that their candidature for the patriarchate
was even taken into consideration after icon worship was restored. 14 Finally, Leo's
own mother supposedly tried to convince her son to abandan iconoclasm. 15
It is also significant that when Leo sought supporters in his seizure of power, he
did not limit himself to the generals and the mob, which, according to Theophanes,
urged him to lead the empire, but gave to patriarch Nikephoros guarantees of his
orthodoxy. 16 These guarantees must not be taken as evidence of the mistrı.ıst Leo
9
For a recent and appealing overview ofthe causes that led Leo V bade to iconoclasın
see Brubaker and Haldan (2011) 366-72 and 382-4, where !hey consider a variety of
complementary factors.
10 According to the plausible interpretation ofAlexander ( 1958) 114-22.
11 Th. Cont. 1.4 (11.3-12.14).
12 Turner (1990) 186.
13
Theod. Stoud., Letters, nr. 538.
14
Th. Cont. II.1 (41.1-2) and Gen. IV.18 (70.90-71.71.3).
15 Th. Cont. 1.23 (36.12-37.3).
16 This version is supported by tlıe Serip. ine. 340.15-341.3, where it is said !hat Leo
signed this written pledge of oıilıodoxy b�fore his crowning: ırp6repov ırot�craç iöı6xeıpov
�LEra rföv criıv aimji �uıöeırore Kcı.ra n'jç tKıcıı.qcriaç ycvfo0aı iı ırapacraıı.eücraı TL rwv Kaıı.Gıç
 16 Tlıe Eıııperur Tlıeoplıi/os and ılıe Eası. 829-842

inspired in the ecclesiaslical authorities of the time. On the contrary, since the
pious Michael gave these same guarantees to patriarch Nikephoros, it seems that
Leo was probably following here his exaınple in order to gain the suppoıt of
the patriarch at a moment of crisis. Nikephoros was certainly not only a strong
personality but also an important ally, whose active backing Leo urgently needed
to assure his power.
There is no reason to suppose that Leo signed half-heartedly the writteh
pledge of orthodoxy or that he concealed his real iconoclastic feelings from the
patriarch for tactical reasons. The Scriptor Jncertııs aceuses Leo of being a liar
for not having respeeted his written oath (öırnp ouK ecpı'.ıAaçev ,ııwcrıı']ç wv) and a
chameleon (xa�ımı..fovra) for having changed his mind. 17The first point suggests
that Leo lied when he signed the pledge of oıthodoxy, but this appears to be just
an inforence ınade from the undisputed fact of his later adherence to iconoclasm.
More revealing is his comparison with a chameleon, for it implies that Leo changed
and adapted to circunıstances. 18
In the l[f'e of Nikep/ıoros it is stated that when Leo was proclaimed emperor
by the troops, Nikephoros demanded that he sign a confession of faith, but the
emperor postponed its signing until after his coronation and then refused to do
so. 19 Such a refusal by Leo not only contradicts the version ofTheophanes and
the Scriptor inceı-tııs, closer to the events, but appears highly unlikely, for Leo
could not risk provoking Nikephoros on the eve of his crowning. Moreover,
Theophanes would have noticed the refusal at such a critical moment. This
version of events was probably concocted by the patriarch after his exile in order
to prove Leo's duplicity and justify his initial support ofthe,emperor.20 If Leo
ever refused to sign a 1:6µoç of orthodoxy sent by the patriarch, it would be long
after his coronation when he started his iconociastic policy.There is therefore no
reason to reconcile both versions.21

eiç aı'ıı-�v 6pıcr0evı-mv ı'ıno TWV ay[mv naı-epmv iepfüv ooyµaı-mv. See also Log. (A) Leon V
(128] 1 (210.3-4): crı:e<p0Eiç ll7CO Nucrııpopou naı-pıapxou, PePm<lıcraç aı'ıı-ov ı\yypa<pmç 7Cepi
ıiiç fouı-oü op0ooo/;iaç.
17
Serip. ine. 341.3-7.
18 Georg. Mon. 781.23 compares Leo again with a charneleon, but rhis time he stresses
the duplicity and deceitfulness ofthe emperor. For the slanderous epithets given to Leo by
iconophile sources see Signes Codofier (1994) 362-6.
1" Ignatios, L[fe ofNikephoros 163.26-164. 7. Th. Cont. l.17 (29.2-7) and Gen. 1.22
(20.2-9) are clearly dependent onthis passage.
20 Turner (1990) 197-200, Signes Codofier (1995) 130 and Pratsch (1999a) 131. In
Signes Codofier (2002) 392-3 I wrongly concluded that Leo could never have yieldedto
the dernands of the patriarch.
21 Bury (1912) 56-57 and Treadgold (1988) 199 and note 266try to reconcile both
versions considering tlıat Leo first sent a written confession of faith to Nikephoros but
refıısed later to sign a prepared staternent of orthodoxy broughtto hirn by a delegation of
bislıops before the crowning in the name of the patriarch. No single source refers to two
different pledges offaitlı.
 Back rn lcn11oc/asm.1 17

it thus appears that Leo began his reign as an orthodox iconophile but later
changed his mind and re-established iconoclasm.11 Why did he change at ali? There
were ofcourse practical considerations in his decision to revert to iconoclasm, for
victory against the enerny was usually considered a clear sign of the legitimacy
of the creed. The victories of the lsaurian enıperors and their long reigns are
mentioned again and again in the sources as a motive behindLeo's decision, taken
after the sudden death ofKrunı. 13 However, it would be wrong to infer that this
was a personal decision, based on religious doubts or self-imposed questions-24
In fact, these sources refer to various stories where persons ofLeo's entourage
develop different strategies (including prophecies) for pushing the enıperor to
ban icons. John the Grammarian figures prominently among them. These narnes,
however, teli us little about the sectors of the population or the adrninistration
that eventually forced a comeback of iconoclasnı. The circumstances ofthe first
rnonths ofLeo's government shed some light on the process.
With the capital surrounded by the hostile forces ofthe Bulgarians, the army
and the populace hımed out to be the main support forLeo. The iconoclast soldiers,
who had opened Constantine V's grave during the Balkan carnpaign of Michael
Rhangabe iiı order to plead for his help,25 probably continued to stir unrest in the
capital with the understanding, ifnot the help, ofa part ofthe population, nıaybe
traders and the deıııoi ofthe hippodrorne. 26 As Thonıas Pratsclı has proved, some
senators were also among the first supporters ofLeo's return to iconoclasm.27 This
may explain why the population cried from the city walls "the cross has won"
when they saw Kıum fleeing on horseback after having been attacked in an ambush
prepared by the Byzantines during a parley held before them.28 Again, that Leo
crowned his son Symbatios with the name of Constantine on 25 December 813,
when the Bulgarian threat was already present, was surely a first concession to the
partisans of the Isaurian dynasty, most probably soldiers who were longing for a
revival of past victories.29 But it did not necessarily mean at the time a first step

22 Contrary to Treadgold (1988) 199, who thinks that "From the start Leo was thinking
ofreintroducing lconoclasm." This has some consequences for assessing the personality of
Theophilos himself, as Leo was Theophilos' godfather before he c;ame to power in 813.
This explains the reasons Theophilos had for punishing Leo's murders. As we shall see in
Chapter 3.2, no source connects this measure with the iconoclast controversy.
23 Serip. !ne. 349.1-18, Th. Cont. I.15-16 (26.9-28.15) and Gen. I.13 (10.20-11.59).
24 See Treadgold (1988) 2.07-8 for an approach ofthis kind, based mainly on Serip. !ne.
25 Theoph. 501, trans. Mango and Scott (1997) 684.
26 Nikephoros, Apologetieııs in PG 100, col. 556 ınentions the demoi of the
hippodroıne, a faction of the church, the people of the theatre (ınimes), street ınerchants
(for whoın he uses very harsh words) and soldiers as followers of the iconoclasts. For an
interpretation ofthe passage see Alexander (1958) 116. See also Whittow (1996) 145-6 and
151 for the support oficonoclasın aınong the population ofConstantinople.
27 Pratsch (1998) 208-14.
28 Serip. !ne. 343.21: Kal aveıcpal;Ev 6 ı..a6ç arc6 T(İ)\f rnıxföv '6 crraupoç EVllCllüEV'.
2'' K.resten ( 1981) 80-81 aııcl 94-95. See also Bnıbaker aııd Halcloıı (2011) 382-4.
 18 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası, 819-841

towards re-establishing iconoclasm, as it was understood by the Scriptor incertus. 30

it was just a symbolic measure conceived to encourage resistance in hard times.
Neveıtheless, these iconoclastic sectors in the capital could have pushed
the emperor to take the first moves against icon worship, although the sources
naturally make Leo wholly responsible for the process and the senators only play
the role ofaccomplices. Ifthe emperor wanted to tackle the danger and a possible
defection of a sector of the Constantinopolitan population, it was necessary to
approach these active iconoclasts and win them to his cause. A coınpromise with
theın was necessary.
When tlıe danger oftlıe Bulgarians disappeared after the death ofKnım on 14
April 814 and the ensuing victory of Leo over the Bulgarians near Mesembria,31
Leo sought to establish an agreement in the Church between icon worshippers
and iconoclasts. That he actually changed sides is claimed by the Continuator and
Genesios, who explain the process ofconversion ofLeo to iconoclasın through the
i ntrigues ofTheodotos Melıssenos, nicknamed Kassiteras, who was soon to replace
Nikephoros as patriarch.32 it is significant that Theodotos was the offspring ofan
influential family ofAnnenian descent, the Melissenoi.D His fatlıer was Michael
Melissenos, who was appointed by Constantine V in 766 to nıle as strategos ôf
the theme of the Anatolikoi. The Isaurian emperor was in fact Theodotos's uncle,
for Michael Melissenos had ınarried the sister of his wife Eudokia.34 Theodotos
acted at the time as a rnere representative of the senatorial circles, far he was
protasekretis and spatharokandidatos,35 \1is ensuing nomination as patriarch in
815 being probably the political consequence ofhis services to the emperor.36 in
any event, Leo's iconoclasm could well have been a tactical move prompted by
political considerations and does not necessarily represent a personal religious
belief deliberately concealed from his former protectors and church authorities
and only revealed after his seizure of power.
The hagiographical sources depict Leo discussing icon worship with the
champions of icons and trying to find a common basis far an agreement.
Understandably the sources stress the coercion used by the emperor in order to
force the agreement and alsa denounce his false arguments. But even behind the
propaganda we can sometimes discem the emperortryingto promote a compromise.37
30 Serip. ine. 346.2-12.
31 Th. Cont. l.13 (24.9-25.19) and Gen. l.12 (10.4-19).
32 Th. Cont. 1.11 (22.10-23.18), 15-16 (27.3-28.15) and Gen. I.9 (8.64-9.83), 13
(11.32-59).
ıı Settipani (2006) 77 and 492-505.
34 Pratsch (1999b) 148-50.
35 Pratsch ( 1999b) 150-51.
36 As the cases ofTarasios, Nikephoros and later Photios show, it was customary in the
ninth century to appoint as patriarchs civil servants in the iınperial administration.
37 Brubaker and Haldon (2011) 368-72 underline that Leo proposed to introduce a
relatively ınild form of iconoclasm ancl that he did so presenting himself as arbitrator of an
ongoing debate.
 Back /o lconoc/asııı! 19

Interesting, for example, is a well-known passage of the Scriptor !11certus, where

Leo discusses the issue with the patriarch:

Around tlıe nıontlı of Decenıber [814] Leo reveals to tlıe patriarclı tlıat "tlıe
people take offence at tlıe inıages for they say that we are wrong in worshipping
tlıem and because of tlıis the barbarians rule over us. "Acquiesce", he says, "a
little, exercise dispensation (oiKovo�liav) for tlıe people and let us take away
these images that are (lıanging) low".38

it is clear that the emperor was trying to convince the prelates of the Church
that a certain degree ofappeasement ofthe most radical iconoclasts was convenient
in order to avoid further troubles. As a first step, he suggested the removal of
icons hanging low on church walls in order to avoid prosky11esis. The use of the
word oiıcovo�Licx in this context is very revealing of the emperor's intentions. His
policies, however, failed, for patriarch Nikephoros refused any compromise and
even challenged the authority of the emperor.39 Thus the conflict evolved and
escalated, ending finally with tlıe deposition ancl banishment ofthe patriarch.
Wlıo were the persons urging Leo to re-establish an iconoclast policy in
the Empire? The L(fe of Nikep/ıoros mentions six menıbers of Leo's conımittee
chargecl with the clrawing up of the iconoclastic florilegium: two senators (Jolm
Spektas ancl Eutychianos), the bishop Antonios of Sylaion, the monks Leontios
and Zosimas and, !ast but not least, the lector John the Graınmarian, who was an
Armenian tike Leo himself and is generally considered the eminence grise behind
the emperor's plans.40 Some other names can be added, including Theodotos
Kassiteras, who was appointed patriarch after Nikephoros.
These nanıes, however, tel1 us little about the social forces behind the iconoclasts
or the actual reasons that moved Leo and his entourage to again put in force a ban
on icons. It must be presumed that the crisis provoked by the successive defeats of
Nikephoros I in 811 and Michael I in 813, both at the hands of the Bulgarian Ichan
Krum, re-opened regional tensions as many sectors ofthe anny ali over the empire
probably made icon worship responsible for the !ast militafy fiascos. We must
take into account the traditional connection between iconoclasm and the armies at
the time or, to put it differently, between victory in the battlefield and orthodoxy
in the faith, as is rightly described in the Scriptor Jncertııs when explaining the
circumstances that pushed Leo V to embrace iconoclasın. The question now is
whether, when Leo decided to revert to iconoclasm after Krum's death, he was

38
Serip. ine. 352.11-16: Kal napi ı:ov ÖEICE�tPptov �tfjva OTJA.Otı:ov naı:ptupxrıv o /\eoov
ön 6 ;\.aoç crKavoaA[Çamt oıa ı:aç dıc6vaç, Myovı:eç ön ıcaıcföç aı'ıı:cı.ç npocrıcuvoÜ�lEV ıcai
ön ota ı:oüı:o ıcai ı:a a0vrı ıcuprniıoucrıv ��tfüv· ıcai cruyıcaı:apa, <prıcri, ı:i �uıcp6v, ıccı.i noirıcrov
oiıcovoµ[av ota ı:ov Acı.ov, ıcai ı:cı. xaµrı:ı..a m:ptEA.O)�lEV. See note 50 below for icons hanging
high on the walls.
39
See Pratsch (1999 a) 138-42.
1
•11 Alexandei(l958) 127.
20 T/ıe Eıııperor T/ıeoplıilo.ı· and ılıe Ecısl, 829-841

urged by the unrest among the supporters of iconoclasm at Constantinople, as we

suggested above, or considered as well the influence of the iconoclasts in other
regions of the Empire. Particularly, and considering the military career of Leo in
eastem Anatolia, it ımıst be considered whether iconoclast sympathies ofthe army
at the Arab frontier carried some weight in detennining his religious policy.

1.2 lconoclasrn in Anatolia

This leads us to the thorny question of the "geography of iconoclasm". The old
assumption that iconoclasnı had supporters nıainly in the eastem regions ofAnatolia,
fronı whence came Leo ili and Leo V, whereas the population of the western paıt
of the empire, nıainly the Balkans and Italy, followed a nıore conciliatory stance
towards icons, has long been been abandoned as over-simplified.41 it is now
accepted that although lslaınic and Judaic "iconophobia" ınight have influenced
the attitude towards images ofevery nature among eastem Christians in the Middle
East,42 the appearance of iconoclasm in the empire is an unrelated or independent
phenomenon. 43 Accordingly, the ultinıate reason for the crisis lay in the internal
contradictions ofthe Christian tradition regarding inıages of Divinity. Brubaker and
. Haldon have recently ınade an extensive and detailed review of the old and new,
general and concrete circumstances that led to the outbreak ofthe crisis, so that it
does not appear necessary to review this evidence here.44
· In any case, it must be emphasized that the regional distribution ofsupporters
and enenıies of icon worship had therefore nothing to do with the proximity to
Islanıic territory. If we follow the text of the Life of Stephen the Younger, the
iconophiles found refuge from the iconoclast policy of Constantinople in
peripheral regions not only ofthe west, tike southem ltaly and Dalmatia, but also
ofthe east, in territories bordering the Arabic lands !ilce eastem Pontos, Cyprus or
the southern Anatolian coast.45 Ceıtainly, these were not necessarily areas where
an iconophile tradition was especially strong, but simply areas where imperial

41
See specially Ahıweiler (1977), Thierry (1998b) and Auzepy (2004) 135-43.
•12
In Signes Codofier (2013c) I try to prove that the situation oficon worship amoııg
the Melkites appears more complex than is geııerally assumed, so we ımıst admit the
presence of icon worshippers along with partisans, ifnot of iconoclasm proper, at least of
aııiconic views.
43
See however Croııe (1980) for a balanced assessment ofthis influence considered
from an historical perspective. It is upon this eastem influence that the iconophile
propaganda based its accusations ofphilo-islamism and philo-judaism of the icoııoclasts.
Most ofthem took the form of legends and stories without much reliability. For a general
overview of some of these texts see for example Speck (1990). Highly recomrnended is a
readiııg ofthe contributions collected in Auzepy (2007).
44
See especially Brubaker and Haldan (2011) 50-66, 89-143.
•15 l(fe (}(Sıeplıe11 ıhe Yoııııger *28, trans. Auzepy ( 1997) 218-21 (witlı detailed ııotes
on tlıe places ııamed).
 Back ıo lcoııoc/asııı .1 21

iconoclastic authority could not be inıplementecl ancl which perhaps provided

asylum for iconophile monks. Only in the case of Cyprus, which at the time
formecl a sort of conclominium between Byzantium ancl the caliphate, do we find
evielence for the existence ofa continuous loca! tradition favouring icon worship.46
in other regions the question is ınore clebatable. For example, in the Aegean, ınany
churches with iconoclastic clecoration have been preservecl, as the special case
ofNaxos nıakes evident. 7 This discreclits the ole! theory that the rebellion of the
➔

Hellas ancl the Cyclades fleet against Leo III in 727 bacı sonıething to do with the
defence of the icons.48
it is with ali these arguments in mind that we must approach the possibility that
the iconoclast presence in the annies ofAnatolia grew as a result ofthe continuous
warfare against the Arabs during the victorious reigns of the lsaurian emperors in
the eighth century. in fact, if the iconophiles fled to peripheral regions where the
authority ofthe Empire was less eviclent, this was certainly not tlıe case for regions
like Chaldia, Cappadocia or Isauria, wlıere the authority ofthe central governınent
ancl the armies was continuously present, for they were border areas crucial for the
clefence ofAnatolia.
However, it is diffictflt to fincl evidence of tlıe iconoclast synıpatlıies of the
solcliers oftlıese areas. Cappadocia is not an exception, 1 for the aniconic clıurches
➔'

preservecl in its teıı-itory are difficult to date because ofthe schematic character of
the motifs usecl. Moreover, the general absence of icons ancl the multiplication of
crosses in ali these Cappadocian churches (as well as the lack of any decoration
at ali) does not suffice to characterize them as iconoclastic in the proper sense of
the term (referring to the iconoclastic period), ancl it simply confirms that a cult of
the cross (stavrophilia) was well establishecl in the region long before the arrival
of iconoclasm. This only confirms that iconoclasts clid not neecl to exert much
pressure against local traditions when tıying to implement their doctrines.
On the other hane!, clecorative images can coexist ·with geometric figures
without this denying the basic iconoclast character ofsome buildings. in fact, most
of the literary sources, mainly based on iconophile propaganda, depict a distorted
ancl rigid image of iconoclasm that does not match well with the archaeological
finclings and can only be corrected through the rninute analysis ofa handful oftexts

46 Cameron (1992).
47 See Vasilaki (1962-1963), Christides (1984) 128-33, Malamut (1988) 216-18, 568,
Chatzidakis, Drandakis, Zias, f,ı.cheiınastou-Potamianou and Vasilaki-Karakatsani (1989),
especially the contributions of Zias ( l 989) and Acheimastou-Potamianou ( I 989), Brubaker
and Haldon (2001) 25-8 and Mitsani (2004-2006) 395-6 (with further bibliography in
Greelc).
48 Nikephoros, Slıort Hist. §60 says that the inhabitants of the region rebelled,
"disapproving as they did of this iınpiety" (m'.ı npocru\µavot ı:o oucrcrePTJ�Lcı.), but Theoph.
405, trans. Mango and Scott (1997) 560 only says that they revolted against Leo "moved
by divine zeal". See Ahrweiler (1977) 23, Auzepy (2004) 136 and Brubaker and Haldon
(2011) 80-81.
4'' For lsauria see Tlıien-y ( 1998b) 664-6.
22 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Ecısı, 829-842

preserving iconoclastic credo or practice.5° Finally, the existence ofiınages in some

Cappadocian churches of the iconoclast period does not question the adherence to
iconoclasm ofthe armies settled in the region, but, at most,just proves the existence
of a monastic coınmunity in the area which was somehow resistant to official
iconoclasm. The purpose and uses of the individual churches must be taken into
consideration in order to come to a conclusion. Under these circumstances it comes
as no surprise that no consensus has been reached about the impact and extent of
iconoclasm in Cappadocia during the eighth and ninth centuries. 51
However it may seem, the fact remains that Cappadocia has preserved
approximately half of the 50 buildings attributed to the iconoclast period on the
basis of their decoration.52 This high number may certainly have to do with the
particular favourable conditions for the preseıvation of churches and buildings in
Cappadocia, for ınost of them were built into the rocks. However, there are many
churches where crosses have been replaced by images, marking an abandonment
of aniconic representation· that may indicate a transition to icon worship. This is
the case with a spectacular recent finding in a little chapel near Koron, the ancient
capital oftheme and see ofthe militaıy heaclquarters. 53 There, two mounted soldiers
(identified by inscriptions as the scribon Leo and the tourmarches Michael) are
depicted piercing with their lances a figure ofa devi! with a lion head. This image,
dating perhaps to the end of the ninth centuıy (if not later) and reflecting a local
cult of fallen soldiers (although the figures are not provided with a nimbus), has
been painted over a geometric cross under an arcade. Beyond this particular case
the relegation of the omnipresent cross from Cappadocian churches is already an
accomplished fact in the tenth century, with the exception of the victory cross,
which continued to be very popular among the soldiers at the time ofthe Byzantine
re-conquest, in a period ofopen worship oficons. 54

50
See again Haldan and Brubaker (2011) 144-51, 212-34, 294-356, 411-47 for a
review ofthe artisana\ production ofthe period of iconoclasm and the problems related to
its dating. The authors emphasize throughout the book that only the worslıip oflıoly icons
was condemned by the iconoclasts, but this does not mean that images were not accepted
or even promoted by them under different circumstances. Accordingly, we know that Leo
[il did not fail to erect an image of the apostles, the prophets and the' cross (ibid. 102-3,
128-35) or that during the second iconoclasm irnages were accepted that were put high on
the walls ofthe churches (ibid. 380-82, 412-13).
51
See Epstein (1977), Thierry (1980), (1982), (1998a) 892-7, (2002) 135-42 and
Jolivet-Levy (1991) 335-7, (1997) 37-41.
52 Brubaker and Haldan (2001) 25. The authors consider (ibid. 4-5) that historical
circumstances make it particularly unlikely that Cappadocia was the centre ofan extensive
artisanal activity during the iconoclast period. This makes identification ofartistic trends in
cornparison with other areas even more difficult.
53
Thierry (2009). I will deal again with this image in Chapter 5.4 in relation to the
akrites soldiers.
;. This type of "nicephoric" cross, introduced first by Leo lll, was usually inscribed
either with 'lqcroüc; Xptcrroc; vtKQ. or ev -ı:oı'.rrıı-ı viıca. it coııtiııued to be used after 843 but
 Back to lcoııoc/as111!

Moreover, we do not have many literary sources that could confim1 a special
adlıcrence ofCappadocia to iconoclasm.The most impoıiant testimony is provicled
by Arethas of Patras, bishop ofKaisareia, who laments at the beginning of the tenth
century the persistence of iconoclasm among the inhabitants of the region. 55 Also
interesting is the case of the L(fe of Eudokimos, bom in Cappadocia and raised
in Constantinople, who died at Charsianon while holding a ınilitary comınand
during the reign ofTheophilos. 56 Apparently Eudokimos did not accomplish any
miracle before his death and represents, as Marie-France Auzepy proved, the
model of an iconoclast saint, a man living in the world but concerned about his
neighbours' spiritual and nıaterial welfare, the reversal of monkish withdrawal. 57
it is significant that the bocly of Eudokinıos was transferred to the capital after his
death, where he was object of cult until the thirteenth century. Does this prove the
popularity of the local saint among his fellow soldiers at the capital?
Be this as it nıay, although iconoclasts nıay well have had an important presence
in the eastem border of the empire, as is perhaps proved by the case ofCappadocia,
they do not appear to have risen in am1s against any iconoplıile emperor between
787 and 813. Moreover, when Bardanes theTurk, Leo's first sponsor ancl relative,
rebelled in 803 agaiııst Nikephoros I, he acted for reasons other than the issue of
icons, for he was a pious icon worshipper. 58 Again, when the chroniclerTlıeophanes
criticized Nikephoros and recorclecl his "ten vexations" of 809-8 l 0,59 lıe clicl it again
as a partisan of images. it appears then that tlıere were otlıer factors and reasons
more impoıiant than images tlıat orientated the "political" parties in the Empire.
Regional tensions between the provinces appear as a likely reason for conf!ict. In
fact Nikephoros, in his first vexation recorcled by Theophanes, "reınovedChristians
froın ali the themata and orderecl them to proceecl to the Sklavinias after selling their
states", thus causing no minor source of discontent among the population. Leo, who
seizecl power barely three years after this measure, was probably expected by the
provincials to somehow change things.
However, Leo, as an inexperiencecl politician, probably became involved in
the politics of the imperial capital, where he remainecl for many months after
his seizure of power. Forced by circuınstances and the pressure of the army and
the population, he re-introduced iconoclasm as the officiaJ. doctrine. He surely
ıniscalculated this move, considering that he could impleınent some form of
iconoclasm after appealing to the iconophiles for a compromise. But he met
with stı.ıbborn opposition from some sectors of the Church, led by the patriarch
Nikephoros? who did not comply with his wishes. The council of Nikaia II had

devoid of its iconoclast connotations. For details see Cheynet (1992).

55 Arethas, Scripta lvlinora, nr. 7, 75-81.
56 PıııbZ#1640 with further bibliography. The metraphrastic Life was edited by Loparev
(1893). Loparev ( 1908) contains a later reworking made by Constantine Akropolites.
57 See Sevcenko (1977) 127 and Auzepy (1992).
58 Theoph. 479-80 and Th. Cont. 1.1-3 (6.13-10.19).
5'' Tlıeoph. 486-8, trans. Mango and Scott ( 1997) 667-9.
24 Tlıe Emperor Theoplıi/os aııd ıhe Eası, 829-841

given official status to the "iconophile party" and it could not be dismantled as
easily as before 787. Consequently a new crisis broke out without the previous
regional tensions being resolved. Thus Leo felt obliged to resort increasingly to
violence and repression of the dissident icon worshippers as he realized that he
could not oblige them to accept his coınpromise policy conceming the icons.60
However, Leo's cruelty and harshness were not necessarily just a resıılt ofhis
persecution ofdissident iconophiles. In the histories and chronicles these qualities
appear in fact connected with his duties as ruler. The Continuator characterizes
thus Leo's govemment:

This success [llıe victory against the Bulgarians] rendered him yet bolder and
nıore audacious and brought out his innate cruelty. For he made no distinction
betweeıı great and minor offences but passed one and the same sentence against
ali who were apprehend�d on whatever charge: the cutting off ofa vital linıb
and its exhibition, suspended in the sight ofali. These deeds iııstilled pity in ali
men for those wlıo carried thenı out but lıatred and abject loathing for Leo. For
by exercising his inborn ferocity in unbridled and in no wise restrained fashion,
indisposecl towarcl any nıildness, nıercilessly abasing the nature of his fellow
men, he reaped the reward ofenmity, not friendship.61

This portrait of Leo's govemment may reflect the seveıity of a provincial

soldier ruling in the capital and trying to assert himselfagainst potential enemies.
Either a rude character or an increasing sense of isolation may suffice to explain
the harshness ofthe measures taken by Leo against offenders. Icon worship does
not seem to play any role in that. Moreover, it is signifıcant that Leo's sense of
justice was mentioned and his political competence acknowledged, even by such
a foe as the patriarch Nikephoros.62
These same sources mention how Leo "through his own efforts raised up
cities everywhere in Thrace and Macedonia from the foıındations" and record his
campaigns in Thrace. Certainly, no word is said about the emperor's interest in
eastern affairs. lt is, however, hazardous to connect this lack ofevidence with the
support the Anatolian provinces gave to the rebellion ofThomas the Slav, since it
was only under Michael ofAmorion that Thomas's usurpation extended ali over
Anatolia, as we shall see in Chapter 2.2. In any case, the Continuator and Genesios
record that Thomas the Slav, after invading Anatolia, gained the support of the
population by distributing among the common people the revenııes ofthe taxes.63

6° For a detailed list ofthe hagiographic sources with the data they provide abotıt Leo

see PınbZ#4244 esp. 676- 8. See also PBE s.v. 'Leo 15'.
61 Th. Cont. I.14 (25.20- 26.8). The same accusations appear in Gen. I.15 (13.83-91),
who clearly dissociates Leo's harshness from the persecution ofthe iconophiles.
ı,J Th. Cont. l.19 (30.6-31.6) and Gen. 1.16 (14.11-15.43) and 1.23 (21.34--38). See
•
Signes Codofier ( 1995) 137-40 ancl Chapter 24.
r,.ı Th. Cont. 11.1 1 (53. 6-9) and Gen. 1.2 (23.90-93).
 Bacl, to /coııoclasm ! 25

Nevertheless, the fact that soıne sources present Thomas the Slav as a defender of
icon worship merits discussion in full before we come to a final conclusion as to
the actual significance ofthe conflict about icons at the time.

1.3 Thomas' Icon Worship, and the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch

Only two · sources connect Thomas the Slav with icon worship: the anonymous
Acta of David, Syıııeon and George and the l(fe of St. Tlıeodore Stoudites by
Michael Stoudites. In both of them Thoınas "pretended to be" or "was said to
be" a supporter oficons.64 That Thomas actually defended icons is also consistent
with his assuınption of the personality of Constantine VI mentioned in Michael's
letter to Louis the Pious and the histories ofthe Continuator ancl Genesios.r,s Even
ınore important is the fact, also reported by the Continuator ancl Genesios, that
the Melkite patriarch of Antioch, Job, crownecl Thomas emperor. This episocle
cleserves perhaps closer attention, as Antioch !ay in the caliphate and his patriarch
was outsicle the emperor's authority.
Accorcling to the Continuator and Genesios, when Thomas had alreacly begun
his uprising against Michael, the Arabs took the opportunity to nıake some inroads
into the easteııı part ofthe enıpire. Thonıas then invaded the Saracens' country in
order to confront these attacks. He forced the invaders to conclude a peace treaty
and make an alliance with hirn, promising them that he woulcl abandon the Roman
borders and put control ofthe borders in their hands. 66 Here the Continuator adds:
"Whereupon he was not unsuccessful in his purpose, but received the crown and
was proclaimed emperor by Job67 who then held the see of Antioch." Genesios
is a bit more precise: "Having thus made a treaty with the Agarenoi, with the
knowledge oftheir leader ( cioiJcrnı ı:oü auı:ô'ıv apxrıyoü)68 he was crowned emperor
by the Patriarch Job ofAntioch."
Obviously the crowning of Thomas in Antioch was not possible without the
caliph's knowledge and consent, but it is difficult to ascertain whether the move
was planned by Thomas or by the caliph himself, who, after this arrangement took
place, shoulcl have provided the Byzantine rebel, according to both historians,
14
' Acta Daııidis, 232.12-13: ıı:pocrıı:oıou�LEVOÇ ıcai ı:füv <'ıp0füv dvm liontcmov cputı.a/;
ıcai ı:füv a.y[cov Eiıc6vcov ıı:pocrıcuvrıı:ııç. Life ofSt. Tlıeodore in PG 99, col. 32OA: The emperor
Michael summoned the iconophile leaders to Constantinople cp6pcp ı:ou µıi ıı:pocrpu�va[
nvaç aıiı:füv ·-rfi ı:ou eco�tü Ol)�tcppaı:piçı ıca06n Etı.eyeı:o ı:aç İepaç Eiıc6vaç ı'moMxecr0a[ 1:E
ıcai ıı:pocrıcuveiv.
65
Letter to Louis 476.15-17, Th. Cont. II.10 (51.14-17) and Gen. II.4 (25.60-26.69).
See Chapter 2 for the alterııative versioııs provided by these texts about the outbreak of the
civil war.
1'6
Th. Cont. I.12 (54.8-23) aııd Gen. 11.2 (24. 7-15).
1'1
The text ofthe manuscript reacls '16.K(J)P, but it ınust be correctecl to 'lciıp, the reacliııg
fouııcl in Gen. ancl Scyl.
''' Kalclellis ( 1998) 29 traııslates "with tlıe concurrence of tlıeir leader".
26 Tfıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııc/ ılıe Eası, 819-842

with many troops. in other words, was Thomas' rebellion the result ofa Byzantine
internal strife later supported by the Arabs, as both Byzantine historians sustain,
or was Thomas used by the caliph as a puppet emperor in order to take hold ofthe
eastern part of the empire?
This !ast possibility is suggested. by Michael the Syrian. in his report about
Thomas' rebellion Michael initially says nothing about a crowning ofThomas by any
patriarch when Ma'mün suppoıied the rebel in 819 after his arrival at Baghdad.69 But
many pages later, when the author speaks about the invasion ofCilicia by Ma'mün
at the beginning ofTheophilos' reign, we read a curious account:

AI-Ma'mün went to Cilicia. A Roman, who pretended to be of imperial stock,

went to his encounter and demanded the caliph to appoint him emperor. Al­
Ma'ınün gave welcome to the worcls ofthis forger. He orclerecl Job, patriarch of
the Chalcedonians ofAnt)och, to consecrate him as eınperor, far he had been told
that no eınperor was electecl without the patriarch. Having recitecl the prayers
upon hinı, he put on him a crown whose golcl ancl precious stones were worth
three thousancl clinars. When the people ofConstantinople lıearcl about tlıat, the
bislıops assenıblecl ancl excoınrnunicatecl the poor Job his co-religionist.70

This piece ofinformation is evidently ınisplaced in the naıı-ative ofMichael, for

there was no rebel supported by Ma'mfın against Theophilos. It ınust be Thomas
again, but apparently Michael's source did not mention his name or the year of his
uprising during Ma'ınün's reign, so that the chronicler put the information in the
wrong place without identifying the ınan as Thomas. According to this version, it
was Ma'mün who devised ali the strategy about the crowning of Thomas using
his ascendancy over the patriarch as a way of creating a rival emperor to the one
sitting at Constantinople.
This compliance of an eastern patriarch with the caliph's will is corroborated
by the Arab Annals of Eutychios, Melkite patriarch of Alexandria (c. 933/935-
940). He telis us how this same patriarch Job accompanied Ma'mün's successor
Mu'taşim in his campaign against Asia Minor in 838:

Afterwarcls Mu'taşim entered the territory of the Romans with tlie purpose of
invacling it and taking with him Job, the patriarch of Antioch. He besieged the
city of Ankyra. The patriarch Job spoke in Greek to the Rum ancl said to them:
"Submit yourselves to the caliph and pay him tlıe head tax. This is preferable than
to be murdered and taken as prisoners." The Romans insulted him and hurled
stones at ilim, Then Mu'taşim took Ankyra and set it on fire. Frori-ı there he
proceeded to Amorion and besieged it far a month. Eaclı day Job, tlıe patriarclı of
Antioch, approached alone the citadel and talked to the Romans in Greek trying
to friglıten them and persuade them to pay the head tax, so that Mu 'taşim could

,,,, Mich. Syr. 501, trans. Clıabot ( 1889-1905) vol. 3, 37.

1" Mich. Syr. 524, trans. Clıabot ( 1889-1905) vol. 3, 75.
 Back ıo lcoııoclas111.1 27

leave them in peace. But the Rum heaped insults on him and hurled stones at him.
But the Romans contimıed in this way uııtil Mu'taşinı took Aınorioıı. 71

Curiously enough, no mention of the crowning of Thonıas by this sanıe Job

is rnade in the Aııııa!s of Eutychios, perhaps because they were corrected and
interpolated in Antioch by the Melkite community. 72 in fact, the information
about the appointment ofJob as patriarch in Antioch during the reign of Ma'mün
contained in the most diffused version of the Anna!s is lacking in a shorter
version that seems to be closer to the original and that ends unfortunately with the
reign of Ma'mün without mentioning Mu'taşim's campaign in 838. 73 However,
the Anna!s do mention a Byzantine emperor named Constantine who apparently
reigned between Nikephoros and Theophilos. 74 It could be that this Constantine
is actually mır Thomas, who took this name and aimed at the imperial crown,
for there is no mention of Leo V or Michael il as emperors in the Anııa!s.
Another possibility is that some confusion with Theophilos's son and co-emperor
Constantine took place here.
Be that as it ınay, the patriarch Job is depicted in the Anııa!s, the chronicle of
Michael the Syrian and our two Byzantine historians as a tnıe servant ofthe caliph,
be this Ma 'ınün or Mu'taşiın. This nıust be true, for ali these sources are independent
of each other. Nevertheless, we can perhaps suspect that his subordinate role,
especially his pathetic appeal to surrender before the besieged cities ofAnatolia,
was not especially pleasant for him, particularly if we consider that the Letter to
Theophilos supposedly written by the three Melkite patriarchs had him as one of
the signatories, ifnot as an author, as we will consider in Chapter 21. For this letter
urged Theophilos to invade the caliphate and "expressed the desire and hope ofthe
Patriarchs to secede from the caliphate".75 Contrary to Vasiliev, we do not think
that the official support patriarch Job gave to the caliph "would make it impossible
for him to sign" this letter. Ifthe quoted passage pertains to the original core ofthe
letter supposedly addressed to the emperor, it would imply that there was a growing
dissatisfaction among eastem Christians with their servant role as pawns in the
chess game ofthe Middle East. Perhaps the conflict had already begun in Ma'mün's
time when the caliph forced the unwilling patriarch to lend support to the cause of
Thomas. This explains why Thomas could have been seen as a renegade by most
Byzantines despite being crowned by the Melkite patriarch ofAntioch. In fact, this
crowning did not mean any real support ofeastem Christians for Thomas, but only
the backing ofthe caliphate ofhis rebellion.

71
Eutychios, Anııcıls, 406 (I use the Italian translation). See also PG 111, col. 1134.
72
This is the opinion of Breydy (1983) 87.
73
Breydy (1985) 128.
74
Eutychios, Aııııals, 404 ancl 407.
7;
Vasiliev ( 1942-1944) 224.
28 Tlıe Emperor T/ıeoplıilos aııd ı/ıe Ecısı, 829-842

This misuse of the Church in the rebellion excludes Thomas' uprising from
having anything to do with a sincere defence oficon worship7fi and explains perfectly
why the Acıcı ofDavid. Syıneon and George and the L{fe ofSt. Tlıeodore Stoııdites
considered his role as defender of the iınages as a smokescreen. it also explains
why most ofthe icon worshippers in the eınpire were, to say the least, diffident with
Thomas and ignored almost entirely his iconophile stance. As we shall see, most
of theın were frightened by the ravaging army of rebels and disregarded Thomas'
supposed iconophilia. For them it was the presence ofbarbarians (see Chapter 2.3)
and Arabs (see Chapter 13.2) among Thomas's soldiers that really mattered. The
harsh words of Michael the Syrian (and Bar Hebraeus) against Thornas, accusing
him of coııverting to Islaın under the influence of Ma'miln's brother, Abü 1s1:ıaq,
ofblasphenıing Christ and desecrating the mysteries,77 are perhaps understandable
fronı this perspective, although written by a Jacobite.
Thonıas could thus have followed an iconophile policy simply to garner
support for his cause, ratheı: than froın personal conviction. This makes ınore sense
if he actually rebellecl against Leo, and not against Michael the Anıorian, as we
will clenıonstrate in Chapter 2.

1.4 The konoclasm ·of the Amorians

lt may appear strange at first sight that Michael, after coming to power through the
murcler of Leo, continued to aclhere to iconoclasm. Moreover, as we have already
seen, Thomas' adherence to icon worship was not taken seriously by iconophiles,
who instead even ral\ied around Michael when they felt threatenecl by Thomas's
troops. Why then should Michael have further supported iconoclasrn?78
We do not know what were the particular religious traditions of his family
concerning icons. The sources connect him only with the heresy ofthe Athinganoi,
which was rooted in Phrygia and Amorion.79 The supposed Judaic tendencies
of the Athinganoi, represented by the Byzantine sources as strict followers of
Mosaic law, may ultimately connect them with the aniconism ofthe iconoclasts.
However, the exact nature of the Athinganoi sect is highly controversial
ancl it cannot be excluded that some of its featı.ıres pertain to'the realm of the
heresiological literature and do not find cotTespondence with actual practices. As

76
Köpstein ( 1983) 7 6-80 and 84-5 has already discarded as a cause for the war
both the icon issue and the ethnic element. I agree only with the first conclusion and will
therefore argue for the existence of regional tensions in Chapter 2.
77
Mich. Syr. 524, trans. Chabot (1889- 1905) vol. 3, 75.
7" For Michael's iconoclasm see the overview by Bnıbaker and Haldan (20 1 !) 386-92.
7'' The main source for the Athinganoi beliefs of Michael is Th. Cont. 11.3 (42.7-
44.11 ). Tlıere is a comment on tlıe passage in Signes Codofier ( 1995) 183-8.
 Bcıck ta /co11oc/as111 1 29

a matter offact, aniconism does not appear as a feature of the Athinganoi in the
preserved descriptions oftheir dogma. 80
In any case, Michael of Amorion seems to have been obliged to continue
the iconoclastic policy of Leo the Armenian, for it would have caused him even
greater problems to revert to icon worship, especially as he was dependent anew
on the capital for his own survival as ruler. Exactly as during the Bulgarians' siege
of Constantinople, the attack of Tliomas against the capital would have forced
Michael to coımnit to iconoclasm, favoured by the people and the arıny of the
besieged city. To reopen a debate about icons could have signified for Michael
political suicide at a moment when Thomas seemed to control both Asia and
Europe and the emperor relied only upon the forces ofthe capital.
Again, as in Leo's case, it appears that Michael did not have personal reasons for
adopting icoııoclasm. In fact, he forbade aııy further discussion on that matter aııd
allowed believers to act as they wanted concerning icon worship. Significantly, the
Coııtinuator describes Michael 's policy toward icons in a different chapter f rom
the one devoted to representing his Athinganoi beliefs. 81 Tlıere, Michael orders his
subjects "to do whatever each one desires and considers appropriate" (eıcaoı:oç
ouv tO ooıcoüv auı:q') 7ı:ülEltü) ıcai scpcrov) as an answer to a personal entreaty of
the deposed patriarch Nikephoros. This did not avoid the exile and persecutioıı
of reputed icon defenclers such as Methodios and Euthymios, but in general the
iconophiles experienced a period of appeasement, as the letters of Theodore
Stoudites clearly show. It is revealing that Michael allowed the abbots to venerate
images ifthey so wished as long as this happened outside ofConstantinople. This
confirms that the conflict about icons mattered only in the capital, whereas in the
provinces di:fferent traditions coexisted most ofthe time.82
This tolerant spirit of Michael was certainly paıtly a consequence of the
civil war that rallied ali Constantinopolitans around the emperor against the
"barbarian" army of Thomas. But it continued after the civil war as well. The
marriage of Michael c. 824-825 with iconophile Euphrosyne, Constantine VI's
daughter and by then a nun, expresses the clear desire to connect the dynasty with
the !ast Isaurian emperor, but also with his iconophile policy, exactly as Thomas
the Slav had done during his revolt (Chapter 6). Moreover, in 821 Michael maıTied
Theophilos to an iconophile wife, Theodora, whose family also seem to have
been mostly defenders of images (Chapter 4). This will ultimately explain how,
after Theophilos' death, iconoclasm was finally condemned and icon worship re­
established with the support and backing of the widow empress. It tums out that

80 See Starr (1936), Rochow (1983) and Speck (1997).

81 Th. Cont. II.8 (47.16-49.19), corresponding to Gen. II.14 (35.68-77).
82 For a short characterization ofMichael's iconoclasrn, with references to the sources,
see Bury (1912) 110-19, Martin (1930) 199-211, Treadgold (1988)228-32, Pratsch (1998)
263-71, and Bnıbaker and Haldan (2011) 386-92.
30 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeoplıi/o.\' cıml tlıe Ecıst. 819-842

at the time icon \vorship was for emperors nıore ofa problem to be dealt with than
a personal belie[ 83
The natura! consequence of this state of affairs\vould be that after Michael 's
death, his heir Theophilos would continue this policy ofappeasement, especially
as the civil war was over and the hard-liners of the iconophile party, such as
Theodore Stoudites or the deposed patriarch Nikephoros, were already dead.
However, the opposite turned out to be the case. Unlike Leo V or Michael II,
Theophilos appears to have been a conıınitted iconoclast. 8� The reason is perhaps
related to the fact that Theophilos belonged to a different generation froın Leo
V or his father Michael. Although he was probably baptized by no less a person
than Leo V as early as 803, and accordingly before the Armenian came to the
throne (see Chapter 3.1 ), Theophilos was probably just 12 years old when his
godfather Leo began to implement an iconoclast policy in 815. As his father also
had a pronıinent position at court, the education of the child could not be left to
chance and it is to be supposed that already during Leo's reign the iconoclastic
indoctrination ofthe child Theophilos began. The figure ofJohn the Gramnıarian
appears as the main person responsible for the education ofthe young Theophilos.
According to the Continuator,

He [Johıı the Graınmariaıı] was particularly beloved of Michael the starnınerer,

either siınply because he shared in his heresy, or also because he had somehow
distinguished himself for his eloquence. In any case he was beloved and was
appointed as teacher ofTheophilos. And when this latter took up the reins of the
empire, he first granted him the dignity ofsynkellos and then made him patriarch
of Constantinople because he had explained to him certain signs of the future
through divination with dishes and sorcery.85

It is nowhere said in this passage that John was appointed teacher ofTheophilos
when Michael came to the throne in December 820. Ralph-Johannes Lilie rightly
noted that Theophilos had married as early as 821 and appears to have been an
adult from the very beginning ofhis father's reign. He thus considered it unlikely
that John was appointed his teacher only with the rise of Michael II to power.86
However, I do not agree with his conclusion that later sources made John the
Grammarian the teacher of Theophilos because of the close relationship between
the two men during Theophilos' reign. It seems to me possible that Theophilos was
taught by John during the reign of Leo V. Michael did not need to be an emperor
to take care ofthe education ofhis child. As the case ofJustin I at the beginning of

83 See also Chapter 8.1 for the opinion ofHans-Georg Thi.immel on the real relevance
of theological disputes about icon worship at the time ofsecond iconoclasm.
84 For an assessment of Theophilos' iconoclasm see Rosser (1972) 64-107 and
Bnıbaker and Haldan (2011) 392-404.
s; Th. Cont. IV.7 (154.21-155.5).
86 Lilie ( 1999b) 172-5.
 Bcıck to /conoc/cısııı! 31

the sixth century shows, men of amıs making a career in the capital cared for the
education oftheir children, for this was the most useful investment in their future.
Theophilos thus became a learned and cultivated emperor exactly as Justiııian did
and defeııded iconoclasrn with rnore zeal and conviction than his two predecessors
on the throne, in a certaiıı sense with the same comrnitment that Justinian had to
the Chalkedonian creed.
This did not mean that his duty as a ruler was devoted in great part to the
cause of iconoclasrn. Again, as we shall see in the next chapters, more urgent
and important rnatters demanded his attention. It is only the hagiographic sources
that depict him as a bigoted ernperor and prosecutor oficonophiles.87 A priori, the
controversy about icons appears relevant only in his relation with the Melkites
of the Middle East, who stili played an important role in the Byzantine concept
of imperial oikoumene. Neveıiheless, as we shall see in Chapter 21, not even in
this case did the emperor's iconoclasm represent any divide between the eastern
Christians and his Byzantine subjects.

87 See PmbZ #8167, esp. 631-2 for a list of the topics provided by hagiographic
sources about the ernperor. See also PBE s.v. "Theophilos 5".
 Chapter 2
Unrest at the Eastem Border

2.1 T he Tourmarchai of the Phoideratoi

Since his ascension Leo nıust have had serious concems about the fidelity of the
eastern regions of the empire, conscious as he was that the nıilitary threat posed
by the caliphate coulcl eventually tuııı aut to be nıore dangerous than the Bulgarian
khaganate. Nar coulcl he afford to have a new front open in the east before putting
an end to the Bulgarian invasion. As we know from his career, Leo was well
acquainted with the situation on the frontier and probably knew the potential
dangers. This explains why he wanted to prevent further troubles by sending
his most intimate friends there. it is in this context that we ıııust understand the
appointnıent of Thonıas as a tournıarches of the phoideratoi by Leo at the very
beginning of his reign (see immecliately below).
Leo probably held this post in high esteem because he had served as tourmarches
ofthe phoideratoi in the anny underNikephoros I, who appointed Leo to this office
when he and his comrade Michael joined him after the defeat of their commander
Bardanes the Turk by the emperor. The infonnatiori is provided by the Continuator:

For already Leo and Michael had both run off to the emperor - the former
obtaining as reward the charge of the phoideratoi and the imperial house of
Zeno and the Dagistheus, the Iatter the office of Comes [of the Court] 1 and the
house of Karianos - and they persuaded Bardanios that he had been ınistaken
with regard to himself.2

The fact that Leo was awarded two houses in Constantinople made sense
to John Haldan only if the unit of the phoideratoi was established by then in
Constantinople.3 This would make ofthe phoideratoi a kind oftagma unit. However,
I think that in this particular case Haldan pushes too far the opposition between
Constantinopolitan tagmata and provincial themata, as we cannot completely rule

1
This term is a silent addition ofthe editors, and does not appear in the only ınanuscript
of the Continuator. See Signes Codofier (1995) 19 and 31.
" Th. Cont. L3 (9.9-12): iipı:ı µev yap AEmv iipı:t öe ıcai Mıxaıitı. frıı:oppuı.ıvı:ı::ç rcpoç
�acrıtı.fo, &01ı.ov 6 �tev ı:ı;v ı:poıöı::puı:mv ıcai pacntı.ııcov oııcov ı:oü Zı']vmvoç ıcai ı:ov ı'.1ayıcr0fo,
6 ÖE ı:�v ı:fiç [ıc6pı:ııç] ıcoµııı:oç apx�v ıcai ı:ov ı:oü Kapıavoü oiıcov Cl1CEVcyıcu�lEVOt, oüıc
aya0a <ppovEiv aüı:ov rcı::pi fouı:oii rcı::rcotıııcacrtv. The office oftourmarches oftlıe phoideratoi
is giveıı to Leo also; ibid. 10.21. See also Gen. 1.8 .
.ı Haldon ( 1984) 246-51.
34 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos cıııd ılıe Eası, 829--841

out the existence of some elite troops with provincial headquarters in the period.
1 would argue that the houses given to the tourmarches ofthe phoideratoi are not
to be understood as housing a small contingent ofthe toumıarches' forces in the
capital, but only as a sort of representation of this unit in Constantinople, as we
know was the case for many foreign rulers in the sphere of Byzantiunı.4 lndeed,
the phoideratoi could have been settled in a province without his tournıarches
necessarily being with them ali year, especially in the winter season. 5 When we
And Leo caıııpaigning in Anatolia in 81 l , he would not necessarily have changed
Constantinople for a provincial scenario, as Haldan supposes to have been the
case.6 The narrative of the Contimıator, who depicts Leo campaigning constantly
in east Anatolia with his troops after he was appointed tourmarches of the
phoideratoi,7 ınakes nıore sense ifwe think that he fulfilled his duties regularly near
the eastern borders of the empire. So the Continuator could not have known that
Leo was by then pronıoted to the office ofstrategos ofthe Anneniakoi, as Haldan
rightly argues following the contemporary account ofTheophanes,8 because this
promotion did not mean that Leo left the capital to take up residence in the east.
This could be an argunıent, however weak, for the phoideratoi being active in the
theme ofthe Armeniakoi, perhaps in the frontier zone.
The Continuator and Genesios alsa make it clear that Leo appointed Thomas
as tournıarches because he considered him his dearest f riend since childhood. 9 A
crucial piece ofinfoıınation is added in another passage ofthe Continuator, where
it is said that when Thomas heard of the assassination of Leo he was tourmarches
of the phoideratoi and stayed in the theme of the Anatolikoi. 10 This precision could
be understood as confiıınation that the commander ofthe phoideratoi had a seat in
the theme ofthe Anatolikoi, but alsa, as I suspect, that this was not the only place
where he could stay, for otherwise such precision would have been unnecessary.
Both the Continuator and Genesios mention as well that Thomas was born on
Lake Gazouros. This is probably to be identified with the modem Beysehir Gölü, the
ancient Pousgouse limne (I1oucryoucnı 1ı.i�LVf]) in the theme ofthe Anatolikoi, to the
west ofIkonion arİd the south of Amorion. 11 However, Genesios adds a significant

4 For this argument, see Signes Codofier(1995) 30-31.

5
ln fact Haldan(1984) 249 seems to admit this possibility as he says (my italics),
"lt does not seem unreasonable tlıat tlıe phoideratoi should have been in Constantinople, ar
that apart of tlıe ıınit should have been there."
6
Haldon(1984) 249.
7
Th. Cont. 1.4(10.20-11.17). Gen. I.8(8.55-57) only refers briefly to the activities
of Leo in the east.
8
Tlıeoph. 489, trans. Mango and Scott(1997) 672. See Haldan( 1 984) 517-18.
" Th. Cont. 1.12 (24.1-2): 0w�LÖ.V öe TOY ea.uı:oü öta.qıı::p6vTWÇ 6µ�1ı.uca. ıca.l
vll�L1ı:a.icrı:opa. TffiY qıotöı::paı:mv ı:oupµa.pxTJY iyıca.0tcrTQ.; Gen.1.1 l(9.95-1): AEWY 6 pacrı1ı.ı::ı)ç
0W�LÖ.V TOY Ea.UTOÜ T\A.llClWTT]Y ı:oupµa.pXTJY clÇ (j)OtPcpUTOUÇ E7rf.CTTT]CTEY.
iti
Tlı. Cont. il. 1 l (52. l 0-12): öç TIJY T(J)Y <potfü:pa.TWY Tf]Ytıca.üı:a. ÖLOU((J)Y apxııy, ıca.Ta
TOV A.VU.ı:ü/ı.lKOV E\'Öta.rp(pwY, errd TOY Mtxaıı1ı. iipn öuııcouı::v avnpıııc6m TOY ı\eoym_ ..
11
Belke(!984)218.
 Unresı al ılıe Ecısıerıı Border 35

detail, for he says tlıat Tlıonıas, like Leo, "was also an Arnıenian by descent" (ıwi
aıh6v ıl/; Ap�tEvirnv r6 ycvoı:; Kma.yovm). 12 Lemerle and Köpstein contended tlıat
Genesios' precision was based on tlıe nıisunderstanding of a fomıer gloss tlıat
originally intended only to iocate Lake Gazouros in tlıe tlıeme ofthe Amıeniakoi. 13
However, since Lake Gazouros appears not to be in tlıe Arnıeniakoi, I suggested
some time ago that tlıe reference to Armenian descent was originally intended for
Leo in Genesios' source. 14 Obviously tlıe Annenian origins ofThomas seemed to be
incompatible with the Slavic descent clearly attributed to tlıe rebel Thomas in the
account ofthe outbreak ofthe civil war and were accordingly to be rejected.
But the statement ofGenesios is clear and presents no textual problems. in fact,
the actual problem lies sonıewhere else, in the identification ofThomas theArmenian,
the toumıarches of the phoideratoi and Leo's playnıate, witlı Thonıas the Slav. We
will duly consideı: this point in Chapter 13.1, but for the moment it will suffice
to say that there is no reason to question Genesios' statement about the Arnıenian
descent ofThomas. This is an important point, for it partly accounts for the reasons
behind Leo's choice ofThomas: since both were ofArmenian origin, some kind of
close relationship between them is to be presupposed. Tlıat Leo appointed his old
friend Thomas tourımirches reveals tlıe importance he gave to the post: Leo had
scarcely been prociaimecl enıperor wheıı he took the clecision to appoiııt Thomas.
Leo probably clid not have many people he could trust.
The importance of the tourmarches of the phoideratoi is also enhancecl by
the thircl person mentioned by the sources as having assumecl the post. lt is again
another coınrade in amıs ofLeo, Michael, the füture emperor Michael II (820-829),
the father ofTheophilos. Our source is once more the Continuator, who mentions
Michael's position because he was accused of conspiracy against Leo V: Mıxa�A.
TOUTO �v, ôı:; nıv <potôEpfrcrov 'COTE E1CE!A.Tjµ�ıcvoç apxfıv, eyıCA.fıµarı ıca0ocnwcrncoç
a1ı.ouç. 15 The Continuator says that Michael was first acquitted on this charge of
conspiracy and that his imprisonment by Leo took place some time later, when
compromising comments on Michael's part against Leo reached the emperor's
ears. This imprisonment is accordingly dated to the very end of Leo's reign, for
Michael was in prison waiting for his execution when the emperor was murdered.
We do not know, however, when this first accusation ofconspiracy took place and,
accordingly, at what time Michael was appointed tourınarches ofthe phoideratoi.
Usually no credence is given to this information, considering that Genesios
makes Michael domestic ofthe exkoubitores in a passage that drew from the same

12 Th. Cont. 1.1 (7.3-4) and Gen. I.6 (7.14. I 5).

13 Leınerle (1965) 284 note 112 and Köpstein (1983) 66. This hypothesis is difficult
to adınit for it presupposes too much: a confusion between a lake (Gazouros) and a person
(Thomas) as well as between Annenia and the theıne of the Arıneniakoi. The wording of
the passage is clearly unaınbiguous.
14 SignesCodofier(1995)2 l -2.
15 Th. Conl. 1.21 (33.22).
36 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıi/os aıll! rlıe Eası. 829-84:!

source as the Continuator. 16 Genesios also refers to the appointment of Michael

as domestic of the exkoubitores at the very beginning of Leo's reign in another
passage of his work. 17 Finally, George the Monk gives Michael the command
of tlıe tagına of the exkoubitores when nıentioning his imprisonment at the end
of Leo's reign. 18 If we take the information of Genesios and George the Monk
together at their face value, it would seem that Michael remained in charge of
the exkoubitores during the whole of Leo's reign. The nıention of Michael as
tourınarches of the phoideratoi would be a slip ofthe Continuator, who attributed
to Michael tlıe same position actually held by Thomas.
But it could also be that the Continuator's information was sound after ali
and that Michael, after being appointed domestic of the exkoubitores by Leo at
the beginning ofhis reign (according to Genesios), was acquitted of the charge
of conspiracy against the emperor and subsequently given the provincial post of
tourınarches ofthe phoideratoi. 19 He must have then taken the post from Thomas
the Armenian, for Leo appointed Thomas tourmarches of the phoideratoi at the
beginning of his reign, as we have seen. This does not necessarily nıean that
Michael got the post because Thoınas had already rebellecl against Leo (for the
dale of the beginning of the rebellion see section 2.2), for it seems that Thomas
the Armenian was not the same person as Thomas the Slav, as we shall argue
in Chapter 13.1, and may have not been involved in the rebellion. in fact, it is
perfectly possible that Michael was appointed tourmarches of the phoicleratoi
because Thomas the Armenian was promoted at the same time to a higher post
(strategos?). The rebellion ofThomas the Slav ınay have been the ultimate cause
of these changes. In any case, ifthe post of tourmarches ofthe phoideratoi was
of crucial importance for the control of the eastern border, as we will argue; it
may perhaps seem strange that Michael was appointed tourmarches just after
being acquitted ofa conspiracy charge. We can but speculate about the reasons
for this appointment, but it may well have been intended as a challenge for
Michael, a new opportunity to show his fidelity to the emperor by re-establishing
authority in the east, questioned by the rebellion ofThomas the Slav. As Michael
apparently failed in his mission (and this explains his second aıTest at the very
enci of Leo 's reign), Genesios and George the Monk could easily have ignored
this late appointment of Michael as tourmarches and mentioned only his first
post ofdoınestic ofthe exkoubitores. If, however, the Continuator and Genesios

16
Gen. 1.17 (15.44-47): Mtxa�A. 6 EÇ A�wpiou ı:otç Kaı:' av6pciav ıcpoıcoımııv EV
ıcpoı:ııprı�tacrı, ıcap' ö ıcai ı:6 ı:cııv eçKoupiı:rov ıcmicrı:wı:o cruvı:ayµa, otaPo)..ft ım0omtlıcrııroç
emcrıaııcı:ııı:m.
17
Gen. l.11. See Signes Codofier (1995) 152 for a brief commentary on the passage.
18
Georg. Mon. 788.9-10: 'Eç cbv uırfipxıı Mıxa�A. 6 �v ı:oii EJ(O"l(OUPiı:ou ı:6.ntaı:oç
apxı)v Ol87C(J)V.
1'1 Afinogenov (2001) 330, considers that Miclıael was first appointed tourrnarches of
tlıe plıoideratoi and tlıereafter proıııoted to domestic of tlıe exkoubitores, but I do not find
support for tlıis sequence of evenls in tlıe sources.
 Uııresı at ılıe Eastem Border 37

combined two sources in their narrative of the conspiracy of Michael, as

Afinogenov claims, the omission of some details is understandable and even
usual for the methods of the two authors, who used freely a comınon source.
A clue is perhaps provided by an obscure sentence from Genesios, who writes
that, after being first acquitted by Leo of his charge of conspiracy, "Michael is
sent away by the eınperor to conduct the levy for this saıne unit".20 This "sending
away" of Michael (srns�me-rm) suggests a provincial destination, far away frorn
the capital. If our rendering of cr-rparoMyrı�ıa as "levy" is correct, 21 then Michael
could have been charged with the levy of soldiers for the tagma ofthe exkoubitores
that was under his command before the conspiracy was detected. We cannot know
if tlıe post of tourmarches of the phoideratoi was somehow connected witlı tlıe
levy of soldiers for the tagmata in the capital, but this could explain the presence
ofthe tourmarches in the capital (and an official residence). 22 in any case, it seeıns
to me that a provincial destination for Michael after his first conspiracy is likely
and is in accordance with the policy of Leo.
But what really was the function and importance of the tourınarches of,
phoideratoi that appears so suddenly in the sources of the ninth centuıy?
The ancient Roman foederati included troops of nations or tribes that were
associated with the eınpire by rneans of afoedus. However, as a study by Jean
Maspero had already revealed a hundred years ago,23 in the time of Justinian the
usual term for the ancietn .foederati was synımachoi (crı'ıµ�tax,ot). The old Latin
name, under the Greek form cpotoı::pihot, referred since tlıen to foreign recruits of
diverse nationalities who served in the Byzantine army as elite troops in separate
units under their own conımanders. The use of the term cpotoepii-rot is no longer
attested after the Arab invasions of the seventh cenhıry until it reappears in the
sources of the ninth. The rnost important are the Taktika edited by Oikonoınides,
where the office appears twice. The first is in the Taktikon Uspenskij traditionally
dated ca. 842-843, where we find in a list ho tourınarches tön phiberatön (6
-roupµupx,rıç -r&v cpt�epfrı:wv) preceding ho tourınarches Lykaonias (6 -roupµupx,rıç
Auıcaoviaı;). 24 The second is the soınewhat later Kletoroligion of Philotheos, where
we find a more detailed rendering of these two offices: 25

20 Gen. I.17 (15.47-48): tıoı:e�meı:at napa pacrıtı.faoç 8ıaıcupı::pvav ı:o EV auı:qı

crı:paı:oMyııµa. This sentence has been misunderstood in the translation ofKaldellis (1998)
18: "he was sent away by the emperor to command the aforementioned corps". Kaldellis
identified crı:paı:oMyıı�ıa with ı:6 ı:ô'ıv tl;ıcoupiı:oıv m'.ıvı:ayµa previously mentioned in the
text.
21
The occurrence of this term again in Gen. II.13 (35.62-63) is not conclusive.
This time the general Ooryphas "assembles (through a levy?) a very mighty naval force"
(a.0poiÇı::ı:aı vmmıcov crı:paı:oMYTJ�ta yı::vvaı6ı:aı:ov).
22
As a matter of fact the tagma of the exkoubitores created in the fifth century was
initially recruited from among eastem Isaurians; see Frank (1969) 204-6.
23
Maspero (1912).
'" Oikonomides (1972) 55, 7-8. For an earlier dating see Zivkovic (2007).
,; Oikonomides (1972) 149, 23-4.
38 Tlıe Emperor T/ıeoplıilos aııcl ılıe Eası, 829-842

ô cma0apoKavöıödm:; Kai ı:oup�ıapxrJ<; ı:wv <pıpepciı:rnv

ô mı:a0apoKavöıôdı:oç Kai ı:oup�ıapxııç ı\uıwoviaç Kai fla�tcpu;Uaç

Scholars have tried to explain these refürences in different ways.26 Stein for
example emended both texts in order to establish in them a toıırınarches Lykaonias
kai Pisidias (roup�uıpxrıı; J\uKaoviaç Kai Titmöiaç) where we have now either a
tourıııarclıes Lykaoııias ('roup�ta.pxııç J\uKaoviaç) or a toıırınarc/ıes Lykaonias kai
Paınplıylias (ı:oup�ta.pxııç J\uKaoviaç Kai Tiawpuıciaç).27 The basis ofthe emendation
was mainly the eleventh-century evidence ofa passage in Skylitzes' history, where this
wri ter mentions an army of"Pisidians and Lycaonians, who make up the tagma ofthe
phoideratoi". 28 Moreover, Stein supposed that the tounnarches ofthe phoideratoi and
the tourrnarches of Lycaonia and Pisidia were one and the same person and that the
two entries in both Kletorologia should be understood as a doublet. Haldon accepted
Stein 's ernendation, but thought that there was no doublet and that accordingly
the tourmarclıes of the phoi'deratoi and the tourmarches of Lycaonia and Pisidia
remained two clifferent offices. He argued convincingly that "it seerns unlikely that
the list drawn up by Philotheos and his colleagues would repeat a mistake or an
ambiguous entry of soıne fifty years previously, in a text which is remarkably cleaı·
ancl which rationalises or clarifies a great number of its entries".29 However, Haldon
considered that both tourmarchai were basecl in the provinces ofLycaonia and Pisidia
ofthe theme ofthe Anatolikoi, since he connected the phoideratoi with the frequent
mentions of Lycaonian solcliers during the reign of Nikephoros I and thought
accordingly that Skylitzes' assertion equating the phoideratoi with the Lycaonians
and Pisidians reflected also the situation in the ninth cenhıry.
Nevertheless, if the phoideratoi "were macle up at least paıtially of Lycaonians
and Pisidians", as Haldon argues, why should they have been named <potöapa.ı:oı at
all? This name was linked in the military tradition with barbarian units serving in
the imperial army and there appears no reason to name it after the troops ofa single
region to the south ofthe theme oftheAnatolikoi. The linking ofthe tourmarches of
the phoicleratoi with the Lycaonians and Pisidians may possibly reflect an evolution
ofthis post, after it accumulated so much power in the first halfofthe ninth century.
After the usurpations of Leo and Michael, the tuming point could have been the
rebellion of tlıe Persians serving under Theophilos, which, as we shall consider
in Chapter 10.2, were commanded by a tommarches of the phoideratoi of Persian
origin. Their excessive power again threatened the imperial authority, so that
Theophilos may have divided the phoideratoi, which perhaps controlled most of
the eastem frontier, into two or more contingents under the command oftheir own

26 The best statzıs quaestionis in Haldon (1984) 246-52. See also Signes Codofier
( 1995) 35-6.
27 Stein (1919) 138-9.
zR Skyl., Koııstaııtiııos lvfoııoıııaclıos 3 (426.32-3.3): flwcriöaç ıcai ı\uıca6vaç, o'brep
UVUJrlı.llpOÜcrt !O ı:ayµa ı:föv <pOtÖf:pat(l)V.
"" Haldon (1984) 247.
 Uıırest at tlıe Eastern Border 39

touııııarchai, these being the tourmarches of the phoideratoi proper, who retained
the ancient title, and perhaps the tourınarchai of Lycaonia and Pisidia listed next
in the Taktika nıentioned above. That Skylitzes identified the phoideratoi with
troops ofLycaonians and Pisidians can be easily explained ifwe suppose that these
districts supplied the main contingents of the phoideratoi before they were divided
among several tourınarchai after the Persian uprising.
Nevertheless, the significant point lies in the fact that all attested tourınarchai
of the phoideratoi at the beginning of the ninth century were outsiders, even
foreigners, in the eyes ofthe Greelc establishnıent which ruled the enıpire. Leo was
in fact Arnıenian or of Armenian descent, and nıany sources play with the story
that nıakes him of Assyrian or even Mesopotamian origin.30 The case of Thomas
is also clear: either we accept his Arnıenian descent (mentioned by Genesios),31
or identify him with the rebel Thonıas the Slav.32 Michael appears in the sources
as being of Jewish descent and was perhaps related to the nıysterious sect of the
Athinganoi.33 And finally, we must not forget the Persian Khurramite Ieader Naşr,
who comnıanded the Persians as tourmarches of the phoideratoi under Theophilos'
reign, to which we will return in Chapter 10.2.
Although three of tlıese four tournıarchai seem to have been bom in the
territory of the enıpire - Miclıael in Amorion, Leo in a village called Pidra34 and
Thomas near Lake Gazouros35 - they continued to be foreigners in tlıe eyes of the
dominant Greelc establislıment. Moreover, their biography links thenı inextricably
with Anatolia, so they could be easily labelled as "Easterners" in the eyes of the
Constantinopolitans. The question here is whether their common condition of
outsiders was a nıere chance or is to be related to the office ofthe tourınarches ofthe
phoideratoi, which all four held in succession. I think that this second option may
be the right one. The fact that the phoideratoi until the sixth century were mainly
barbarians serving in the imperial armies is unlikely to have completely changed
by the ninth century and probably explains why the appointed tourmarchai of the
phoideratoi were also offoreign origin.
This circumstance points to them as commanders of foreign and barbarian
troops serving in the empire. However, we should think of these soldiers not as
mercenaries coming from abroad to enlist themselves in the Byzantine arrny (as
was later the case for exaınple with the Varangians during the reigns ofMichael III
and Basil II),36 but as immigrants settled in the territories deseıted by the previous
population due to the continuous Muslim raids.

30 See Turner (1990) and Signes Codofier (I 991) and (1994).

31 Gen. I.6 (7.14-15).
32 Köpstein (1983) 65-7 and Signes Codofier (1995) 21-2 and 223-4.
33
Signes Codofier (1995) 183-8.
34 Th. Cont. I.I (6.9).
35 Tlı. Cont. I.I (7.3-4) and Gen. 1.6 (7.14-15).
36 See Blöndal and Benedikz ( 1978) 20-21, 32-3 and 41-53. For the embassy of the
Rus to Theophilos see Clıapter 20.1.
40 T/ıe E111peror Tlıeop/ıilos aııd tlıe Eası.829-842

But what was the function ofthese barbarian phoideratoi in the ninth century, as
the tagmata were developing along with the thematic annies? I think that the only
reason for this unit of phoideratoi was the defence of the eastem frontier, where
the defining lines of Byzantine culture got confused and a mixture ofpeoples and
races was tlıe rule. The Byzantine govemment could have settled many foreign
peoples there in order to reinforce the devastated areas of the frontier, which
are commonly tenned "no-man's land" in modem historiography. In fact, these
displacements of populations among distant regions of the Empire or even the
settleınent of foreign nations in depopulated areas had been very common since
the Arab invasions. 37
Accordingly, units ofthese foreigners under the high command ofthe generals
ofthe themes ofthe Arıneniakoi and Anatolikoi, but witlı some autonomy, might
have been effective in the defence of the Empire, a circumstance that easily
explains that their commanders or tourmarchai were promoted to the post of
thematic generals and even ·crowned as emperors. They could be considered the
forerunners of the epic akritai, and the defences, to whose establishment they
contributed, could have later developed into the kleisurai or frontier districts. We
simli see in Chapter 5.4 how the figure ofManuel the Annenian has been portrayed
in the sources with elements common to the later frontier epic.

2.2 The Outbreak ofthe War at the East

Leo had every reason to entrust the command of the frontier regions in the east
to his most loyal comrades, for it was precisely in the ·east that the civil war that
slıook the whole empire between 820 and 824 started, with an uprising ofthemata
supported by foreign troops commanded by Thomas the Slav. Detailed reports
about the main phases ofthe war have been preserved, mainly by the Continuator,
but many aspects remain uncertain, such as the ultimate causes of the confl.ict
and the identity ofthe rebels. We will approach some ofthese questions below in
section 2.4 and again in Chapter 13, but for the moment we will concentrate on
an apparently minor issue but one on which many others seem to be dependent,
namely the exact year in which Thomas started his uprising.
According to the cunent comııııınis opinio, Thomas the Slav rebelled against
Michael the Amorian when he heard about the murder ofLeo in the Christmas period
of820, so that Thomas would have taken up anns against Michael in order to avenge
his !ate friend and comrade Leo.38 This opinion is founded on reports preserved in
the Continuator and Genesios. However, there are also sources that date the uprising
ofThomas as early as in Leo's reign tlıat cannot easily be explained away.39

37For details see O itten (1993 ).

38
See Lemerle (1965) 272-3 and Köpstein (1983) 71-2.
Jo For a short comment on these sources see Signes Codofier ( 1995) 225-7. See also
Afinogenov (2005).
 Unresı aı ıhe Eas/erıı Barder 41

To begin with, we have the testimony of the letter Michael the Amorian sent
to the emperor Louis the Pious in 824.40 The Latin versicin of this letter inforıns
us that Thomas had fled the empire during the reign of Eirene because of an
accusation of adultery with his master's wife. Thomas supposedly resided many
years in "Persian" lands and converted to Islam ("fidem Christi abnegans") to
attract the unbelievers to his cause, although he pretended at the saıne time to be
Constantine (VI), the son of Eirene, denying that the fonner had actually died in
797 after being blinded by his mother. 41 Thomas is said to have led an uprising
against Leo with the assistance of a number of peoples of the Middle East:

Wlıen tlıe same Tlıomas, as he left Persia in the time oftlıe aforementioned Leo
witlı Saracens, Persians, lberians, Armenians, Abasgiaııs and the other people
of the foreign nations, suddeııly began to fight with tlıese mighty forces, he
subdued the whole duclıy of Armeııia to lıim by pl\ındering, as well as the duchy
ofChaldia, whose iıılıabitants lıave their abode in the Caucasus mountains, and
also clefeated tlıe duke ofthe Armeııiakoi with a miglıty force.42

Tlie references seem to be veıy precise, although we cannot rule out that
Michael's propaganda is at work here, as most scholars actually believe. in fact,
Michael ımıst have had much interest in denying any connection between Leo's
ınurder, related to his subsequent accession to power, and Thomas' uprising, which
fanned the flames of a devastating civil war until 823. Nevertheless, it ınust be
doubted that to defend his cause Michael should resort to such a big distortion of
the events, making Thomas' revolt take place as early as under Leo. He just needed
to blame Thomas for treason and connivance with the Arabs to discredit him with
Louis. But, is it really conceivable that Louis the Pious was so unaware of the
events taking place in Byzantium that Michael could freely alter such substantial
historical facts without being detected? We rnust remeınber that Constantinople
had at the time close connections with Italy, especially Roıne and Yenice, and
that Leo sent at least one eınbassy to Louis_ the Pious between 816 and 817.43 it
is perhaps worth ınentioning that Leo passed an edict forbidding any travel to
Egypt and Syria and comınunicated it to the Venetian doges, who iınplemented the

40
Sode (2005) pleads for the inauthenticity of most of the contents of the letter, but
her arguments seem to me unc;onvincing and not based upon the text. In any case, even if
we admit that the text is not genuine, the details provided by it point to a well-informed
contemporary source.
41
Letter ta Lauis 476.7-20.
42
Letter ta Laııis 476.20-25: "Cum idem Thomas exiens de Perside cum Sarracenis
et Persis, Hiberis, Armeniis et Avasgiis et reliquis gentibus alienigenarum tempore predicti
Leonis subito cum praedicta manu valida perproeliaret, direptione sibi subdidit totuın
Annoeniae clucatum, simul et ducaturı:ı Clıalcleae, quae gens monteın Caucasum incolit,
ııecnon et clucem Arıneııiacoruın cum manu valida clevicit."
4-'
Müller (2009), Regesıeıı 397-8.
42 Tlıe E111peror T/ıeaphi/os c111d t/ıe East, 829-842

measure and forced their subjects to obey the emperor 's ban.44 I suspect that Leo 's
order was related to the troubles triggered by Thomas's uprising in the Middle
East. as we shall soon see.
Michael 's Ietter goes on:

Therefore, when this happened in that way, the above mentioned Leo, for we
want to leave out many events that took place then in the tunnoil ofthe disgraces,
as he was not able to stop the inıpetus ofthis tyrant and despaired ofa recovery,
was killed suddenly by sonıe wicked persons in a conspiracy against him.45

lf we take the passage at its face value, the uprising of Thomas lasted some
time before Leo was killed. in fact, Leo seemed even to "despair ofa recovery".
Michael suggests that the killing ofLeo was prompted by his inability to cope with
the rebels of the east. This version was evidently very convenient for Michael,
as it enabled him to disentangle himself fronı the conspirators against Leo, but
it is corroborated by at least one other contemporary source. This is the l(fe
of Eutlıymios, one of the martyrs of the second iconoclasnı, written c. 832 by
Methodios, who was to be appointed patriarch in 843.
Methodios writes that Michael relaxed the persecution against icon worshippers
in order to avoid any identification of his policy with that of Leo and also "due
to the rebel, l mean the ınost fierce Thonıas, who had already revolted before
(ft8ıı npoı::navacrı:6.vı:a), since the time ofhis predecessor ( ancı ı:oü npo auı:oü)".46
This piece of infornıation confirrns what Michael wrote in his Letter to Loııis,
for it presents the enıperor distancing hiınselff rom Leo's policy and coping with
Thomas' rebellion at the sarne time, as ifboth were part ofthe sarne legacy left
behind by Leo after his death. Even rnore important is the fact that Methodios, an

-1-1 Müller (2009) Regesten 400. The source is Andreas Dandolo, C/ııvnica 167
(Muratori) and 144.31-34 (Pastorello): "Hoc tempore, cum contigisset loca sancta, que
erant Ierosolimis prophanari, Leo cum filio imperatores augusti eddictum proposuerunt ne
quis in Syriam ve! Egiptum auderet accedere; quod catholici duces Yenecie aprobantes,
subdictis suis pariter iubenınt." This is indeed a later source, for its author was doge of
Yenice between 1343 and 1354. However, he preserves sound data not recorded by other
sources that concem the relations between Byzantium and Yenice and were perhaps based
on reliable documents of the Yenetian chancellery. See also Chapter 18.2 for iınportant
details preserved in this chronicle about embassies ofTheophilos to Yenice after the defeat
ofAmorion in 838.
45
Letter ta Loııis 476.26-29: "His ergo ita gestis, ut plurima omittamus propter
superfluitatem verboıum, quae in hac tempestate tribulationum contigerunt, eius tyranni
impetum non valens memoratus Leo imperator sustinere et in his angustiis constitutus, de
recuperatione desperans, a quibusdam inprobis, coniuratione in eum facta, subito occisus est."
46
Methodios, Life qfEııt/ıyıııios § 1O (202-205): ı<:ai 8ta ı:ov i\lırı rcpoıı1mvacrı:avı:cı. a.rco
ı:oü repo cı.ıhoü a.vı:apı:ııv, 0ro�tav <pıuu ı:ov lııııv6-ı:cı.ı:ov. l have already commented on this
iınportant passage in Signes Codoiier (1995) 226-7. Afinogenov (2001) 335, note 36 also
uses it for his arguınentation.
 Unresı al ılıe Easlerıı Border 43

iconophile, was not only witness to the events, but alsa had no interest at alt in
corroborating the propaganda ofan iconoclast emperor ifit did not tally with tlıe
tnıth. This is a clear confirmation that Thonıas had already rebelled against Leo,
as Michael wrote to Louis.
The Continuator and Genesios collect two versions of Thomas' rebellion,
whose beginning both authors reproduce side by side but in a different order.47
The first version of tlıe Continuator and the second of Genesios present Thomas
as rebelling against Leo. We could name it version A far the sake ofconvenience.
On the contrary, the second version of the Continuator and the first of Genesios,
let's cali it version B, presents Thomas' rebellion as starting during the reign
of Michael of Aınorion. Although most scholars favoured version B,48 our two
historians, on the contrary, seem to prefer version A: Genesios calls it "more
exact" (aKpıpecrn,pov) and the Continuator says that "this first version, to which
I give my credence, gets its certainty from sonıe written sources" (6 �ılv oi'iv dç
Kat n:piö-roç Myoç, Q) ıcai eyro n:Ei0o�ım ES eyypa<pwv -nviöv EXü)V 1:0 ptpatov). f
reproduce here the crucial passage of version A as told by Genesios, for it is nıore
precise than the parallel passage in the Continuator:49

[Thoınas] tlıen iııvaded the Roman Eınpire ... Al tlıis time Leo was emperor,
who was the son oftlıe Patrikios Bardas ancl wlıose family was descended fronı
Armenians. Leo did not consicler tlıis attack on tlıe Romans to be worthy of
consideration, and he put together a small army on the spur of the moment,
entrustecl it to a rnan wlıo was a solclier rather than a general, and sent hinı out
against Thomas. And when the two armies clashed somewhere in the East, the
imperial army was clefeated ancl routed. Unopposed, Thomas overran the entire
East and forced tlıe inhabitants to take his side. Shortly thereafter Michael both
killed Leo and was elevated to the throne.50

That the rebellion ofThomas the Slav began during Leo's reign is also stated
in the Acta ofDavic{, Symeon and George. This work has usually been disregarded,
for it was written in the eleventh century or later and presents important
inconsistencies that have leci some scholars to consider it a piece of fantasy.
However, there are also specific details in the work that suggest that its author
used old sources for his composition.51 It is therefore not without interest that

47
Th. Cont. 11.9-12 (49.20-55.11) and Gen. II.2, 4 (23.80-24.22 and 25.50-26.83).
For a detailed comment about these two versions see Signes Codofier (1995) 2 l 7-46.
48
Lemerle (1965), Köpstein (1983) and Treadgold (1988) 228-9 and note 312.
49
Tlıe only piece of information added by the Continuator is that the rebellion of
Thomas took place in the !ast part of Leo's reign: Th. Cont. II. l O (52.2) tv ı'.ıcrı:apq:ı ıcaıpcp.
50
Gen. 11.4-5 (26.76-85) in the translation ofKaldellis (1998) 32.
51 For a briefassessment oftlıe sıaıus quaeslionis see the introduction ofD. Abrahaınse
aııd D. Domiııgo-Foraste to tlıeir traııslatioıı of the L/fe edited in Talbot ( I 998) I 43-24 I,
esp. 143-8.
44 Tlıe Eı11peror Tlıeoplıi/os cmd tlıe Ecısı, 829-842

this work clescribes the problem causecl by Thomas' uprising as "having taken its
beginning when the tyrant Leo was still living among men" (sn �LEY sv c'ı.v0pcimoıç
roü ı:upcı.vvou rnıı.oüvroc; ı\fovı:oc; r�v apx�v ıı.aB6v);52 or that it indicates that the
exiled Thoınas, after having remained among the Ismaelites during the regnal years
ofNikephoros, Staurakios and Michael (Rhangabe) ancl "alsa ofLeo the usurper,
for a long time" (Kai ı:oic; roü avrcı.prou ı\fovroç �ıexpı rcoıı.ıı.oü), gathered a big
amıy "toward the enci [of the reign/of the life] of this (=Leo)" (rcpoc; rcp reıı.eı ös
rourou) and appearecl (on the borclers ot) the theme named after the Arnıeniakoi.
However, only after "Michael had alı-eady ascended to the throne" (roü ös Mıxa�ıı.
iiöıı rııç prı.mıı.s[aç smBcı.vroç) "did he disclose his anıbitions, proceed further ancl
seem to pretend the imperial power" (rcappııcncı.Çeraı Kat rcpoc; rcı. rcp6crco xwpei Kai
rııc; Bu.mıı.ı:iou apxııç smrurxaveLV öoıcd).53
A version ofthe Martyı-ion ofthe 42 saints ofAmorion ınust alsa be consiclered,
for Tlıomas the Slav is again presented in it as rebelling against Leo. 54 Less
value is to be given to a passage preserved in a slıort chronicle of the Byzantine
emperors whereby Thomas rebels in the reign of Leo V (erci rourou) but alsa
besieges Constantinople and is finally defeated by the same enıperor.55 Obviously
we can explain tlıis en-ar as sonıe kinci of casting-forward of the events starting
fronı tlıe outbreak ofthe civil war cluring Leo's reign, but we are entitled to do so
only because ofthe previous evidence.
Finally, an unexpected source appears in the well-known oracles attributed
to Leo VI. W.G. Brokkaar recently dated some of the oracles of this collection,
specifical ly numbers 1-6, to the reign ofLeo V, some time after the re-establishment
of iconoclasm in 815, when Leo was stili alive. It is interesting tlıat Leo is
represented as the !ast true emperor conıing before the Antichrist, to which Oracle
6 is devoted.56 With the coming of the Antichrist, crowns encircling the sun will
appear, which will "bring about a division ofthe whole state" üLeptcrµov evcpepoucrı
ı:ou Kpcı.rouc; öı-.ou).57 Although Brokkaar did not notice it, this appears to be a clear
reference to the civil war, thus confinning that Thomas rebelled against Leo.
The possibility that ali these sources are based on the official version ofMichael,
as suggested by Lemerle, is highly unlikely, not only because nane ofthem appears
to laıow the Letter ta Loııis, but alsa because they have no reason to trust the
propaganda oftlıe iconoclast emperor against other versions. But ifwe give credence
to tlıese sources and admit that Thomas the Slav had already rebelled against Leo,

52
Acta ofDavid, Syıııeoıı and George, 231.23-24.
53 Acta ofDavid, Symeoıı and George, 232.3-13.
54
Acta Mart. Aınorieıısiunı, versio Z, 64.26-28: ö�ırnc; yoüv eıcuqıetı:cı.t Kul ı:oı'.rı:qı
[=Leo] iı ı:oü ı:upa.wou EKElVOU 0co�ıa eıc[0emc;, ı:qı E�upuıı.[qı ıcoıı.ewp ı:a.c; 'Prn�Lu"iıca.c;
öuvucrı:Eiuc; crtJvöıuqı0eıpoucru.
,; Cuınont (1894) 33.
;,, Brokkaar (2002) 32-44.
;; Brokkaar (2002) 66-7.
 Uııresı al ılıe Easlem Border 45

how can we explain that other texts, and especially version B of Continuator and
Genesios, date the outbreak of the civil war only after Leo's murder?
The problem might be approached in terms of labelling the events. Jfwe speak
of"civil war", we must take for granted thatThoınas the Slav, as a usurper, claimed
the imperial crown in Constantinople. However, this might not necessarily have
been his initial purpose when he took up arms against the imperial army. In fact,
the first clashes betweenThomas' troops and Leo's amıy (alluded to in Michael's
Letter to Louis) could have been limited to "loca] fighting", as customarily
practiced by Arab raiders in the summer season. If we give credence to the long
stay of Thomas among the Arabs, of which more will be said in Chapter 13.1, he
may not have rebelled against Leo in Anatolia, but invaded the ernpire departing
from the caliphate.The idea of proclaiming hinıself emperor may have arisen not
with the first skirmishes but after some fighting, as the Acta of David, Symeoıı
aııd George expressly say. Apparently, Leo clid not initially consider the conflict
grave enough and sent a small contingent to combatThon1as. The massive attack
Thomas rnade against Constantinople at the very beginning of Michael's reign
came later and needed some time to be prepared.
If we dissociate the person ofThomas the Slav fronı the person ofThornas the
Arnıenian, who was effectively appointed tourmarches of the phoideratoi, it is
possible to consider that it was indeed Thomas the Aııııenian who rebelled after
Leo's death when he heard of his murder by Michael.The note by the Continuator
and Michael that Thomas rebelled against Michael out of lıatred for him and
because he wanted to avenge Leo58 would tlıerefore apply to the ArmenianThomas,
not to the Slav.The confusion between these two persons, whcim we will discuss
further in Chapter 13, allows us to suppose that Thomas the Armenian rebelled
early in 821 probably by joining the invasion ofThomas the Slav, with whom he
was inextricably confounded by later writers.

2.3 An Army ofBarbarians?

. .
The distinction of Thomas the Armenian from Thomas the Slav allows us to
reconsider anew the origins of his uprising. We have already established in section
2.1 that Thomas the Slav rose in amıs under Leo V. In Chapter 13. l we will be
able to establish to what extent Thomas was backed by the Abbasid caliphate
and see that his usurpation could in·fact be labelled as an invasion rather than a
civil war. Then, we will analyse the conflict under the broader perspective of the
continuous warfare between the Arabs and Byzantines that lasted until the very
end of the reign ofTheophilos.There is, however, another angle to be considered
now, namely the support given to the usurpation of Thomas by some peoples
and nations of eastern Anatolia, as reflected in Christian sources. The point to be

;x Th. Cont. il.11 (52.12-14) and Gen. 11.2 (23.80-86).

46 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd tlıe Eası. 829-842

clıecked is wlıether some areas to the east of Byzantium could become a source
ofunrest and destabilization for the empire. even more than the caliphate itself.
As we have already seen in section 2.1, the Letter to Louis mentioned the
presence of "Saracens, Persians, lberians, Anneniakoi, Abasgians and the other
people of the foreign nations" among those serving in Thomas' army. This
information was accepted by Paul Lemerle as far as it refers to the Caucasians
(lberians, Arnıenians and Abasgians). He did not accept, however, that Arab
troops played a significant role in the invasion. 59 We will consider this !ast point,
as already nıentioned, in Chapter 13.2. ft is the presence of contingents other than
Arabs in Thonıas' arnıy that will be OLır concem now.
The Continuator nıentions among Thoınas' followers Arabs from the ten-itories
bordering the Empire but also fronı more distant lands (Ayaprıv&v µ6vov ı:o(mov
811 TffiV ��llV YElTOVOUVT(l)V Kai 6�topoUVTCOV, &.na Kai atıT(ı)V TO)V EVöürcpov
oiıcouvTo)v), as well as Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Assyrians, Armenians,
Chaldians, lberians, Zechoi, Kabeiroi (AiyurcTiü)V, 'Jv8&v, Ticpcrföv, Acrcrupicov,
Ap�tEvicov, X6.A.8cov, 'IPııpo)v, Zrıxföv. KaPcipcov) and all kinds of followers of
Mani (rc6.vmv 811 T&v To1ç MavEvToç crucrrnıxouvTON 86yµa.crı ıcai 0ı::crrcicrµacrı).60
The same list appears in Genesios with some more names inseıied at different
points: Abasgians (cited also by Michael's Letter ta Louis), Slavs, Huns, Vandals,
Getai, Lazians and Alans.61 Scholars consider these two lists, especially the one by
Genesios, rhetorical to a great extent, as aınplifications ofthe shorter one provided
by the Letter to Loııis.62 Gregoire even suggested that some oral source underlay
them.63 Nonetheless, some of the names given are anything but common and
would hardly be recognizable by a standard Byzantine reader, so we should not so
easily discard the list as a fanciful product ofthe imagination ofour two historians.
A closer examination ofthe names ofthe nations is worth pursuing.
We can distinguish several groups in the nations apparently suppoıiing Thomas'
anny. The first is composed ofpeoples from Byzantium's eastem periphery, maybe
dissatisfied with Constantinople's policy and administration but not necessarily with
Leo's iconoclasm. These are mostly peoples of the Caucasus region, such as the
Annenians, Chaldians, lberians, Zechoi, and Kabeiroi named by the Continuator, to
which we can add the Abasgians, Lazians and Alans named by Genesios.
From this list only the names of Zechoi and Kabeiroi present some difficulty.
The Zechoi (Zrıxföv in the Continuator) could be identified with the Zichi or

59 Lemerle (1965) 285-7.

60 Th. Cont. II.12 (55.4-8). Fora comment on this list cf. Signes Codofier (1995)
239--41 and 245-6.
61 Gen. II.2 (24.17-21): µaı:' A:yapııvö:ıv 'Ivoö:ıv Aiyuınirov A.crcrupirov MiJorov
A.pacrirov Zrıxö:ıv 'IPiJprov KaPEiprov ı:ıcıı.6.Prov Oüwrov BavoiJıı.rov raı:ö:ıv ıcai öcroı ı:fjç
Ma.vEVı:oç Poıııı.up(aç �LEı:etxov, AaÇrov ı:ıı ımi Aıı.avrov Xaıı.orov ı:E ıcai A.p�tEV[rov ıcai ıhııprov
JtaVı:üt(l)V e0vöiv.
6'
Lemerle ( 1965) 265, note 36 and 271, note 65 and Köpstein ( 1983) 78, note 111.
,;.ı Vasiliev ( 1935) vol. 1, 31, note 2.
 Uııresı cıt the Ecısterıı Border 47

Kha z a rs
Huns?

'
(
"""----,
Syrians
ı
----------, ', }) 50 100 15Ömilİ!s

Map 1 Peoples supposedly recruited in Thomas' army as mentioned by the

Continuator and Genesios

Circassians, named after the Turkish word Çerkes that designates some tribes of
the northwestem Caucasus, and specially the Adyghs and their related neighbours,
the Kabardians, More problematic is the reference to the Kabeiroi. Whereas the
Continuator has Ka.PEiprov, the manuscript of Genesios reads z:a.p�prov, The !ast
name immediately recalls the Sabirs or Sabirian Huns, a Turkish tribe known to the
Byzantines in Late Antiquity64 and also living in the northwestem Caucasus, But
this could be an emendatfon by the antiquarian Genesios of his source text, since
the manuscripts of Skylitzes, who copies from the Continuator, have Ka.pEiprov or
Ka.p�prov, Accordingly, if the Continuator did not in tum make a mistake when
copying from his source (a mistake repeated by Skylitzes), we must consider
Ka.pı::iprov as the right reading and suppose that Genesios substituted the well­
lmown Sabirs for the unknown KabeiroL In this case, who were these Kabeiroi?
The name could refer to the Kabars, a branch ofthe Khazars, who moved to the
west perhaps at the beginning ofthe ninth cenhıry as a result ofan intema! crisis of
the khaganate, We will consider in Chapter 20.2 the problems related to this crisis,
but for the moment it suffices to say that while the direct presence of tribes of the
K.hazars in Thomas' army may be important for the so-called I<.hazar question, it is
by no means assured, for the vocalism a. appearing in Byzantine sources refen-ing

1'�
See Malalas XVIII. 70 (394.13): Ouvvot I:6.Pııp1oı:;,
 Tlu: E111perıır Tlıeoplıi/ns wıd ılıe Eası, 829-841

to the Kabars<,5 does not fit with the vocalism Etlıı found in mır text, although a
confusion bep,veen a and ı::ı is easy to explain palaeograpbically. However, to
identify these Kabeiroi as tbe inhabitants ofNeo-Kaisareia, whose ancient name is
Kabeira (KaPEipa) and borders Chaldia on the west, seems odd, for the name was
not used at the time.6r, Skylitzes refers to the KapEipoı along with Arabs, Turks and
Persians in a later context, but their identity is not clear.67 Some connection with the
Arabic kqfır, "unbeliever", could be also possible.68 However, we do not know of
any specific people to \vhoın this designation could apply.
in any case, some of the peoples listed by our two historians are located in
the northwestern Caucasus, namely lberians, Zechoi, Abasgians, Lazians, Alans,
and eventually the Sabirs/Kabirs/Kafirs (see Map 1). Therefore the possibility of
identifying the Huns ınentioned by Genesios with the north Caucasian Huns is to be
considered, although this people is not recorded after the seventh century, probably
because it was incorporated into the Khazar khaganate.69 But the name may refer
to the Hungarians, wbo along with the aforeınentioned Kabars rebelled against the
Khazars, perhaps as early as the beginning ofthe ninth century. 70
it is interesting to note that ali these peoples or tribes were related to or subjects
of° the Khazars, the dominant power nortb of the Caucasus. So, certainly, were
the Iranian Alans of the Caucasus. 71 The Abasgians (cited by Genesios and the
Letter to louis) are today named Abkhazians and border the Georgians, who were
also certainly subject to the Khazars at the time. Their ruler Leo II governed the
territoıy in 810-811 and 837 as a dependency of Khazaria (see Chapter 15.2).
The same can probably be said of their neighbours the Lazians and also of the
already discussed Zechoi and Sabirs. lt is also possible that the Slavs mentioned
by Genesios as supporters ofThomas refer not to the tribes ofthe Balkans, but to
the eastern Slavs paying tribute to the Khazars (see Chapter 20.1 ).
It could also be that the presence of these peoples at Thoınas' side reflects
somehow the alliance of the rebel with the ınighty power to the north of the
Caucasus. The Khazars had frequently been involved in Byzantine affairs since
Herakleios' time in the seventh centuıy. It suffices to men tion here the marriage of

65 See De administraııdo iıııperio 39 and 40 with repeated mentions ofthe Kapa.pot.

66 REX.2 col. 1397.
67 Skyl., Konstanıiııos Moııomcıclıos 9 (445.55) and 13 (449.81).
68 The Greek beta was pronounced at this time as voiced bilabial fricative [v] and
therefore close to the voiceless labiodental fricative [f].
69 See Moravcsik (1958) vol. 2, 231-7, who considers that there are no mentions
later than the seventh century of the Huns living east of the Maeotid sea and that most of
the references to Huns in the ninth century are to the Bulgarians. For the close connections
between Khazars and Huns see Dunlop (1954) 6-8, 27-8, 33, 43-4.
7° Krist6 (1996) 57-95 and R6na-Tas (2007) 274-5. See Chapter 19.2.
71 Alemany (2000) 180-81, Brook (2006) 138-9 and especially Arzhantseva (2007)
59-60, who distinguishes between eastern Alans inhabiting the area around the Darial
pnss nnd dependent on tlıe Klıaiars, and pro-Byzantine western Alans inhabitiııg the upper
Kuban valley and rnostly independent.
 Unres/ at ılıe Easıem Border 49

a Khazar priııcess to the emperor Constantiııe V. n They were naturally concerııed

about their southern frontier, as most of their imports came through the Caucasus.
As a result, many Khazars settled in the north Caucasus and led militaıy
expeditioııs further south. 73 A Khazar army had in fact invaded Muslim countıy
as far as the river Araxes in Azerbaijan in 799.74 The supposition that the Khazars
backed Thomas' usurpation and even sent waıı-iors of their ımılti-ethnic empire
to support him must remain unconfiııned for Khazars are not named either by mır
two historians or by any other source as having played any role in the events, as
would be expected, for they were the major power in the region. 75 However, ifthe
peoples listed by our two historians and in the Letter ta Lauis were effectively
supporting Thomas, this could not have happened without the Khazars' consent.
Apart from these peoples, Armenians also appear in the lists of Thomas'
fighters. These must be liııked with the inhabitants ofthe frontier thema ofChaldia,
where many Armenians were living. As the Letter ta Laııis ınentions that Thomas
fought initially in Aıınenia and Chaldia during Leo's reign, it can be admitted
without problem that he gaiııed the suppoıt of the populations there for his massive
attack against Constantinople as early as during Michael Il's reign. 7r,
Finally, we must add the ·reference to the Manicheans. They come !ast in the
list of the Coııtinuator, who refers to "ali tl10se who followed the doctrines and
decrees of Manes".77 We tinci the same mention in Genesios but before the names
ofLazians, Alans, Chaldians andArmenians. The Paulikianoi are surely refetTed to
here. 78 This dualist sect with some centuries ofhistoıy behind it was ruled between
801 and 835 by the "heresiarch" Sergios, surııamed Tychikos (a disciple of Saint
Paul mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles). Sergios had begun to ıule over the
Paulician church in K.oinochorion, in the district ofNeo-K.aisareia, when the sect
was stili tolerated by the Byzantine authorities, who probably followed for some
time the same indulgent policy the Isaurians adopted in the eighth cenhııy towards
soıne minorities considered cnıcial for preserving stability at the easterıı border of
the empire.79 Nonetheless, Michael I Rhangabe probably began to prosecute these
minorities, Paulikianoi andAthinganoi especially, during his short reign (811-813).
Leo the Arınenian continued to prosecute them according to Peter of Sicily, the
main source for the Paulikianoi at this period. This caused the Paulikianoi to ınove
n For an assessınent ofthe refations between Khazars and Byzantines during the first
decades of the ninth century, see Chapters 19-20.
73
Brook (2006) 180-81. $ee further Dunlop ( 1954) 46-88 for the conflicts between
Khazars and Arabs around the Caucasus.
74 Dunlop (1954) 183-5 and Brook (2006) 132.
75 Unless we consider that the Huns named by Genesios are in fact our Khazars!
1" Letter to Loııis 476.23-25.
77 Th. Cont. 11.12 (55.8-9).
78 For the Paulikianoi see Garsoran (1960), Lemerle (1973), Barnard (1974) and
Ludwig (1998). For a broader perspective see the older study of Runciman ( 1947).
7'' For the history of the Paulikiaııoi at tlıis period I follow GarsoYaıı ( 1960) 119-20
and 124-5.
50 Tlıe E111pemr Tlıeoplıilos and ılıe Eası, 829-842

eastwards and establish theınselves outside the imperial territoıy. Sergios took
refuge in the doınain of the Arab emir ofMelitene and settled in Argaous, some
30 km to the north of Melitene. From there the Paulikianoi led raids on iınperial
territory. When these raids began is not altogether clear, but Peter of Sicily
refers to 'Umar ibd 'Abdallah ibn Marwan al-Aqta', known as Monocherares
(Movoxı::paprıç), who had govemed Melitene since the 830s.80 Tlıus, although
the connection between the Paulikianoi and Thoınas is not explicitly made,81 it
could be taken for granted that if there were Paulikianoi settled in the area at the
time (and that seems to be veıy likely), they sided with Thomas. Moreover, the
Melitene region needed to be secured by Thomas as an ally before risking any
invasion into Byzantine lands.
The sources infornı us of further persecution of the Paulikianoi in the reign
ofTheophilos, thus confirıning that they continued to be a serious problem in the
area during the whole period, long before the major wars conducted against them
during the reign ofBasil I. Thus, in the L!fe of/vlakarios, the abbot oftlıe Bithynian
nıonastery of Pelekete, the hagiographer Sabas telis us that when Makarios was
put in jail in Constantinople (ev ı:q) oı:;cr�tornw[c.p) by the eınperor Theophilos
because of his adherence to icon worslıip, sonıe "Paulikianoi or Manicheans"
(naultvta.crı:oıv ... iırnı Mavıxaimv) were also iınprisoned there, waiting for the
execution of the deatlı senteııce (ı:ııv eıri 0avarnv ,ır�cpov) tlıat had been imposed
on them. The saint succeeded in converting one of them, who was the only one to
escape capital punishment. 82 This is clear proof of Theophilos' concem with the
increasing activity ofthe Paulikianoi on the eastem border ofthe empire.
Even more interesting are the details about the Paulikianoi provided by the
version r ofthe Acta /vlartyrıım Amoriensiıım. 83 This version, centred on the life
ofKallistos, refers to Theophilos sending him as dux to Koloneia, where the füture
martyr found that "some of tlıe officers had become infected with tlıe illness of
the Manichean heresy" (nvaç ı:&v ev al;ıci:ıµam ı:ııv ı:&v Mavıxaimv vocroüvmç
aıpı:;mv). The saint tried first to convert them but he gave up before their
contumacy. Tlıey tlıen planned to betray hiın and, profiting from some military
encounter with the enemy, they lıanded him over "to some of their Manichean
co-religionists, who after leaving Clıristian customs and territory because oftlıeir
impiety, had subnıitted themselves to the rule ofthe bloodthirsty nation ofHagar"
(rniç cruµ�rucrı:mç auı:&v Mavıxaiotç, 01 'CfJ. Xpıcrnav&v ı<ai e0rı ıcai Öpta. ota ı:&v
crcpfüv CiıtOA.lıtOV'CtÇ OU<J<J8PttaV . 'UıtO<JıtOVOOUÇ €UU'COUÇ ıtcıtOl�KUcrt 'COlÇ eıc 1:�Ç
'Ayap aiµoxmpfoıv e0vı::mv). The hagiographer adds that Karbeas, the leader of
these Paulikianoi living under the Arabs, put Kallistos in prison with some ofhis

80 PıııbZ #8552 and PBE s.v. "Monocherares 1".

81
Garsoıan ( I 960) 124, note 47 is however certain that the Paulikianoi took part in
the rebellious anny ofThomas.
81 Sabas, l[fe of Makarios 13-14 (159.5-19). See PıııbZ #4672 and PBE s.v.
"Makarios 9".
'-' See also Chapter 8.1 lor this work.
 Uııre.ı·ı af ılıe Easıerıı Border 51

servants. However, the caliph was sooıı informed of the importance of the person
captured by tlıe Paulikianoi and an order was given to bring lıim as sooıı as possible
to Syria, wlıere he joined in prison the officers taken captive in Amorion.84
As we see, the Paulikianoi had not only infiltrated the Byzantine army, but
also actively collaborated with the Arabs and worked under their protection in
the border areas of northern Syria. it is understandable that Theoplıilos took the
situation very seriously and condeınned some of them to capital punishment, as
tlıe L/fe of Makarios has shown. More important for us now is the pattern provided
by the Paulikianoi, that ofa dissident movement sustained by the rival eınpire (the
caliphate) in order to undermine the defeııces ofthe enemy (tlıe Byzantines) at the
border line. The kind of ınassive militaıy campaigns Ma'mün and Mu'taşim led
against Tlıeophilos in the years 830, 832, 833 and 838 (see Chapters ı'4 and 17) are
perhaps inconceivable without soıne collaboration with the border populations.
Retrospectively, it seems unlikely that Thoınas' iııvasion of Anatolia could have
taken place without the support of these frontier peoples. The mention of the
Manicheans by Genesios and the Continuator as supporters ofThomas accordingly
makes perfect sense.
There are fı.ırther nations mentioned only by Genesios that may have been
included as a rhetorical amplification of the original list, peoples such as Vandals
and Getai, but also Slavs and Huns ifwe discard the connection ofthese !ast two
with the Khazars, as suggested earlier. ln fact, ali these four nations are mentioned
together by Genesios, before the reference to the Manicheans. However, even if
we assume that Genesios added these peoples to a previous list just to exhibit
his knowledge before his readers,85 their inclusion nonetheless makes sense. The
presence of Slavs could have been induced by Thomas's origin and also by the
participation ofthe Slavic tribes ofThrace in the final part ofthe conflict, as Thoınas
installed his headquarters in Adrianopolis. 86 Less logical are the references to the
Getai and the Vandals, which fit in well with the antiquarian taste of Genesios,
who was fond of inserting geographical and etymological explanations for the
place names.87 In any case, by the Getai, Genesios was refeıTing to a people
living probably north of the Danube in a land by then occupied by Slavs and
Hungarians. By the Vandals, he meant the people living in North Africa,88 ruled

s.ı Acta Mart. Anıoı:, vers. f; 29.1-32.

85 This is ·not so evident, for the Continuator does not include the Abasgians in his
list and they appear in Genesios and the Letter to Louis. Tlıus, at least in this case, the
Contimıator seems to have suppressed the reference to the Abasgians from his source
whereas Genesios preserved it.
86 For the c!ose relations between Slavs and Klıazars in the steppes see however
Kalinina (2007).
87 Signes Codoi'ier (1995) 671.
sx Alemany (2000) 181 mentions tlıat groups ofVaııdals took part in tlıe defeııce oftlıe
tlıeıııes ofAsia Minor after the canıpaigııs ofBelisarios.
52 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/os anıl tlıe Eası. 829-842

by the Aghlabids at the time.89 lt appears highly improbable that Thomas was
reinforced by troops coming from the Dniester and l'roın Africa. Maybe Gcnesios
was siınply marking a connection between Thomas' invasion and other events
of the period, suclı as the fighting north of the Danube between Hungarians and
Byzantines deported there since Krum's time (see Chapter 20. l) or the in vasion of
Crete, carried out by Spaniards who had close connections with the Aghlabids (see
Chapter 13.3 ), but this ınay presuppose too ımıch thinking on his part. The most
prudent conclusion is therefore to think that Genesios rhetorically added these
four references to "Slavs, Huns, Vandals and Getai" (IKM�mv Oüvvmv Ba.v8�1ı.mv
rımııv) just to broaden the historical dimensions of the conftict. Their grouping
and the absence of any con-espondence with the list of the Continuator suggest
this. The addition nıay have been inspired by some historical events, but this does
not mean that Genesios here reflects historical truth.

2.4 Fracture in the Empiı-e

Undoubtedly, the support of caliph Ma'mün for the usurperThomas, enabling the
presence of important contingents of Muslim fighters aınong Thoınas's troops,
explains Thomas' strength and his initial victories, a problem we will approach
in Chapter 13.1-2. However, the rebels continued to fight strenuously even after
Thomas' death, both in Thrace and eastern Anatolia: there must have been a cause
for that beyond Ma'mün's suppoıi, a cause that seems to bear no connection at
ali with icon worship. This cause is not mentioned in any account of the conflict,
perhaps because Byzantine historians classified the historical processes according
to the usual categories of historiography. For them there was no need to go beyond
the label of"usurpation" when describing the imperial ambitions ofThomas.They
apparently did not need causes to explain how a usurper's invasion backed by the
Arabs became the "civil war" they describe in very vivid terms. Only if the civil
war had been proınpted by religious considerations could we have expected some
references to this aspect. But this was clearly not the case, as icons are practically
absent from the accounts of the civil war except for two or three scant allusions.
it is accordingly extremely difficult for a modern historian to ascertain the real
motives for the crisis in the conventional narrative of the contemporary sources.
However, although the evidence is lacking, some points may be briefly assessed.
Tensions between the east and west of the empire may explain to a certain
extent the support Thomas found for his cause among the eastern nations named
by the sources we have just considered in section 2.3. Certainly, Thomas found
supporters also in Macedonia and Thrace during the conflict, but it is to be
suspected that this was only a consequence of his previous victories in Anatolia,

"'' Alemaııy (2000) conjectures that it is feasible to recognize in tlıe Getai tlıe Crimeaıı
Gotlıs.
 U11rcsı aı ılıe Ecısıcrıı !hırı/er 53

as he had enouglı money for paying soldiers in tlıe \Vcst.''" it is interesting in tlıis
regard to consider lıow Genesios clcscribes Tlıomas· rcbellion:

None of tlıose wlıo originatcd in tlıc cast. or in tlıc wcst itselt: failed to support
lıim, ııeitlıer did forcign nations tlıat lıad conıc to dwcll in tlıc Empire, nar its own
natives, ııor its nciglıbours, nor any slavcs tlıal lıatcd thcir masters, ııor entire
ııatioııs, nar ali tlıose who ruslıcd to him at various timcs and followed him, some
fightiııg by laııd ancl soıııc by sca. 1-le scenıcd to be a ııcw Xerxes, although one
of tlıe sanıe faitlı, and tlıercfore ali tlıe tlıeıııes lıurried to ally themselves with
lıim along witlı tlıcir Stratcgoi. Only Olbianos, thc strategos of the Armeniakon
tlıcme, kept his lroops in !ine by his slırewclncss, aııcl alsa Katakylas, tlıe strategos
of tlıe Opsikion llıcıııc, ancl tlıcy botlı reıııainccl loyal to Miclıael.'ıı

Apparently everybocly supportecl Tlıomas, in the east as well as in the west.

However, if we look at tlıe passage with sonıe attention, Genesios declares first
tlıat "none of tlıose wlıo originated in the east faileci to support Thomas" (ouoeic;
oı': n7ıv ı':/; avmoıı.i'jı; (İıppıwcv(l)V aıı:cıı.ı�mavc,o), aııd only tlıen adds "ancl from
tlıe west itsell'' (ouöı': njı; foıı:tpnı; u.tmjı;), as a kinci of furtlıer precision. That tlıis
precision was not casual becomes clear wlıen we conıpare tlıis passage with the
parallel text of the Continuator, who reliecl on tlıe sanıe source:

He prevailecl witlı pcrsuasioıı aııd a certaiıı aıııiability upon tlıosc wlıo had clcsire far
a ııew state ofaffairs aııd tlıeir own cnriclııııcnt, but witlı force and against the will of
those wlıo had alreacly lıacl bacl experience of civil revolts. Hence did servants raise
ınurderous haııds against tlıeir masters, and thc solclier against his sergeaııt, ancl
tlıe captain agaiııst his general, uııtil ali ofAsia was submerged in 111cianing. Soıne
cities with ali their iııhabitants took Tlıomas's side, won over by fear, but others
ofteıı resisted, keeping faith witlı tlıe emperor, and were subseqtı�nUy subdued
witlı much slaughter aııcl enslavement. Nevertlıeless, ali Asia follg':"�dJ1irri, except
far Katakylas, general of the Opsikion ancl Olbianos of the }.,\rınf:hiaköi, far these
geııerals proved to be tlıe only wlıo kept faith witlı Michae.L92

Here any reference to support from the west has disappe;tx4-'THe Continuator
says only tlıat ali Asia followecl Thomas (n:füm Acria q�i&r;)'.'ifafıfou·eyEvern).
Moreover, the text also says that many people were in factol:ı!_igy�JcfiWpcırtThomas
"with force and against their will" (Pic;ı. ımi ')'Vffi�LTI apquıı,fıı-w)1J9rJp�y,had already
had bad experiences in civil wars. This can only signify th�ft6ifwere"ıınwilling
to lend support to any tentative push against the emperor.93 ,'Ihe:�ontıiuıator even

90
This is expressly stated by Tlı. Cont. 11.11 (53.6-9) and (}t!n:JI.2, (23.90-93).
91
Gen. II.2 (23.93-24.7) in the translation of Kalclellis (1998) 28. ·
'" Tlı. Coııt. 1.11 (53.10-54.2).
"J
As we consicler in Clıapter 5.2, it is likely that Miclıacl clid not lıavc time to appoint
ııew coınnıaııclcrs to ali oftlıe llıeıııcs except preciscly for Katakylas aııcl Olbianos.
54 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ılıe Ecısı, 829-842

rnentions that rnany cities supported the usurper out of convenience, "persuaded
by fear" (TQ) cp6pqı rrı,m0sicrm). Inhabitants of other cities were slaughtered and
enslaved after resisting the usurper. These cities are not further identified, but
it is imrnediately after this remark that the Continuator refers to the continuing
support of ali Asia for Thomas despite his harshness (rr1ı.ıiv ana rra.cm Acria ...). it
seems that Thomas' eastern troops found some difficulties even in subduing part of
Anatolia, probably the more crowded cities of the western part.
The Life of Peter ofAtrocı, written by Sabas as early as 847,94 has preserved
soıne stories of personal resistance against Thomas among the inhabitants of
northwest Anatolia that are perhaps worth mentioning here. In fact, only two
persons are clearly mentioned who followed Thomas in the area. The first case
concerns the son ofa consul who entered Thomas' army (rrpoç ,ov cr-rpa-rov mü
-rupcı.vvou 0u)�la. fou-rov rrpocr�ti�aç 6 vı,cincpoç -r�v rr61ı.ıv rrsptcıca0tÇı:;-ro) and even
participated in the siege ofConstantinople.95 The second case is a notaıy from Lydia
named Zacharias who also sided with Thomas and, after being captured by the
emperor Michael, was iınprisoned on an island.96A third case is more speculative,
for it refers to a protospatharios named Staurakios who was accused ofconspiracy
against the eınperor, although we do not know whether the accusation held true or
even the motives behind it. The date ofthis conspiracy is not known and therefore
its connection with the civil war remains unsupported.97
Against these isolated cases we have in the Life qfPeter ofA.troa many instances
of people being affected by the invasion and opposing Thomas' soldiers. These
people are soldiers, officials, monks, and even peasants like the one who could not
sow his land for three years. Reading the Life one gets the impression that most of
the population of northwestAnatolia was against the invasion of"eastern peoples".
lt is perhaps no coincidence that Sabas names Thomas' p artisans "Hagarenes" or
"Ismaelites", just Iike his contemporary, Theodore Stoudites, does (see Chapter 13).
It can also be doubted that people in Thrace supported Thomas simply out
of sympathy for his cause when he landed there, after crossing from Asia. The
Continuator says that when the eınperor heard that Thomas was about to land in
Thrace,

... going round ali ofThrace, he incited the more powerful to resist the re bel and
exhorted them to espouse his cause unto shedding their blood, betraying neitlıer
the emperor's faith nor their own courage and virtue. But his aspect seemed
to many as one who had no part in battle; and therefore, after Michael had
withdrawn to the imperial city and Thomas appeared, ali readily went over to his
side, without a word being said (ı:ou 0w�ta 8e Kaı:a n:p6crwn:ov n:apıcrı:a.µevou,

94
Brubaker and Haldon (200 I) 224 consider it "an informative Life containing much
information about the rnonastic and political-economic life ofthe period".
95
Sabas, L(fe ofPeıros ofAtroa (1), §36.
Sabas, L(f'e ofPetros ofAtroa (1 ), R39.
<)(,

>7
1
Sabas, L[f'e <d.Peıros o_(Aıroa ( l ), �57.
 U11resı at ı/ıe Easıerıı Border 55

�tı::m0fo0m cruvePrı ıı:avraç tllKOA.O)Ç, ciıç �ll]OE tı.6you oı::ııS�vm), and they joiııed
tlıc cxpcditioıı led by lıim agaiııst tlıe imperial city.93

Genesios' account is veıy similar, but it contains some additional interesting

details. According to the historian, when Thornas landed in Thrace,

... he there found that all the Thracians had declared for lıiııı (KaTl]K6ouç aı'mp),
eveıı thouglı the emperor, when he had Iearned that tlıe rebel was crossing the
straits at Abydos with his slıips, had ınarched against hiııı witlı a very small
force (61ı.ıyicrntı crTpanp) exacting guarantees from all tlıe cities in Thrace that
they woııld remain faithful to hiın. But ali ofthese cities set little store by tlıeir
pronıises and went over to the tyrant wlıose forces they thus aııgmeııted.99

We now hear that the ernperor had few troops at his disposal for "persuading"
the inhabitants of Thrace to support him. It comes as no surprise that these
went over to the usurper so easily. This means only that they sought their owıı
conveııience, nothing more.
Things, however, began to change as Constantiııople unexpectedly resisted
Thomas' assaults and the siege becaıne prolonged. Some of Thomas' sailors
willingly deserted to Michael when their ships, in flight before the imperial fleet,
m ade land near the city walls. 100 Thereafter Gregory Pterotos abandoned Thomas
with his own troops and began to negotiate a possible surrender with Michael.
Before they came to an agreement Thomas defeated and killed the deserter with
part of the troops that he withdrew from the siege of the capital.ıoı Although the
siege continued after that, Thomas was to experience defeat after defeat, first at
sea and then on Iand, especially after the Bulgarian ld1a11 Omurtag attacked him ·
from Thrace. These failures caused massive desertions in Thomas' army, from the
soldiers who fought the Bulgarians 102 as well as from the fleet that laid siege to
Constantinople. 103 During a pitched battle between them and Michael's troops on the
Diabasis plain (30 miles west ofConstantinople), many soldiers in Thomas' aımy
again took flight without fighting and joined the emperor. The Continuator even
, describes at this point and at some length the demoralization ofThomas' soldiers,
men who had initially thought of fighting a short caınpaign, but in the end found
themselves involved in a long war, deprived oftheir wives and children for many
years and at the will ofa single ınan's wishes and madness (avopoç EVOÇ tıı:ı0wtiı;t

98 Th. Cont. II.13 (57.3-6).

99
Gen. II.5 (27.8-14), trans. Kaldellis (1998) 33.
100 Th. Cont. Il.15 (62.13-14) and Gen. II.6 (28.69-29.70)
101
Th. Cont II.16 (62.19-63.18). Gen. II.6 (29.70-74) does not include these details,
but only an abridged version ofthe events.
ıoz Th. Cont. 11.17 (66.5-8) aııd Gen. 11.7 (30.9).
ıo.ı Tlı. Coııt. 11.17 (66. I 1-13) and Gen. il.7 (29.5).
56 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeoplıi/os aııd ı/ıe Eası, 829-842

Kni c'movoiçı öouı..ı,uovrn,;). 10-ı According to Genesios, the emperor enlisted these
new deserters in his own army and continued the war againstThomas with them. 105
Unexpectedly, althoughThomas' cause seemed to be tost, he contiııued to resist
and retired with a few men to Arkadiopolis, 106 whereas his adopted sonAnastasios
took refuge in nearby Byzes. Thomas was the first to fail into the hands of the
emperor, for the harshness of the siege of Arkadiopolis moved his men to hand
him over to the eınperor, who had promised to pardon them of ali their faults. 107
When the news ofThoınas' capture atArkadiopolis reached his men in Byzes, they
in turn betrayed his sonAnastasios and surrendered him to the emperor Michael. 108
Nonetheless, not ali of Thomas' soldiers betrayed him in these last stages of the
war, for soıne of the defonders of Arkadiopolis, after leaving the city under the
emperor 's guarantee of immunity, huıTied to join Anastasios' troops in Byzes. 10q
Moreover, after the capture and ensuing death ofThomas and Anastasios, some of
their partisans resisted for some time longer in Panion and Herakleia on the north
coast of the Sea of Marmara.' 10
What could have ınoved these men to coııtinue the fight uııder such desperate
conditions? Th_e emperor promised aınnesty aııd pardon to all the followers of
Thonıas aııd he seems to have effectively kept his word, so that there was apparently
no reason to contiııue the war. Probably the higb officials and conımandants in
Thonıas' army tried to avoid defections by harsh measures against the lıalf-hearted
and traitors, but this is perhaps not enough to explain the apparently unexpected
resistance of theThonıasians in Arkadiopolis.
The Continuator, who usually embellishes his naıTative with reflections of his
own, seems also to have seriously considered this question, for he wonders about
the motives that pushed these men to continue fighting until the end. He says that
perhaps they were ali moved by their innate hatred ofMichael (ı:ocroihov iipu �Licroı;
ı<:m:a. ı:ou MLXUTJA niicrtv evscpu), but mainly because they did not want to follow
his iconoclastic policy. 111 This !ast cannot be true, for no mention of this point
is made during the whole account of the civil war. And even the Stoudites sided
with the eınperor (see Chapter 13.2). I think therefore that the last resistance of
theThomasians was due to the circumstance that most of them felt like foreigners
in Thrace. Many of them were men of fortune, far away from their homes and
families, who probably did not find it easy to believe the promises of forgiveness

ıo-ı Th. Cont. II.17 (67.9-68.4).

ıos Gen. fl.8 (30.28-29).
106
Th. Cont. II.18 (68.4-5) has Adrianopolis as the place where Thomas sought
refuge, but this is surely an error, for ali the other sources have Arkadiopolis; see Signes
Codofier ( 1 995) 272.
107
Th.Cont. ll.19 (68.11-69.12) and Gen. 11.8 (30.28-31.51).
108
Th. Cont. II.19 (70.20-71.3) and Gen. II.8 (31.60-63).
1"''
Tlı. Cont. 11.19 (69.5-6) and Gen. 11.8 (31.45-46).
11"
Th.Cont. ll.20 (71.4-14) and Gen. II.9 (31.64--32.80).
111
Tlı.Cont.11.20(71.6-9).
 Unresı at t!ıe Ecıstem Border 57

of the enıperor, which were mainly addressed to tlıe Byzaııtine countrymen who
rallied around Thomas' "barbarians". Therefore the unexpectecl rcsistaııce shown
by some ofThomas's partisans at tlıe very end ofthe civil war has probably nothing
to do with some kinci of commitment to a revolutionary cause, but sinıply arose
out of desperation, as they were outnumbered by tlıe prevailing imperial forces.
However, the climension of the conflict was not only a quantitative, but also
a qualitative, novelty. The number of troops involvecl, including the fleet, was
unprececlentecl in Byzantine history for a civil war. This is exactly what has
moved some modern scholars to connect Thomas's usurpation and the ensuing
civil war with some kinci ofsocial fractures ancl conflicts within the eınpire. Helga
Köpstein has defended witlı a certain success this particular approach to the crisis
from a Marxist point of view. m But the evidence adduced does not support this.
Certainly, there were 111any social and economic conflicts in Byzantium betweeıı
the classes, the poor aııcl the mighty if we speak in meclieval terms. But I cloubt
whether Thomas could have ralliecl so many supporters arouncl lıim for this motive
aloııe. Ancl tlıe evidence of the sources is scaııty aııcl aınbiguous.
For exaıııple, tlıe lıeavy taxes on tlıe population of Anatolia as well as tlıe fact
tlıat tlıeir reveııue was administerecl in Constantinople coulcl have playecl a role in
mobilizing tlıe rebels against Michael, as Köpstein rightly argues. 11J But this leacls
again to regional tension, as Thomas apparently clid not take any steps to subvert
the prevailing taxation system. 114
Nevertheless, we ımıst pay attention to some references ınacle by the
Continuator ancl Genesios to social clashes incluced by the war. The Continuator,
when describing the civil war, speaks of servants raising murderous hands against
tlıeir rnasters, solcliers against their sergeants, and captains against their generals. 115
We find in Genesios, who uses the same source as the Continuator, a reference to
"slaves who hated their masters"116 among a description of Thornas' supporters
that contains mainly allusions to the foreign peoples that were fighting with the
usurper. in another passage the Continuator says: "Fathers took tıp arıns against
their sons, brothers against those bom of the same womb, ancl finally friencls
against tl10se whö lovecl them the most."117 Shoulcl we consider these references
something more than rhetorical commonplaces used by the common source of
both authors for describing a civil war.?
Worcling similar to the !ast passage of tlıe Continuator appears in the Life of
Joannikios by Peter: "For father handed over child to death, ancl children their
fathers, and brothers brothers and friends friends and, simply put, great grief

m Köpstein (1983).
113 Köpstein (1983) 77-8.
114 See Lemerle (1965) 294-7, wlıo characterizes the civil war as "un conflit entre
l'empire et Constantinople".
ıı; Th. Cont.1.1 1 (53.15-17).
116
Gen. 11.2 ( 23.95).
117 Tlı. C'oııt. 1.9 (4 9.2 2-50.3 ).
58 T/ıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 819-841

possessed the whole land." II8 But in this case, the text refers to the consequences
of Leo 's iconoclasın. Thus I would not push too far these lists ofdisgraces, even if
they refer to slaves killing their masters. That many ofThomas's supporters were
mercenaries or soldiers of fortune, poor people who looked for an opportunity to
prosper in the war, was surely nothing exceptional and may account for the social
upheavals mentioned by Genesios and the Continuator, who probably followed
a Constantinopolitan source hon·ified by the presence of foreigners of lower
standing present at the siege ofthe city.
The references to farnilies split because of the war obviously excludes social
causes and points instead to personal convenience as a cause for taking sides
with one faction or another. Members ofthe same farnily could have made a very
di fferent assessrnent of the situation and reacted in different ways. Thus the Lıfe
of Peıer of Atroa telis us that a consul faithful to Michael saw his son embracing
Thornas's cause.119 But cases tike this occurred ali the time and the same work
also telis us that during the reign ofTheophilos a rnan revealed to the eınperor
llıe place where his father-in-law, accused of conspiracy, was hiding. I20 People
could alsa change sides more than once, as the case of Gregory Pterotos proves.
As a cousin of Leo, he should have opposed Thomas when he rebelled against
the emperor. However, when Leo was murdered, Gregory was put in prison by
Michael on an Aegean island and sided with Thornas, who released him and gave
hirn a comrnand in his aımy. Again, when the siege of Constantinople started,
Pterotos left Thoınas' army and began to negotiate with Michael his going over
to him. 12I This changing of sides probably affected only higher officials and
the upper classes, who generally consider their own benefit and prosperity, not
necessarily for ideological reasons, but according to the circumstances in which
they are involved. There is no evidence that peasant or ordinary families were split
between their allegiance to Thomas or to Michael.
On balance, we may conclude that the invading army of Thomas won the
allegiance ofthe armies ofAnatolia and ofa significant part ofits population at a
very early stage in the conflict. However, this support relied to a great extent on
the rnanpower ofits army, recruited from among the peoples ofthe Caucasus area
and reinforced by Muslim troops. This very circurnstance probably soon alienated
the western part of the Empire frorn upholding Thornas's cause: the cities that
rallied to Thomas in Thrace were rnost probably adapting to circuınstances, when
the initial military successes ofThomas seerned to anticipate a swift victory over
Michael.
As no proof ofsocial conflicts has been found, the most logical conclusion is
that the civil war dragged on mainly because ofthe regional tensions between the
west and the east ofthe empire. This tension was certainly not new, but it reached a

118
Peter, L/fe ofIoaııııikios, 394, in the translation of Sullivan ( 1986) 274.
11"
Sabas, L(l'e ofPeter ofAıroa (1), §36.
12"
Sabas, L(fe ofPeter ofAtroa ( I }, �64. For tlıis episode see Chapter 24.
121
PmbZ#2477 and PBEs.v. "Gregorios 71".
 Uıırest at tlıe Easıern Border 59

climax at tlıe time, for otlıerwise the war would not lıave lasted for so many years,
nor would Thomas's partisans lıave remained faithful to lıim under such adverse
circumstances. However, tlıere is a lack of evidence allowing us to examine more
deeply tlıe causes tlıat provoked tlıese regional tensions between tlıe east and west
of the Empire. Of course cultural conflict comes first to mind, especially if we
consider the significant presence of tlıe Caucasians in Tlıomas' anny (see section
2.3). But there must have been something more, perhaps a reaction against the
dominance ofthe capital itselfwith its suırnundings teıTitories, whiclı were tlıe final
destination of the taxes collected in Anatolia. Unfortunately, the sources show us
only the surface and not the inside. But icon worslıip appears to pay no role in the
conflict, thus proving that to label the period "iconoclast" may prove alien to the
real concerns of ordinary people at tlıe time. That the popularity ofTheophilos, to
be considered in the Epilogue, could survive unchanged the definitive restoration
oficon worship in 843 is ample demonstration ofthis point.
 SECTION II
The Annenian Court

In a prosopographical study written ınore than twenty years ago, David Turner
concluded: "Prosopographical research for the early ninth century can help the
historian understand relationships which united what otherwise appear to be diverse
figures. it can now be seen that scions ofthe faınily ofBardanes the Turk ruled the
eınpire f rom 813 to 867, ınaking this period ınore A1111eniaı1 than Amorian." 1 He
referred then to the fact that the Armenian general Bardanes the Turk, whom we
mentioned in Chapter 1.1-2, was not only the uncle ofLeo the Amıenian, but also
father-iıı-law ofboth Michael ofAmorion and the Armenian general Leo Skleros.
There have been since then studies on the A1111enian connectibns ofthe iconoclast
emperors of the ninth century, culıninating in the vast and documented work of
Christian Settipani.2 in his book overwhelming eviclence has been brought together
concerning Amıenians in the Byzantine Empire in the ninth century, making this
periocl truly Armenian, as Turner had already suggested.
The prosopographical reconstruction of the family relationships as proposed by
Settipani is not always reliable, for he pushes the evidence too far in tıying to connect
scattered names in an all-embracing family tree. Nevertheless, a prosopographical
approach such as that made by Settipani is needed for understanding the period. We will
not enter here into many details, for they have been discussed elsewhere and recollected
in Settipani's book, but it is perhaps advisable to reassess a few points in order to
obtain a clearer picture of the period. We will begin by discussing the family links
that united Michael ofAmorion to Leo the Arnıenian, as well as the influence ofLeo's
partisans in the füst part ofMichael's reign (Chapter 3). The marriage ofTheophilos
to Theodora in 821 will then be analysed against this background (Chapter 4).
Thereafter we will pay attention to the role played by Manuel the Aımenian, a relative
ofTheodora whose career began well before the accession ofLeo the Aımenian to the
throne and who, after a long exile, became one ofthe main supporters ofTheophilos
(Chapter 5). Aıı assessment ofthe political significance ofthe marriage ofMichael to
Euphrosyne, the daughter ofConstantine VI, will follow, in which we will consider
whether the .Amorian tried to detach himself from the Arnıenian paıty at the court
(Chapter 6). Finally, the influence of the Arnıenian members of Theophilos' family
duıing his reign will be traced (Chapter 7), considering also the opposition ofaıistocrats
or traditionalists to the circle ofclose supporters ofthe emperor (Chapter 8).

1
Turner ( 1990) 187.
Settipani (2006).
 Chapter 3
Faınily Ties: Leo the Armenian and
Michael of Amorion

3.1 The Empress Thekla and the Fanıily ofBardanes the Turk

Michael's fırst wife Tlıekla was daughter of Bardanes the Turk, one ofthe leading
Armenians of the beginning of the ninth centuıy. 1 His surname was probably
due to a Khazar descent through his nıother's line.2 Through his father's !ine he
could lıave had Manıikonian origins, as Settipani suggests, but this is conjectural,
for the name is quite frequent at tlıe time3 and also appears in other Armenian
faınilies:1 Anyway, Bardanes could have been descended fronı a princely family
and have rallied around him ımıch support when he clairned the throne in 803.5 As
Settipani convincingly argues, Leo 's father Bardas married the sister of Bardanes
the Turk. 6 This nıarriage seems to have cenıented an alliance between the two
families and fostered the career of Leo, who began his military training under
Bardanes' comınand.
Although Bardanes' uprising failed, he obtained the pardon of emperor
Nikephoros, who probably did not want to alienate his supporters. This is perhaps
the reason why Leo, one of Bardanes' men, was appointed tourmarches of the
phoideratoi.7 However, after Bardanes had retired to a monastery, he was blinded
by some Lykaonians on the secret instructions ofNikephoros, and this event surely
infuriated his partisans, among them Leo.
In 808 there was a second attempt against Nikephoros, this time led by the
quaestor and patrician Arsaber, again an Armenian. He was probably Leo's father­
in-law, as Leo 's wife Theodosia was the daughter of an Arsaber. 8 Was it perhaps
the prestige won by Leo under Bardanes that moved Arsaber to marry him to his
daughter? In any case, the failure ofthis second atteınpt drove Leo into exile, from

1 For Bardane.s see PmbZ,#766, PBE s.v. "Bardanes 3", Tumer (1990) and Settipani
(2006) 231-6.
2
Settipani (2006) 232, note 4.
3 Settipani (2006) 231, note 3 for a list of lead seals of the period with the name
Bardanes, whose identification seems problematic. See also PnıbZ #751-72.
4 Settipani (2006) 490.
5 For his uprising see Kountoura-Galaki (1983).
6
Settipani (2006) 235-6.
7 For the significance of this post see Chapter 2.1.
x Th. Cont. 1.22 (35.7). See PmbZ #600 and PBE s.v. "Arsaber I ''.
64 Tlı<! E111p<!mr Tlı<!oplıilos cıml ılıe Eası, 829-842

which he returııed only when Michael I Rhangabe gained power and appointed
him strategos of the Anatolikoi, the former position hele! by Barclanes the Turk.'>
A parallel case is providecl by Leo Skleros, who most probably marriecl a
claughter of Barclanes. A "claughter of the Turk", who playecl host to Theoclore
Stouclites in her estate in the Anatolikon cluring his exile in Leo's reign, can be
iclentified with a patrician Eirene (also correspondenl of the Stoudites), who
man-ied an Armenian commander ofthe Hellas ancl founclecl a monastery named hoi
Leontes (oi ı\fovrn;).ıo Putting ali these pieces together, David Turner concludes
that Leo Skleros was the husband of Eirene and the son-in-law of Bardanes.11
This Leo Skleros is incleecl mentionecl by the Scriptor Jncertus as being appointed
strategos of the Peloponnesos by Michael I after he fell into disgrace in the
reign of Nikephoros.'2 The marriage between Eirene and Skleros producecl two
claughters (one nanıecl Euphrosyne), 13 who became nuns along with their mother
probably after the father's cleath c. 8 J 8. Ali three women are ınentionecl in the
letters ofTheodore Stoudites. it thus seerns that Leo Skleros also rnade his career
in the shadovv of Bardanes the Turk ancl, after a setback during Nikephoros' reign,
reassumecl iınportant positions in the army with Michael I along with Leo the
Arınenian. The fact �hat Theoclore Stouclites says that Eirene's husband obtainecl
his cornmancls in Greece at1d Armenia "out of his inıperial/royal connection" (sıc
pacrı1cıKou ıcp&.�ta-wc;) 14 could point to a relationship with Leo, also a relative of
Barclanes, although Skleros began his career well before Leo had imperial power.
Is it perhaps an allusion to the Armenian princely bloocl of the Skleroi?
As a third associate of Barclanes we should also mention here Thomas the
Annenian, to be clistinguished from Thomas the Slav, as we have already noted and
will demonstrate more fully in Chapter 13.1.
The marriage of Michael of Amorion to Thekla, also a daughter of Bardanes,
is to be understood against this background. Accordingly, Michael prospered in
the army through his connection with Bardanes. As with Leo, he was rewarded
with a post after Bardanes' failure to obtain the throne in 803. Michael was then
appointed comes cortis by Nikephoros in order to secure his fidelity.15 Nothing
more is known of him until 811, when the two Leos were called by Michael

9
See Turner (1990) 177-80 for this reconstruction of the events. Turner convincingly
proved that Leo the Annenian was not strategos of the Anneniakoi under Nikephoros,
since Th. Cont. I.4 (11.3-1 7) falsely attributed to the future eınperor facts recorded in the
chronicle of Theophanes that actually refen-ed to another Leo. See also Signes Codofier
(1995) 41-5.
10 PmbZ#l446 and PBE s.v. "Eirene 17".
11 Turner (1990) 181-7 and Settipani (2006) 233-4.
1" Serip. ine. 336.5-13. The Leo who held a subordinate comınand in the thema Hellas
during Nikephoros' reign and mentioned in the Clıronic/e of Moııembcısia 18 can also be
identified with Skleros. PıııbZ#4409 does not ınention Turner's hypothesis.
13 PmbZ #1707 and PBE s.v. "Euphrosyne 4".
" Tlıeod. Stoud., Leııers, Nr. 458.27.
ı; Tlı. Cont. 1.3 (9.11-12) aııd 1.4 ( 12.11-12).
 Fami�ı· Ties: Leo ı!ıe Amıe11io11 a11d ı\Iiclıael o/'Amorio11 65

Rhangabe back to the capital. Wlıatever tlıe reason was for Miclıael Rlıangabe to
sunımon tlıese two former associates of Bardanes to Constantinople, 16 tlıey were
rewarded with significant posts: Leo the Annenian was appointed strategos of
the Anatolikoi and Leo Skleros strategos of the Peloponnesos. Michael did not
apparently obtain anything from the new emperor Michael Rhangabe, but if we
give credence to the Continuator, he reassumed his old friendship with Leo, who
made him his most intimate adviser. 17 Michael served Leo as strator when the
latter entered the capital in 8 l 3 as newly elected enıperor. 18 Of his further career as
domestic of the exkoubitores (and toum1arches of the phoideratoi?) during Leo's
reign we have already spokeıı in Chapter 2.1. Here we nıustjust remember that Leo
had acted as godfather to Michael's son Theophilos, surely in order to strengthen
the ties between the two families. 19 This probably took place before 803, the date
ofBardanes' uprising, when both Miclıael and Leo were under his command, and
provides us with an approximate dating for Theophilos' birth.
We nıust also renıenıber that Michael's promotion by Leo was accompanied by
that of Thomas as tourmarches of the phoideratoi, as Leo apparently considered
him his closest friencl since childhood.20
A conımon sense of belonging to the same group, labelled as "lıetaireia" by
Hans-Georg Beck,2' accordingly survived aınong the fo1111er members ofBarclanes'
staff, whiclı apparently only began to disintegrate with Miclıael's conspiracy in
820.21 it can thus be said that what we have labelled until now as Leo's party was
in fact a group constituted during Bardanes' command in Anatolia and made up to
a great extent of Armenians. Naturally the group benefited from the accession of
Leo to power, but was not dependent only on lıim and would eventually survive
without him. This may explain why the Armenians continued to play an important
role even after the murder of Leo, an event we will now consider in some detail.

3.2 Michael's Conspiracy Against Leo

Michael of Amorion was accused twice of conspiracy against Leo the Armenian,
if we lend credence to the Continuator and Genesios. The first time he "managed
with great pain and effort to clear himself' üL6ycp no?ı,ıı.q'> ıcai ıc6nqı an01:phııacr0m

16
Turner (1990) 180-8 ı. suggests tlıat tlıey were tasked witlı neutralizing the
Lykaonian remnants ofNikeplıoros' regime "by lıaving tlıem expelled from tlıe city on the
pretext ofbeing heretics". Leo tlıe Armenian was in fact clıarged to bring tlıese Lykaonians
back to tlıeir Anatolian lıoıneland.
17 Tlı. Cont.1.4 (12.10-14).
18 Tlı. Cont.1.9 (19.5-7).
19 Tlı. Cont. I.12 (23.22-24.1) and Gen. I.11 (9.1-10.1).
20 Tlı. Cont. 1.12 (24.1-2) and Gen. !.11 (9.95-1).
�, Beck (1965).
-- Leo Skleros cliecl c. 818, slıortly before Thomas' revolt began in 819 (Clıapler 2.2).
66 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıilos emel ı!ıe Eası. 829-842

ıcrxucrc:v),"3 but the second time he landed in jail. While he was there, waiting for
his execution, Leo was murdered. it was Christmas 820. Some of the conspirators
went to the prison where Michael was being held, fre�d him and put him on the
throne. As the story goes, Michael's feet were stili in irons.24
Curiously enough, Michael disclaiıned any liability for the ınurder of Leo in
the Leııer to Louis. In it he wrote: "The eınperor Leo was killed suddenly by some
evildoers who organized a conspiracy against him."25 He a!so refers to Thomas as
a conspirator and usurper (tyraıımıs) against Leo. Michael may simply have been
interested in disentangling himself froın the conspirators against Leo, including
among them Thomas, who was apparently unpopular in the west (see Chapter 2),
and Leo's murderers themselves, who defiled the church where they killed the
emperor on Christmas day. However, Michael could have used the occasion to
attack Leo in order to justify his own seizure of power. This was quite frequent in
Byzantium, at least since Herakleios' propaganda against the "tyrant" Phokas at
the begiııniııg of the seventh centuıy. 26 More recently, the Isaurians had also been
the target of many accusations by their immediate successors to imperial power. 27
But Michael does not utter a single word against Leo in the Letter to Loııis. As a
matter of fact, Michael seems tci avoid qualifying Leo in any way and refers to
him witlı reınarkable neutrality and distance only as "Leo, who held the power
before us", "the already mentioned Leo" or "the emperor Leo, reınembered
above". 28 Remarkably, nothing is said about Leo as a ruler. This silence seems
strange from a person who was accused twice of conspiring against the eınperor
and had enough motives to criticize him, nor with a comrade of Leo's who was
preserving his name against his conspirators. The most likely explanation for
this strange detachment is that Michael was in fact continuing Leo's policy but
without any sympathy for Leo himself. Dimitıy Afinogenov speaks appropriately
ofMichael as "a disappointed loyalist".29
This does not mean that Michael was not somehow involved in the murder
of Leo. Afinogenov claims that Michael "was probably not implicated in a

23 Th. Cont. I.21 (34.1), see Gen. I.17 (15.46-47). See Chapter 2.1 for the posts of
tourmarches of the phoideratoi and domestic ofthe exkoubitores tlmt Michael held during
Leo 's reign.
24 Th. Cont. 11.1 (41.7-12) and Gen. II.l (22. 49-51).
15 Letter ıo Louis 476.29: "a quibusdam inprobis, coniuratione in eum facta, subito
occisus est".
26 For the influence ofthe official version of Herakleios' rebellion against Phokas in
modern historiography see Kaegi (2003) 37-57. Far a short overview ofthe life and work
of Herakleios' most impoıtant panegyrist, George Pisides, see Howard-Johnston (2010)
1 6-35.
27 See, far instance, Speck ( 1990).
28 Leller ıo Louis 476.7, 12-13 and 37-8: "tempore Leonis, qui ante nas hoc imperium
tenuit ... ad praedictuın Leonem ... menforatus Leo irnperator".
2" Afinogenov (200 I) 331.
 Faıııi(l' Ties: leo tlıe Arıııeııiaıı aııd Mic/ıael rıf'Amorinıı 67

conspiracy or high treason at the moment ofhis arrest",30 but the evidence ofthe
sources speaks clearly otherwise, for Michael was formally accused ofusurpation
against the emperor according to the Continuator and Genesios.31 More probable
is tlıe participation of Michael in the actual plot that ended with Leo's murder.
According to the sources, Michael contacted the other conspirators from his celi
and threatened tlıem with revealing their names to the emperor if they did not
dare to go on with their murderous attempt. it may have been Michael lıimself
who devised the detailed plan for killing Leo at the palace.32 However, this does
not mean that the conspiracy was the sole result of his personal ambitions. ln
fact, there ımıst have been several groups of people opposecl to Leo at the end
of his reign. Some ofthem were surely opposed to lıim from the very beginning
as partisans ofthe deposecl Michael Rlıangabe ancl the elites ofthe capital. The
icon worshippers joined them after 814-815, when Leo began his iconoclastic
policy. Finally, it may have been a growiııg disaffection with Leo's govemment
that caused tensions among the different regions ofthe ernpire and favoured the
expansion ofThomas' usurpation in the east since 819.
This last event could have triggered a climate of conspiracy and unrest at the
court, which claimed Michael as its first victim. it seems likely that many ofthe
old supporters ofLeo began to waver in their fidelity to the emperor as they noticecl
that there was a real danger oflosing power if Leo continued to rule the empire
without any concessions. Michael could Iıave been one oftlıe closest advisers of
Leo until the very !ast moment. He was in fact a relative of Leo, as we Iıave seen
in section 3.1. Tlıerefore it cannot be siınple coincidence that soıne people wlıo
held key posts in tlıe adıninistration wlıile Michael was in prison were not only
his supporters, but also remained in charge or at his side after Leo's ınurcler, as
the papias ofthe palace (a re!ative of Miclıael),33 the patrician Theoktistos (later
named Master of the Inkpot and regent for Michael IIl)34 and Jolın Hexaboulios
(perhaps logothete ofthe droınos).35 Although the story ofLeo secretly making a
night visit to a sleeping Michael in his cell resembles a folktale in many points,36
the detail ofthe emperor keeping for himselfthe key ofMichael's irons becaUse he
did not trust anybody 37 reflects appropriately the increasing isolation ofthe ruler.
The frequent allusions in the sources to harshness and brutality on Leo's part may

30 Afinogeno v (2001) 338.

31
Th. Cont. II.21 (34.20): ropa.vv[öoç anrnwıv µeı..eı-&v; Gen. I.17 (16.75): aMyxeı-at
ropa.vviöa..
32 This active role ofMichael in the design ofthe plan appears in Gen. I.19 (1 8.40-44),

but not.in Th. Cont. I.25 (38.l1-15).

ıı Th. Cont. I.21 (35.1 3-14), Il.24 (37.16-17, 38.1-2), Gen. 1.18, 19 (17.1 2, 17-20)
and Log. (A), Leon V[l28] 11 (21 3.65).
34
Th. Cont. 11.25 (38.8-9) and Gen. 1.19 (17.35-18.38). See PınbZ #8050 and PBE
s.v. "Theoktistos 3".
ı; Gen. 1.1 (22.54-55). See Signes Codofier (1995) 75.
3''
Signes Codofier (1995) 164.
'7
Tlı.Coııt. l.21 (35.14-15) and Gen. 1.18 ( 17.14-15).
68 Tlıe E111pemr Tlıeuplıi/os aııd tlıe Eası. 819-841

perhaps represent, as already argued (see Chapter 1.2), a tum in the later phase of
his reign, as the emperor, lacking support, resorted to repression in order to iınpose
his authority.
I t seems therefore conceivable that Leo 's supporters found it advisable
to reinvent themselves in order to survive and preserve their power. Thus they
decided to change the Ieader (Leo), who hindered comproınise with other parties.
This ınay explain, for example, the loosening ofthe iconoclasnı that immediately
followed Michael's ascension to the throne: it was not caused by Michael's
personal religious beliefs, but by the necessity of rallying allies againstThonıas.
Michael wanted to show that his election represented a widening of horizons
and accordingly described his election after Leo's murder in the Letter to Louis not
only as the choice of God and the Virgin, but alsa as "consensus omniuın". The
patriarch, the patricians, senators and noblemen, assembling at the city following
the ancient tradition ("secundum · antiquum moreın"), elected him emperor to
overcome the divisions of the Christians caused by Thomas' usurpation.38
But how could he conceal the fact that he had conspired against Leo and
directly contributed to his end? Surely, the fact that it was Thonıas who openly
raised arıııs against Leo rnade this concealrnent a bit easier. On the other hand,
many people were iınplicated in the conspiracy, as the sources clearly show, so
that Michael could effectively dissociate himself from the actual ınurders, as he
was in prison at the time. Nevertheless, as Afinogenov suggests, "the only chance
for Michael to make his propaganda even potentially credible was to do something
about at Ieast the immediate perpetrators of the assassination".39 Did he in fact
punish theın?

3.3 The Execution of Leo's Murderers

Michael's son,Theophilos, is credited with having punished the murderers ofLeo

in the first assembly called after his father's death and his appointment as only
emperor.This event, described at some length in the chronicles,40 fits well with the
image of justice favoured by Theophilos that we will consider in the Epilogue to
this book.This does not necessarily mean, however, that the story must have been
invented. It appears, however, thatTheophilos only punished the actual murderers
of Leo, not the conspirators behind them. This is apparently confirmed by the
chronicles, since they make the eınperor say that he punishes tl10se stained with
human blood and killing in the temple ofGod. Moreover,Theoktistos, who played
a leading role in the conspiracy against Leo, continued to be a key figure in the
reign ofTheophilos and was even regent of his heir Michael III after 842.

38 Letter to Loııis 476.29 -477.2.

3'1 Afinogenov (2001) 332.
4" Tlı. Cont. 111.1 (84.16 -86.8), Gen. 111. 1 (36.82- 93) and Log. (A) Tlıeop/ıilos [1 30]
6 ( 217.22-218.36). See also Sigııes Codoi'ier ( 1995) 360-61.
 Fı1111İ(l' Ties: leo ılıe Arıııeııiaıı ımd Miclıııel q/Amorioıı 69

Unfoıtunately, tlıe names of tlıe actual murderers of Leo supposedly executed

by Theophilos are not given in the clıronicles. in foct, our sources only single out
one of tlıe murderers attacking Leo in the church describing an anonymous giant,
a member of the family of the Krambonitai ( EK ni)v KpapBo)Vtrföv yevei'iç), as the
man who stnıck the blows tlıat caused Leo 's death_.ıı This family name is otherwise
unattested, but as krambion (Kpa�ıBiov) means cabbage,-ı2 it is not implausible to
understand the name as "greengrocer", although this does not necessarily point to
the humble position of the man but at nıost to the humble origins of his lineage
some generations earlier. Genesios says that the killer had the nickname "the
One-ancl-a-half' (ro EV Kal ihncn.ı) because of his imge stature, surely a reason for
hiring his services. 3 Skylitzes, for his part, qualifies the man as noble (yewa8aç),
➔

although this coulcl be an inference basecl on the status of the family at his tinıe.4-ı
But be that as it may, could Michael in fact have left these killers unpunishecl?
Afiııogenov lencls some creclence to a passage in the L[le ofEutlıyınios, where
the author, the future patriarch Methoclios, says that

... tlıe beast [Leo V) was slaiıı by his eııenıy ancl aveııger [Michael il], for
İl is riglıt to cali tlıus his successor iıi ful! accorcl witlı tlıe scriptures, as he,
haviııg been hostile eveıı to cleatlı, attenıptecl to avenge hinı agaiııst his fellow
ıııurclerers, as well as in regarcl to his doctriııe . .ı5

Accorcling to Afiııogenov, the only possible meaniııg of the passage is that

Michael II punishecl the ırnırderers of Leo. However, the text is perhaps not to be
taken literally, for Methoclios seems to play with the phrase "enemy ancl avenger"
(napa -roii ax0poii ıcal eıc8ucrıroii) taken from Psalm 8.3, where Gocl is macle "to
clestroy the enemy ancl the avenger" (-roii ıcaı:aAiicrm ax0pov ıcai EJCÖUCTJTilV), so that
both terms seem to be negative. Most important, the text says only that Michael
"attempts in tum" (na.ıı,tv neıpiiı:aı) to avenge Leo in the person of his fellow
murclers. It is therefore not explicitly saicl that he sııcceeded in his purpose ancl
punishecl Leo 's murclerers. This is by no means strange, for he owed the throne
to them. Despite the family connections between Michael and Leo mentioned
above, he might have felt unable to punish the killers of his preclecessor, a task his

41
Th. Cont. I.25 (39.20).
4" LbGr s.vv. ıcpa�LPiv, ıcpa�LPıı:aç.
43
Gen. 1.20 (19.73-75).
4-ı
Skyl., Leoıı V, 11 (28.51 ). For later members of this family see Winkelmann (1987)
78, 160 and Flusin and Cheynet (2003) 23, note 27.
45
Methodios, Life ofEzıthymios 10 (199-201): crcpaÇeı:aı 6 0ıip ımpa ı:oü tx0poü ıcai
BICOll(Tjı:üÜ aı'ıwü· oüı:w yap ıcaıı.eTv ı:6v ı:ouı:ou füaooxov ypacpucciıı:aı:a oiıcaıov, ıca06n
sx0pavaç dç 0avaı:ov OlEKOlKEİV aı'ıı:6v ITU/ı.lV ıretpfüm sır[ n: ı:ouç cruvavopo<p6vouç ımi ı:o
66nm aüı:ou.
70 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıilos emel tlıe Ecıst, 819-841

son Theophilos felt freer to acconıplish.46 The fact that Theophilos succeeded in
suınınoning Michael's fellow conspirers to a public meeting with the excuse that he
wanted to fulfil his father's will to "reward" them, although looking like a literary
device (literary narrative likes aınbiguities and unexpected tums in the stories!),
points to some kind ofunpaid debt or unfulfilled task by Michael.
There is however an Arabic account ofthe tenth century, the so-called Book of
tlıe recompeııse ofthe Egyptian scribe Jbn al-Daya (d. ca.945-951 ), that attributes
to Michael the punishment ofLeo's ınurderers.The story told by this source is quite
similar to the one preserved in the Greek sources for Theophilos.47 Michael, after
being put on the throne by the conspirators who murdered Leo, meets ali of them
in the imperial audience-chamber and asks them to inform him of ali their needs.
Otherwise, he will not taste the food that was set up for them. The text continues:

Tlıen eaclı of tlıem mentioned tlıat wlıiclı he lıoped King Miclıael would grant
lıim. And Miclıael granted ali tlıeir requests. Then they asked him to eat, and
he said: "We lıave disposed oftlıat wlıiclı was due to you. Tlıere remains which
is due lo God aııd to kiııg Leo. it would not befit ıne to eat before I do what is
due to tlıem both". Then he said to tlıe patriarclı. "What is llıe punislıınent of
one wlıo deprives his king of tlıe drawing of breatlı and tlıe spirit of life?" The
patriarclı answered: "He shall be deprived of breatlı and the spirit of life." Tlıeıı
Michael said to tlıem: "Tlıe patriarch has decreed for you that wlıich may not be
contradicted." He ordered tlıeir decapitation and began to eat.

The parallels with the Greelc version of the punishınent by Theophilos are
striking. The short dialogue with the patriarch is very siınilar to the one Theophilos
has with the senate in the version of the chronicle of the Logothete. There,
Theophilos asks those present: "What punishment does the ınan deserve who
entered in the temple of God and murdered His anointed?" The answer is: "He
deserves death, my Lord. "48 Beheading ofthe conspirers is also ordered forthwith.
However, Ibn al-Daya says that he heard the story from his father, who in turn
heard another man ofthe Khurasan refer to it on the authority ofthe caliph Mahdı.
That this oral transmission distorted the "original" story is proved by the indication
ofthe text that a woman (probably meaning Theodora, Theophilos' widow) ruled
after Michael. I think it therefore likely that the original anecdote, as is often the
case with storytellers, was conveniently simplified for an Arabic audience, the
dispensable role ofTheophilos as !ate avenger ofLeo being suppressed and given

46 There is accordingly no need to coıısider "the execution of Leo's murderers by

Theophilos just another faııciful piece of literature", as stated by Afinogenov (200 I) 333.
47 See the Englislı translation in Lewis ( 1939). Afinogenov does not seem to know
this text.
4� Log. (A ), Tlıeop/ıilos [ 130] 6.
 Famizı, Ties: Leo rlıe Armeııiaıı cıııd Mic/ıael o(Aıııorion 71

to Michael.-19 The dranıalic effect of the inınıediate "reward" of Leo's murderers

was thus hightened.
Nevertheless, the possibility is always there that Michael effectively punished
soıne of the conspirators and eveıı Ieading figures aınong them, but coulcl not
proceed fuı1her against others, whose support he needed for reınaining in
power. In that case, however, one would have expected that Michael punished
the perpetrators of the nıurder, whereas Theophilos would have extended the
punishment to the masterminds behind it (but not to ali of theın, as Theoktistos
continued in charge). This appears to contradict the statement of the Byzantine
chronicles that Theophilos punished tl10se stained with blood, but only if we
take this indication literally. in fact, the people Theophilos executed are given
some relevance by the clıronicles. The Continuator says that they were even
rewarded "with many lıonours and other bounties and prizes" by Michael,50 and
tlıis seems to exclude mere lıired killers and inıply tlıe leaders of the conspiracy.
If tlıis interpretation holds tnıe, then Tlıeoplıilos could have considered that tlıey,
although not tlıe direct perpetrators ofthe erime, were sonıehow also stained with
the sacrilegious ımırder of Leo.
it could be tlıat Miclıael ınoved fronı tlıe beginning between tlıe iııdispensable
support of some conspirators and the need to foster coııtinuity and display
legitiınacy. it is also likely that tlıere were many tendencies among the conspirators
against Leo and that not ali ofthem were forıner comracles and supporters ofLeo's
policy, as Michael was. Michael undoubtedly was obliged to manoeuvre between
parties with different interests in the difficult climate of Thomas' invasion and
most probably was prevented from following his own policy. The fact that Thomas
was not the only opposition he met is demonstratecl by the existence of sources,
not necessarily iconophile, very critical of Michael, from which we have the
cletails ofthe conspiracy.
We must nonetheless take into account that Michael did indeed persecute some
direct relatives of the murclerecl emperor. This was certainly the case for Leo's
wife and their common (three or four) children (including Constantine-Symbatios,
co-emperor with his father), who were banished to the island ofProte. This move
was understandable, since ali of them were a potential danger for Michael while
they remained at liberty. 51 Gregory Pterotos, a nephew ofLeo's, was also banished
to an Aegean island, from where he later joined Thomas' cause.52 It seems that
Michael retained Pterotos' wife and children in Constantinople only after Pterotos
attackecl the capital with Thomas. 53 Nevertheless, these actions did not go beyond
the logical preventive measures against potential dissidents and do not necessarily

49 For eıTors in the chronology ofTheophilos' reign in oriental sources see Chapter 5.5
in connection with the dating ofManuel's exile.
;o Th. Cont. III.I (85.15-17).
51 Th. Cont. Il.l (41.1-7) and Gen. IV.18 (70.90-71.71.3)
5� PmbZ#2477 and PBE s.v. "Gregorios 71".
53 Th.Cont.I1.16(63.6-8).
71 Tlıe Emperor T!ıeoplıi/os aııd ılıe Eası, 829-842

contradict the continuity Michael tried to foster officially after he seized power.
in fact, fanıily links with Leo's Armenian family did not disappear after Leo's
death, as we shall see when we turn to the marriage ofTheophilos to the Armenian
Theodora.
 Chapter 4
Parties at the Court: The Armenian Marriage
of Theophilos

4.1 Dating the Marriage

The marriage ofTheophilos and Theodora, with far-reaching coıısequences, ımıst

have taken place when Thekla was stili Miclıael's wife and the Anıoriaıı had not
yet repucliated her in order to nıarry Euphrosyne, the daughter ofConstantine Vl. 1
We know _that Michael took the bolcl step of nıarrying Euphrosyne probably ca.
824, as the civil war with Thonıas was already over ancl he was a widower. We
will consider shortly his ınotivatioııs for tlıis act. For the moment it sufüces to
uııderliııe the fact that tlıe Arnıeııian Thekla must have stood behimi Theoplıilos'
rnaITiage. The first evidence is proviclecl by the name giveıı by Theophilos to his
clauglıter Thekla, perhaps the elclest of all his children' as Euphrosyne was not yet
Theophilos' stepınother.
However, some sources mention Euphrosyne as the person who prepared
the bride-show for Tlıeoplıilos that resultecl in his marriage with Theodora. We
leave for the moment the question of tlıe historicity of tlıis bride-show, which has
been object of many studies. 3 What matters now is the supposed role Euphrosyne
assumed in it. I think that the later chroniclers mentioned Euphrosyne instead
of Thekla as the organizer of tlıe bride-show because they had in most cases no
knowledge oftlıe existence ofthe first wife, Thekla, and linked to the more famous
Euphrosyne every mention ofa wife of Michael they found in their sources. This
came even to tlıe point of qualifying Euphrosyne as Theophilos' actual mother,
for instance in the clıronicle ofthe Logothete or in the Life ofTheodora, although
Euphrosyne bore Michael no children.4
But when exactly clid Theophilos get married? We know tlıat Tlıeophilos
was crownecl co-emperor on 12 May 821, only months after Michael ascenclecl
the tlırone. The possibility that the marriage took place on the same day has

1
SeePnıbZ#l705 andPBEs.v. "Euphrosyne !".
' See Chapter 7.2 for the problem conceming Maria, the supposed youngest of
Theophilos' daughters.
3
See, among others, Brooks (1901 ), Ryden (1985), Hans ( 1988), Afinogenov (1997),
Vinson (I 999) and Treaclgold (1975), (1979a), (2004), for references to the sources.
� Log. (A) Tlıeoplıi/os [ 130] 2(216.2): � os p�nıp mhou EtHppocruvq; L(feofT/ıeodom
3 (260.47): rııç Pacrı1ı.[crcrııç Eucppocruvııç, r�ç �ll]rj)OÇ roö pacrıA.EtüÇ.
74 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası, 829-842

been suggested and is plausible. 5 This could have caused the confusion of later
writers. who read in their sources tlıat Theophilos was married the same day of
his crowning as eınperor and therefore dated the marriage to 829, the first year
of Theophilos' sole reign. Moreover, they had Euphrosyne organizing the bride­
slıow, for they knew that she acted at the time as ınother of the eınperor.6 But in fact
at that time the adult Theophilos did not need any ınother to an-ange his wedding.
The association of Kassia with the bricle-show speaks also for an early clating of
the nıarriage, for Kassia was probably bom at the very beginning of the ninth
century, c. 800-805. 7
There were also reasons for Michael not to clelay the man-iage of his only son
ancl heir. Michael was in the first years of his reign in a very precarious situation,
as Thoınas was preparing the assault against Constantinople and Michael's bloody
seizure of power cast shadows on his legitimacy. It was important for him to
give some satisfaction to the Arnıenian supporters of his inner group, the forrner
hetaireia of Bardanes, with an "A1111enian" wedding. The stability and continuity
oflıis dynasty would thus be emphasizecl frorn tlıe very beginning.

4.2 Theoclora 's Family

Theodora was the candiclate elected for the young prince Theophilos. Her family
came from Ebissa in Paphlagonia,8 but most probably had Armenian origins.
Her parents, the droungarios Marinos9 and Theoktiste Florina, bore Greek ancl
Latin names, but this circumstance does not exclude an Annenian origin, as
Armenians residing in the Byzantine Empire for many years frequently gave their
children altematively Armenian and Greelc names. 10 Marinos was· also the name
of Herakleios' brother and of his son by his second wife Martina, a circumstance

5 This. idea was advanced by Brooks ( 1901) and has recently been supported by
PmbZ #8167, esp. 629 and Settipani (2006) 159-66.
6
The mention of Euphrosyne was one of the most solid arguments for Treadgold
(1975) to date the marriage to 829, imrnediately after Michael II's death. I supported his
view in Signes Codofier (1995) 263-5, albeit with sorne minor objections. Afinogenov
( 1997) 10, note 2, also follows Treadgold against Brooks (1901).
7
However, the biography of Kassia is not unproblematic. Her identification with
a narnesake novice addressed by Theod. Stoud., Letters nr. 217, 370 and 539 as early as
816-818 (according to Fatouros' dating) would eventually make it impossible for her to
be selected as a bride for Theophilos in 821, unless we discard the bride-show arranged
for Theoplıilos as a literary fiction. For details see PınbZ #3636 and 3637 and PBE s.vv.
"Kassia 1 and 2". The rnost cornprehensive study about Kassia remains that of Rochow
(1967).
8
Th. Cont. III.5 (89.15-19).
9
Settipani (2006) 167 suggests that the name ofTheodora's father could have been
Marianos, since his grandchild, son ofhis son Petronas, was named Marianos.
10
Settipani (2006) 50, note 3.
 Parıies aı ılıe Courı: Tlıe Arıııeııiaıı ı\1arriage o.f Tlıeop/ıilus 75

that perhaps points to its popularity among Arnıenians.11 More revealing is tlıe
name Bardas as the 1110s t inıportant of Tlıeodora 's brothers, the future kaisar of
Michael ırr aııd especially, the Armenian origin of Manuel, Theodora's uııcle (see
Clıapter 5.1 ).
The fanıily of the future empress must have been of some means, for otherwise
slıe would not have married the emperor. in fact, an anecdote preserved by the
Continuator infornıs us that the empress was a rich shipowner who traded in
cargoes of corn. 1� in the stoıy the emperor is said to have been infuriated when
he discovered his wife's commercial activity and had her ship bumed. However,
Theodora's fortune could not have escaped Tlıeophilos' notice at the time of the
ınarriage, so that the burning of the ship, if authentic, probably happened for
reasons unknown to us. 13 It is a possibility that-Theodora's ship carried corn f ronı
Paphlagonia,1" which at the time was one of the main suppliers of the amıona to
Constantinople.'5The naval connections of Theodora 's faınily may also explain
why Sergios Niketiates, presented in tlıe synaxarion as a relative ofTheodora and
Michael III, was later sent afterTheoplıilos' death to Crete as the comnıander of
the naval coııtingeııts.16The Paplılagonian conınıander Petronas Kanıateros could
also lıave been intendecl as ambassador to Cherson and the Klıazars because of his
connections withTheoclora's fanıilyYThere are thus some reasons to suppose tlıat
Tlıeodora's fortune playecl sonıe role in her rnarriage toTheophilos. 18
Perhaps Manuel, who was already protostrator cluring tlıe reign of Michael
I, was the mastemıind behind the nıarriage between his niece and the emperor's
son.19 He is never mentioned in this respect, for in the sources the marriage of
Theophilos is presented as a bride-show for the young prince and any reference
to the political background is avoided. We also do not know exactly what role
Manuel played during Michael Il's reign and the real interest the emperor had
in linking his family with that of Manuel. But there is a strong possibility that

11 Herakleios was mcist probably an Armenian accordiııg to Kaegi (2003) 21-4 aııd
popular among the Armenians in later times; see however Settipani (2006) 115-17 against
the Anneııian origins of the emperor. On the other hand, Latin names among Romanized
Armenians were very usual and, in fact, Florina was the cognomen ofTheoktista, this being
an evidence ofpatrician origins·.
12 Th. Cont. III.4 (88.10-89.14). The text of the· Continuator speaks only of criı:ou
(corn) as the cargo ofthe ship. It is Skylitzes who adds a reference to o'ivou (wine), which
tlıe editors have included si/enle incthe text ofthe Continuator.
ıı See tlıe Epilogue for a short commentary on the episode.
14 Brnbaker and Haldon (2011) 517 mistakenly say that Tlıeodora 's ship sailed with
goods from Syria.
15 Bnıbaker and Haldon (2011) 507, 520-21, 577-8.
16 Synaxariııııı Cansı. 777-8.
17 See Clıapters 7.1 and 19.1.
18 Magdalino ( 1998b) considers the later ascendency of tlıe Paphlagonians at the
imperial court as having origiııated perlıaps in Tlıeodora's time.
1
" Lilie(l999 b)l 74.
76 Tlıe Empemr T/ıeoplıilos emel ılıe Eası. 829-842

Michael wanted to seek support for his dynasty in influential Arınenian circles and.
hence iVlanuel's niece would have been an attractive option for hinı. The !ate exile
of Manuel could accordingly be linked with Michael's changing ofsides after the
civil war (see Chapter 5).
John the Gramınarian could also have proınoted Theodora's ınaıTİage to
Theophilos. Several sources say that Theodora deposed him as patriarch in 843
despite hinı being her syntekııos (atıvrnKvoç aurıiç). 20 The expression means that
the Gramnıarian was godfather of at least one of Theodora's children.21 We do
not know which one of them, and therefore whether this spiritual link between
Theodora and John was established before or after the latter's nonıination as
patriarch/2 for the !ast ofTheophilos' children, Michael, was born as !ate as 840.23
However, it is interesting to note that Manuel too acted as godfather to some of
Theophilos' children when he returned froın exile at the beginning ofhis reign.24
If Manuel's kinship with Theodora was the reason for him acting as godfather, it
could also be that the Granınıarian was chosen as godfather to her ehi!dren for that
reason and not because ofhis position as patriarch (which would be understandable
ifthe baptized child were the heir to the lhrone).25
in fact, there is a strong possibility that the Arsaber who married one of
Theodora's sisters, naıned Kalomaria, was John's brother. The Continuator says
that the Arsaber who married Maria was "at the time a patrician and later even
a magistros" (ı:q:ı ı:ııvtKaura �LEY narpudqı emm:a M ıcai. �tayiaı:pqı). 26 The same
author telis us in a previous passage ofthe same book thatJohn had a brother named
Arsaber, "who had been honoured by Theophilos with the dignity of a patrician"
(rııv nıxrıv naı:piKtoç napa 0ı::ocpiıı.ou ı:ı�trı0ı::iç). 27 Although the Annenian name
Arsaber (Arshavir) was not infrequent at the time, it seems likely that these two
Arsabers were the saıne man.28 Thus the appointınent of Arsaber as patrician by
Theophilos would be a consequence of his maıTiage to the emperor's sister-in­
law. We must, however, suppose that the ınarriage took place after Theodora's

20 See Log. (A), Miclıaell/l [131] 1 (232.8) and Pseudo-Symeon 647.1 O. PmbZ #3199
mentions that John was oı'.ıvrsKVoç ofTheodora (sources in note 23).
21 The word cruv-rnKvoç expresses the spiritual kinship between the godfather and the
father or mother (referred to in genitive) ofthe baptized child. See Macrides (1987) 143.
22 For the date of John's appointment as patriarch see Chapters 19.1, 21.3 (note 58)
and 24.1.
23 Mango (1967).
2• Th. Cont. III.26 (120.23): cruvmcvoç eıcrors XPTJ�tariÇsı aı'.rmu. The sarne wording
in Skyl., Tlıeoplıilos 19 (7 l.40). Log. (A), Tlıeoplıilos [130) 22 (223.155-156) is more
eıc
precise: wuç aı'.rrou ıı:a1:oaç rou ayiou paıı:r[cr�ıaroç avı::oel;aro.
2' However, in this case we should have perhaps expected a mention ofthat fact in the
Byzantine chronicles.
26 Th. Cont. IV.22 (175.3-4).
27 Tlı. Cont. lV.8 (156.16-17).
2' Seltipani (2006) 340.
 Parıies al ı!ıe Coıırı: T!ıe Armeııiaıı ı\!cırriage rı(Tlıeoplıifos 77

marriage and accordingly during Michael II's reign. 29Theoplıilos would lıave acted
as co-cmperor when he rewarded his brotlıer-in-law with tlıe title of patriciaıı. His
appointınent as magistros came perlıaps later on.
At tlıe same time Sophia, aııother ofTheodora's sisters, ınarried Constantiııe
Baboutzikos, member of a further Armenian ( or at least Caucasian) fanıily that
appears several times during tlıe period.30 U nfortuııately, we have no further
infonnation about this Constaııtine and cannot therefore ascertain the nıotives
belıind this engagenıent.
in any case, can the marriage ofArsaber be considered a part of the deal that
linked Theodora 's family witlı the future heir of the imperial throne? If so, we
ımıst suppose that John played some role in arrangiııg the wedding and that he
had accordingly some influence over Michael ofAmorion. Probably Michael had
become acquainted with John duriııg Leo's reign, when the Grammarian came into
promiııeııce as one of the advisers of Leo the Armenian in the reopenecl struggle
on icon worship. In fact, although John is not mentioned as lıaving played any
role in Michael's reign, the Coııtinuator telis us that the strong admiration Michael
felt for his kııowledge resulted in his appointment as teacher ancl ınentor of his
son Theophilos.31 lf Theophilos married in 821, John would alreacly have been
appointecl his mentor in Leo's reign. He surely coııtinued to influence the young
co-emperor after 821, as his later appointment as patriarch by Theophilos clearly
shows. But, more iınportantly, from his position as Theophilos' mentor he could
have convinced Michael to choose Theodora as a coııvenient bricle for his son,
considering her kinship with Manuel.
The marriage of John's brother Arsaber to one of Theodora's sisters woulcl
thus have been plannecl to reinforce the relationship between the two families
and symbolizecl somehow John's connections with the imperial family. That John
and Manuel later became godfathers to the children of the imperial couple fuıiher
reinforced these Iinks. It was perhaps not a coincidence that John was later sent on
an embassy to Baghdad to recall Manuel from exile, as both men were relatives
(see Chapter 5.4). Considering the slanderous campaign pursued by iconophile
sources against John after 843, it comes as no surprise that the connection of
the "perverse" intellectual leader of iconoclasm with the oıihodox and pious
empress Theodora was utterly silenced, except by a passing remark about his
being godfather to Theodora's child (or children). l t could eveıı be thought that
the depiction ofTheophilos' maITiage as a colourfül bride-show was conceived to
hide John's role in this event.

29
For the same idea see Treadgold (1988) note 374.
3
° Clıaranis (1961) 208, Winkelmann (1987) 163-4, PMbZ #3932, PBE s.v.
"Konstantinos 30", and Settipani (2006) 172, note 4.
31
Tlı. Cont. IV.7 (154.21-155. I ): l:hmpı::p6vrnıc;; ımpa Mıxa�t.. �yaırrıw (i.e. 'Iw<'ı.vvrıç)
wu Tpaut..ou, ı::'irn �ı6vqı rofrrqı ,cµ Koıvwv<'ıc;; ı::Tvaı njc;; muı:ou aipfoı::uıc;;. dtı:: ıcai nfı
8ıacpepı::ıv eıri t..oyı6tıın 86/;av nva EüXllK(r)Ç. ıı:t..�V ıjy&ıı:ııw ıcai ı:ou 0Eo<p[AOU 8ı8amca1ı.oc;;
tyım0[crrato.
78 T/ıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd tlıe East, 829-842

4.3 ,John the Grammarian: Relatives and lnfluence

We do not know how ınaııy persons could have gained influeııce during Michael
ll's reigıı tlırough Jolın's agency, for the promotioıı of his relatives such as Leo
the Philosoplıer32 or even Plıotios33 is to be dated to tlıe reign ofTheoplıilos. But
perhaps the appointment of Antonios Kassymatas as new patriarch by Michael,
on the eve ofthe marriage ofTheoplıilos witlı Theodora in 821, could have been
due to John.
The patriarch Theodotos Kassiteras, a strong supporter of Leo's iconoclasm,
died slıortly after Michael's accession. He was a member of the Melissenoi, a
family ofArmenian origin from Melitene on the Euphrates border and outside
the empire.34 The family continued to Iıave a role in Theophilos' reign, as one of
its members was general during tlıe siege ofAmorion.35 Kassiteras' substitution
was certainly a difficult task for Michael, for Thonıas was tlıen marching against
Constantinople and the eınperor needed tlıe suppoıt of its population to face the
rebel's threat. The situation for Michael was siınilar to tlıe beginning of Leo's
reigıı, when the Bulgarians besieged the capital. it is significant that the election
fell on Antonios Kassyınatas, who was the leader ofthe commission summoned
by Leo to re-establish iconoclasm and perhaps even the protopapas ofthe palace
clergy, in any case not a !ayman such as K.assiteras, but an ecclesiastic with his
own career.36
We do not know anything about the ethnic origins or family relations of
Antonios Kassymatas, only that he was the leader ofthe iconoclasts during Leo's
reign. His appointment by Michael could only be understood as a concession to

32 Leo the Philosopher, who is referred to as a nephew or cousin of the Grammarian

by the Continuator, was bom c. 790, some ten years later than John; see Th. Cont. IV.26
(185.11): ıcara cruyyı\vetav ı:ou ı\l;aoD..cpou; Skyl. Michael JJI, 15 (101.81): aveıııt6ç. PıııbZ
#4440 and Settipaııi (2006) 169 think that Leo was nephew ofJohn.
33 Th. Cont. IV.22 (175.3-l l ) makes Arsaber not only the husband of Theodora's
sister (Kalo)Maria, but also the brother of Photios' mother Eirene. Skyl., Michael III, Il
(98.73-77), completely alters the passage and makes Photios the brother of Sergios, who
supposedly married another ofTheodora's sisters, named Eirene. Be this as it may, it is clear
that Photios was related to the family ofTheodora. IfArsaber was in fact Jolm's brother, this
means that some kind of relationship between Photios and the Grammarian existed, albeit
coınpletely silenced by the sources. The reasons for this silence are unclear, for there were
many eneınies of Photios who could have had an interest in revealing this relationship. For
these questions see Bury (1890), Ahrweiler (1965), Mango (1977), Settipani (2006) 169-72
and 340-42, and Varona Codeso (2009a) 343-8 and (2009b) 125-8.
34 Settipani (2006) 77 and 492-505 for the genealogy of the Melissenoi. The estates
the family owned in Plırygia are probably linked to the strategeia Miclıael Melissenos held
in the theme ofthe Anatolikoi between 766 and 772 and have nothing to do with his origins;
see Pratsch (1999b) 149-50.
.ı; Winkelmann ( 1987) 152-3.
-'" See Pratsch ( 1999c).
 Pcırties at tlıe Court: The ılrıııeııian Marriage of T/ıeoplıilo.ı· 79

Leo 's followers, perhaps even a sign ofthe weakness ofthe new eınperor, who had
only just come into power when Kassiteras died.
it is revealing that soıne sources present Kassyınatas as closely bound to the
Graınınarian as the two most prominent heads oficonoclasın. They are collectively
named "lannes and Iaınbres", the ınagicians who, according to St. Paul (2 Tiriıothy
3.8), opposed Moses before the Pharaoh. 37 The Scriptor Jncertus even says that
it was John and his other associates who brought Kassyınatas, then bishop of
Sylaion, to the palace and coınınended hiın to the ernperor.38 Could John again
have suggested to Michael the Arnorian the appointment of Kassymatas for the
patriarchal throne? I fthe question were answered in the positive, we would have
additional evidence for the influence John exerted over Michael at the beginning
ofhis reign. This influence ıneant the continuity ofLeo's heritage, as it was based
on personal relationships already established during his reign. It is therefore not a
coincidence that ınany ofthe protagonists were ofArınenian origin, like Michael's
wife Thekla (related to Bardanes the Turk and Leo the Amıenian), Manuel the
Armenian and his niece Theodora (married to Theophilos) or the Melissenoi and
Baboutzikoi. John the Gramrnarian was not an exception.
The Continuator states that John was "neither a newcomer nor a foreigner,
but indigenous and a scion ofthis irnperial city", and adds that he clescended "not
froın an obscure lineage but frorn a veıy noble one, narnecl the Morocharzanioi
(MopoxapÇav[rov)". 39 The faınily coulcl have been noble and of ancient origin at
the time but as the name reınains unattestecl in other sources before the end ofthe
eleventh century,40 we cannot check this point. The name is, moreover, dif:ficult to
interpret and no origin ofthe family can be ascertainecl froın it.41
Pseudo-Syıneon, who copies this piece ofinformation from the Continuator,42
telis another story about the Grammarian, making him the son of the skiastes
( crıctacniJç) Pankratios.43 This indication seems to have been copiecl literally from the

37 Pratsch (1999c) 160, note 16 and Lilie (1999b) 178-80.

38 Serip. !ne. 351.10-13: wüı:ov ıcaı:aµrıvucravn:ç ıı:poç Aeovı:a ı:ov pacrıMa ö n:
'Jwa.vvrıç 6 tmıc?ı.ıiv 'Y7ı,ı7ı,üç, öv ılıc&.7ı,ouv ypaµµaı:uc6v, ıcai o[ oiıv aıhc'p, övı:a ı:c'p ı:rıvumüı:a
ğy ı:c'p Z:u7ı,a(cp, ıı:eµıııaç ijyayı::v aı'.rrov.
39 Th. Cont. IV.6 (154.13-17): OUIC eıı:rı?ı.uı:rıç ıcal l;evoç, auı:6x0wv ot ıcai ııiç

pacrı?ı.(ooç ı:a uı:rıç ı:&v ıı:6AEWV p7ı,&.crı:rı�m [ ... ] oı'.ıo' el; acr��LOU ı:ıvoç a.Ua ıcai ?ı.iav ııuyııvoüç
ıcaı:ay6�tııvoç crıı ıpüç, ıı;ç oüı:co ı:ô':ıv MopoxapÇaviwv (eds. MopoxapÇa�Liwv) 7ı,ııyo�ıevrıç. See
also Skyl., Michael 11, 4 (84.92-93).
40
Winkelmann (1987) 210.
41
See PıııbZ#l067 s.v. "Charzanites". Charzanas ibid. #22.256, 22.737 and 24.252,
Charzanites, ibid. #21.235 and Charzianites, ibid. #21.236 appear in the tenth and eleventh
centuries as family names, but they do not provide any evidence about the origin of lhe
denomination.
42
The family named is spelled as Mwpoxapoavicov (in Par. gr. 1712, the eds have
Mwpoıcapoavicov) in Pseudo-Symeon 649, but the form of the Continuator is to be preferred,
as the narrative of Pseudo-Symeoıı is clearly depeııdent on hinı at this poiııt.
4
.1 Pseudo-Symeoıı 606.
80 Tlıc Eıııperur Tlıeoplıilos aııcl ılıe Eası. 829-8./2

so-called Scriptor fncerıııs.44 There it is also said that Leo the Arnıenian pronıised
the patriarchate to John if he aided hinı in successfully destroying the icons,45
but that the bishops finally elected Theodotos Kassiteras, who was a member "of
noble aııd illustrious fanıilies" (dıyı:;vEiç Kai egcpavı:;iç), while Johıı was "young
and obscure'· (vfoı:; ... Kai a<pavııç).46 This iııdication stresses both John's youth
and lack of proıninence as the causes of his relegation as an acceptable candidate
for the patriarchal throne in favour of the illustrious family of the Melissenoi, to
which the older Theodotos Kassiteras belonged. However, the aınbiguous term
acpnvıiç ('"obscure") applied to John could be intended as a pejorative in a staunchly
icoııoplıile author such as the Scriptor lııcertus and does not necessarily prove
that Jolın's family was obscure at the time, but perhaps that it had been raised
to prominence only receııtly.47 A version of the Letter of T/ıeoplıi/os certainly
qualifies John as "one ofthe nondescript penniless vagabonds ofthe city" (nç -rcov
f:l)Tt/,(J)V Kai acpavföv ayupmoö.ıv -r�ç 71:0AtCOÇ), but this occurs in an altemative
ending preserved only in a fifteenth-century manuscript and was probably added
to the text at a very latc stage.48 it seems in any case that some authors intended to
slander John by asserting his humble origins against a supposed noble descent. We
are coınpletely unaware of the motives behiııd this slander, but it is perhaps not
enouglı to refute the precise iııdicatioııs of the Continuator.
it is accordingly possible that John's faınily had gained a certain reputation
as early as in Leo's days and that the term uKtacH�Ç ("the person who casts a
shadow") of his father Pankratios has nothing to do with a possible subordinate
office, but it is perhaps used as an insulting tenn to disqualify him. If the father
was the homonymous court astrologer ofemperor Constantine Vl who, according
to Theophanes, died in 792 in the battle ofMarkellai against the Bulgarians,49 we
could perhaps understand the term uKtacr-r�ç as a scomful word for "magician".
Astrologers, especially for iconophiles, were always viewed with suspicion.50
However, whereas the family could have gained a certain prominence only with
the Isaurians, it was not ultimately of Constantinopolitan origin, as the Aımenian
names of John's father, corresponding to Armenian Bagrat,51 and John's brother,
Arsaber,5:! clearly show. This links the family with the Annenian Bagratids,53
although it can be doubted whether any royal or noble descent was implied,

44 Serip. ine. 349. l 9-350.2.

45 Serip. ine. 350.2-6.
46
Serip. ine. 359.16-360.2
47
Paee Settipani ( 2006)
48
Letter to Tlıeoplıilos, Alternative Eııding 2, chapter 36 ( 111.17).
4
'' Theoph. 468.4-6. See PmbZ#5680 and 5682 and PBE s.vv. "Pankratios 1 and 2".
50
This idea was advanced by Browning ( 1965) 402-3. For Pankratios and John the
Grammarian see Magdalino (2006) 55-6 and 63.
51 PmbZ#5680 and 5682.
5' PmbZ #601 and 602 and PBE s.vv. "Arsaber 5 aııcl 6".
'·' Settipani (2006) 339-42.
 Pcırlies cıı ılıe Courı: Tlıe ..trı11C'11iaıı Marriage cı/' Tlıeoplıilo.ı· 81

especiaHy if we consicler tlıe family's lack of prominence alluclecl to in tlıe Greek

sources wlıcn contrastecl witlı the Aııııeniaıı Melisseııoi.
We can conclucle that tlıe "Armenian party'' leci by John the Gramınarian
ancl Antoııios Kassymatas coulcl have had the upper hancl at the court at the very
beginning of Michael's reigıı, whcn the new emperor was facing the rebellion
of Thomas and perhaps felt insecure and isolated. We do not know, however,
whether this group was behiııd the conspiracy against Leo or on the contraıy
exerted pressure for the puııishnıent ofLeo's murderers. Perhaps the usurpation of
Thoınas the Slav after 819 cancelled for a while the differences between different
Armenian factions in tlıe capital. But things could have been otherwise in Anatolia.
We would certainly wish to know more details about Michael's appointments in
the Anatolian themes before Thonıas' invasion aııd which of the loca! strategoi
took sides with the rebel and for what reasons. As this evidence is lacking, the
figure of Maııuel the Arıneniaıı conıes perhaps to mır aid as he held an important
post as strategos in Anatolia imınediately beforc Michael asccnded the throne. Let
us now coıısider the evideııce about lıim in tlıis period.
 Chapter 5
The Elusive Manuel the Annenian

The figure ofManuel has been the object of much debate since Henri Gregoire
wrote two studies about his life and the confrontation he had with Theophobos
during Theophilos' reign. 1 I have discussed elsewhere the apparent contradictions
ofthe sources2 and it is not my intention here to reconsider again tlıe whole series
of problems related to the two Lives of Manuel that supposedly were the main
source of the Continuator and Genesios, the autlıors who had preservecl most of
the information about Manuel. However, as Manuel is in fact one of the main
protagonists cluring the reign ofTheophilos, it is unavoidable to discuss piecemeal
the evidence provicled by our sources as far as it is connected with events. Thus
we will now review briefly the report of the sources on the origiııs ancl exile
ofMaııuel.

5.1 Wlıy Aıııalekites?

Manuel is labellecl as Aı111enian in most of the sources. As a consequence, that

he was the uncle of Theodora confirmed the Annenian clescent of her family.3
But there is another intriguing piece of info1111ation about Manuel that has until
now challengecl eveıy possible explanation: the naming ofManuel as "one ofthe
men ofAmalek" (nvoç -ı:cöv el; Aµaıı:rııchrov), as the Continuator does when he
introduces him for the first time in his narrative.4 üne would have expected that the
Annenian origins ofManuel woulcl have been referred to, so that the possibility
that there is an error here in the text has been considered. 5 However, as I notecl
some time ago,6 the same appellative is given to Leo the Armenian on several
occasions, for example by Genesios (twice wü el; AµaA�ıc, once wü A�taAT]ıciwu)
or Pseudo-Symeon (wü AµaAT]ıctwü).7 More revealing, Ignatios the Deacon,

1 Gregoire (-1933), (1934).

2
See Signes Codofier (1995) 496-9, 509-10, 513-34 and 564-9, (2006) 86-96 and
(2013a).
3
Th. Cont. IV.I (148.13-14): Muvou�tı. 6 �tcıytcn:poç ti; Ap�tEviwv ımwy6�tEvoç, öç
ıcui 0EtoÇ a.ıro ırm:poç rijç OE<moivııç ı'.mfipxcv.
4
Th. Cont. I.9 (18.9).
5 Signes Codofier (1995) 83 aııd PınbZ #4707, 138, note 1.
r.
Signes Codofier (1991) 312, (1994) 364, (1995) 77.
7
Gen. 1 title (3.2), 1 proeııı (3.17) and IV.2 (56.40), Pseuclo-Syıneon 650.
 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıilos emel ılıe Eası. 829-842

writing shortly after Nikephoros' death in 828,8 already compares Leo in his life
of Nikephoros with the ancient Amalekites. For lgnatios, Leo "displayed to tlıe
New Jsrael actions even more lerrible than tl10se of the Amalekitai".9
There is therefore no error in the sources tlıat refer to both Leo and Manue[
as Amalekitai. But what reason could have moved these authors to refer to the
two Amıenians as the biblical Amalekitai who harassed Moses during their
exodus froın Egypt?10 lgnatios provides a some clue, for he furtlıer compares Leo
with three ınore biblical figures: the Assyrian king Sennacherim, who besieged
Jerusalem in the times of king Hezekiah in 701 BC, without finally seizing
tlıe city, but being punished with heavy losses in his army (4 Kings 19:35 and
lsaiah 37:37); Rapsakes (the name ofan Assyrian comınander), wlıo was sent by
Sennacherim to Jerusaleın to convince Hezekialı to surrender and threatened him
with utter destruction (4 Kings 18: 17-19:13 and lsaiah 36-37); and Nabouzardan,
tlıe clıief cook of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian arıny, who entered Jerusalem
and burned ali the houses of the city in 587 BC (4 Kings 25:8-12). These three
references put us in a biblical context and remind us of episodes that occurred
in biblical accounls of the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires. Nothing
special perhaps, for the Byzantines often referred to biblical parallels. 1-lowever,
the Continuator and George the Monk, aınong others, referred to tlıe Assyrian
ancestry of Leo the Armenian,11 so that we may suspect that the connection made
by lgnatios here is not a coincidence. in fact, George the Monk mentions a lost
work of the patriarch Nikephoros as his source, when he launches an invective
against Leo asserting that his lineage descended froın Sennacherim, specifically
from two of his sons who murdered their father and took refuge in Arınenia.
Nikephoros (if George the Monk is truly copying his words) apparently got this
piece of genealogical information from the "stories of some old men" (ıca0a. -r&v
npı::crpu-reprov ıi/;10-ropoücri nvaç).
In an old shıdy Nicolas Adontz connected this story with a family tradition of
the Ardzruni, who claimed to descend .from Sennacheriın's sons. This tradition
was first transmitted by Moses of Chorene. 12 Later Cyril Toumanoff connected
Leo with the Gmıni instead. 13 in an earlier publication, I rejected this "Assyrian"
ancestry for Leo for various reasons, but especially because the legend, as told
by the Byzantine authors, was intended to slander Leo, making him the scion of

8 Kazhdan (1999) 344-5.

9
lgnatios, Life of Nikep/ıoros 162.27-28: A.�tatı.T]ICLtii:ıv 5r::tv6-rspcı. tep vsqı 'Icrpcı.�tı.
EVÖelÇU�leVOV.
10 Exodus 17:8-16.
11 Th. Cont. 1.1 (6.4-8) and Georg. Mon. IX.41 (780.13-782.11).
12 Adontz (1965). See Brosset (1874-1876) vol. 1, 40 and 106 for two references to
the legend in tlıe history ofThoınas Ardzrouni.
13 Tournanoff (1956a) note 228, (1963) 205, (1971) 135. Treadgold (1988) 196
accepted the Gnouııi origiıı.
 Tlıe Elıısil'e ı'vfcıııııel ılıe Armeııiaıı 85

parricides. 14 Nikephoros was evidently trying to attack Leo with ali the rneans at
his disposal and used this legend to disqualify hiın. it appeared therefore not likely
that Leo, as David Turner suggested, might "have originally inspired the fiction of
his Mesopotamian origins''. 15
However, Christian Settipani has recently defeııded tlıe historical background
of the history and again connected Leo with the Ardzruni. 16 He rightly stresses
that these genealogical fi etions were iııdeed taken very seriously by the Armenian
nobles, so that if they believed in them, we ımıst not discard their historical
relevance for their conteınporaries. This is obviously true, but the question is
whether the genealogical construct refeıı-ed to by Nikephoros was indeed Leo's
own or only taken by the iconophile patriarch fronı already existing legends to
discredit him.
For us now, it is interesting to ııote that the "Aınalekite" origiıı of Leo (and
therefore ofManuel) could be also related to his "Assyrian" ancestry. It is perhaps
not a coincidence that the above-mentioned passage from Jgnatios' work where Leo
is conıpared with Amalek, Seıınacherim, the latter's general aııd Nebuchadııezzar's
cook, appears in his L!fe of Nikephoros. lgnatios rnay have been inspired by the
same· lost work ofthe patriarch, in whiclı the "Assyrian" ancestry ofthe Arınenian
emperor was concocted. But as the Amalekitai of Southern Canaaıı do not seem
to have any relation with the "Assyrian" legencl of Leo's origins, we nıay perhaps
sunnise that Nikephoros somehow made a word play ofthe term, as was usual for
many writers of the time (and particularly in Methodios). Coıısider for example
the case ofMichael ofAmorion, who is named by George the Monk not amöraios
(awopaioı;) but amorraios (a.�wppaioı;), hinting thus at the Amorites, the old
inhabitants ofPalestine and an old foe ofthe Jews, much like the Amalekitai. 17 But
what "Assyrian" name could have suggested to Nikephoros the word play with the
Amalekites?
I suspect that this was the name of Adramalech (A8pa�mıı.sx), one of the
children ofSennacherim mentioned in the Septuagint as the son who murdered his
father along with his brother Sarasar (l:apacrap) and later took refuge in Armenia.
It is perhaps not a coincidence that this mention ofthe murder ofSennacherim by
Adramalech and Sarasar appears in the Bible in 4 Kings 19:37 and Isaiah 37:38,
exactly next to the mention of the Rapsakes alluded to in lgnatios and also in
the same book (4 Kings) where Sennacherim and Nabouzardan are dealt with.
This is an important point, for it would confirrn that the story of the two sons of
Sennacherim who fled to Arrnenia after murdering their father was indeed the
one used by Nikephoros to slancler Leo, perhaps basing it on some legends of

14 Signes Codofier (1991) 313-7, (1994) 367-70 and (1995) 15-16. PınbZ #4244
scarcely mentions the passage ofGeorg. Mon. in p. 678, note 2 without giving any credence
to it.
15 Turner (1990) 172.
1'' Settipani (2006) 324-7.
ı; Georg. Mon. IX.42 (792.7).
86 T/ıe Eı11peror Tlıeoplıilos cıııd ılıe Eası, 829-84:!

Annenian origin, which he connected with the Bible. it would not be a simple
rhetorical reference to Sennacherim, tike similar ones that appear again and
again in contemporary sources. 18 The reason that N ikephoros substitutes Amalek
(Aµatı.�K) for the similar-sounding Aclramalech (Aöpaµa1ı.ex) could have been the
fact that the name of Sennacherim's son had no significance whatsoever for the
coınmon reader (he is ınentioned in passing only twice in the Bible), whereas the
Amalekitai (like the Amoritai) were archetypal foes of the Jews and well known
to any Christian. 19
in fact the name Amatekites is used in other contexts to designate the
national enemies of the empire (for exampte the Arabs),2° but it seldom appears
in coıınectioıı with the iconoclasts. The only other meııtion I have been able to
find appears in the L!fe of Steplıeıı t/ıe Youııger (written c. 807-80921 ), where
Constantine V is called "a new Jebusite and Amalekites" (6 vfoç ·ıe�oucmi:oç Kai
A�taAT]Kh-ııç) for having contravened Moses' law (Lev. 19:27) wheıı he orclered the
beards of ali male inhabitaııts ofthe empire to be shaved.22 The use of these tribat
names for standering Constantine V is easity exptained here for they referred to
Old Testament peoples who, tike the fanıous iconoclast emperor, opposed Moses.
it is always possibte that Leo could have been named Amalekites for a· similar
reason, that is to say, for having opposed Moses' taw. Nevertheless, we think that
an adclitional reason must be found for explaining why it was only Leo among
contemporaıy ernperors or iconoclastic leaders of the ninth century who received
this appellative. That Manuel is named "Amalekites" along with Leo in a similar
straightforward way makes no sense if we accept that the name was used simply
as a reference to the foes ofthe "Chosen People".
I consider it therefore likely that the naıneAmalekites was given by Nikephoros
to an inhabitant ofthe East such as Leo, notjust for its Old Testament connotations,
but because it was also a way to refer to his "Assyrian" ascendant through a kind
of word play with the name of his ascendant Adramalech. The fact that Manuel
was also referred to as an Amalekites might be an indication that he also shared
the "Assyrian" ancestry of Leo in the eyes of some contemporaries, perhaps even
ofNikephoros himself. lt does not mean that Manuel was an Ardzruni or a Gnuni,
but onty that he was closely connected to the emperor and could therefore appear
as a relative. Thus the "Assyrian" ancestry ofLeo automatically reverted to him.
The Histoıy ofVardan the Great provides the proofthat we must not connect these
genealogies with the real ancestries ofthe men, for in this text Manuel is named as
Mamikonian.23 Perhaps he was in fact a Mamikonian, as Settipani and many other

18
Georg. Mon. IX.42(793.19-20) qualifies Thomas as ı:tç iiUoç LEVaXEtpi�t.
19
SeeGeorg. Mon. IX.I( 494.8-1O): ıcai ı:qı µtv lrıcrou oi Aµoppcitm �vavnouvı:o, ı:qı
öE Mcocrfi 6 A.µatı.�ıc ıivı:wı:paı:auaı:o.
20
See Theoph. 332.10 and Signes Codoiier( l991) 312, note 23.
21 Auzepy(1997) 8-9.
.,, l{fe o.fStepheıı the Younger 137 (trans. 233).
23
VardantlıeGreat41 (182).
 T!ıe Elıısiı·e Maııııel ılıe il r111eııiaıı 87

Annenian scholars think,2-ı but this does not exclude the possibility that Manuel
was also related to other Arnıenian clans, including that of Leo hirnself. in any
case, we must be very careful with these genealogies, used by individuals for
particular purposes but not necessarily reflecling any real ancestry.

5.2 Manue1's Service Under Michael 1, Leo and Michael II

The first appearance of Manuel in the Continuator may seem puzzling if he was
related to Leo, for, according to the Continuator, he counsels Michael I to face
Leo's revolt instead ofabclicating, as was Michael's intention.25 However, the role
of Manuel may have been clistorted for several reasons, especially as at least one
of his Lives was written after 843, when it was ııo longer convenient to clisplay
a close affinity to Leo. it is remarkable that the Continuator refers to Manuel as
an "Amalekites" in this passage only, which connects him immediately with Leo.
in fact, when Leo came to power, he rewarded Manuel with the commancl ofthe
Anatolikoi or of the Aııııeniakoi, a veıy important position that could fail only to
a reliable person. Be that as it may, Byzantine sources renıain silent on Manuel's
career cluring Michael Rhangabe's reign.
The Continuator says successively that Manuel was appointecl strategos of the
'Aımenians' by Leo V,26 that he was in fact leacling the troops ofthe Anatolikoi,27 ancl,
finally, that the theme of the Anneniakoi was under his command.28 If the reference
to the Armenians can be understood as being to the Armeııiakoi, we woulcl have
Mamıel with two different commands during Leo's reign.29 Either Manuel held these
two posts successively, or there is an enw in some part ofthe text ofthe Continuator.
If we assume the second possibility, then it would be easy perhaps to explain the
reference to the Armenians in the first instance as a slip by the Continuator, who
should have referred instead to the "Armenian origins" of Manuel. However,
the concrete reference to a commancl of the Anneniakoi in the third instance is
not explainecl away in this manner. As the Annenian origins are in fact expressly
mentioned in the second instance, this could have provided the cause for substituting
a more general "Anatolikoi" (meaning Eastem troops) for "Anneniakoi", as the
theme commandecl by Manuel, since the Continuator perhaps considered a reference
to an "Annenian strategos ofthe Anneniakoi" misleading. I would tenci therefore to
consider that Manuel was appointed strategos of the Anneniakoi, and remained so
for most ofLeo's reign. A further source seems to confinn this view.

24
Settipani (2006) 148-50.
25
Th. Cont. I.9 (18.8-11).
26
Th. Cont. 1.12 (24.4): cr,panıyov n�L�craç ,&v Apµı,v(rov.
27
Th. Cont. IIl.19 ( 110.3-4): ıil; Ap�tEvirov yap ,�v yevwıv �v, ıcai -roiı cr,pmoiı ,&v
Avmo1ı.ııcfüv ıini ,oiı ı\fov-roç npoııyouµı,voç.
2N
Tlı. Cont. iV. I ( 149.5-6): ÖTE ,füv Ap�LEvıo:ıcciıv fo,pmıhcı.
2''
See Sigııes Codoiier ( 1995) 104 for possible explanatioııs oftlıe discrepancies.
88 Tlıe Eıııperur Tlıeoplıilos a11d ılıe Eası, 829-84]

There is an iınportant piece of infomıation preserved in Michael the Syrian

that provides us with additional information about Manuel's rno\'es in the years
819-820. The passage can be translated as follows:

When the rebel Naşr heard that Ma'mün, king of the Taiyaye [Muslim Arabs],
was about to coıııe to Baghdad, he called his secretary, a well-educated Christian,
and ordered Iıiııı to write a letter for the patrician Emmanuel, as if he wanted to
ally lıinıself witlı the Romans. When the emperor Michael heard about tlıis, he
seııt anıbassaclors. Tlıese arrived in Kaysum. Naşr, who was at the time at Saruj,
assemblecl the rcbels and ıııade tlıe aıınouncement, boasting of the coming
ambassaclors froın the Romans. These rebels were infüriated for they saicl: "'Do you
want to iıı-itate Gocl by nıaking you an apostate?" Witlı these words they fillecl his
soul with bittemess, so that he seııt men to massacre the eııvoys ofthe Romans.30

The Naşr mentioned here, not to be confused with the Khuırnnıite leader we
will deal with in Chapter 10,3' was Naşr ibn Shabath, an Arab chieftain from the
'Uqayl tribe who controlled the Jazıra region during the civil war period that
followed the death ofl-larün al-Rashıd until his submission in 824-825 to Ma'ınün.
His main strongholds were Kaysum and Saruj, mentioned here and lying to each
side of the Euphrates, the first west of Sanıosata, to whose district it belonged,
and the second west of Edessa.32 Michael the Syrian gives a lot of infomıation
about the man and his continuous raids against the caliph's troops over the years,
for the region affected by his activity had as its main city Edessa, one of the nıost
impoıtant centres of the Syrian or Jacobite church.33 Moreover, Dionysios of Teli
Mal:ıre, Jacobite patriarch between 818 and 848 and author of a very important
Aıınals from the accession ofthe emperor Maurice to the death ofTheophilos, lived
for some time in the convent of Mar Jacob at Kaysuın. Since Dionysios' Annals
constituted one of the main sources used by Michael the Syrian, it is likely that the
reference to the coıTespondence between Manuel and Naşr was taken from him.34
But when did these events take place? Naşr is supposed to contact Manuel when
he hears that Ma'mün is approaching Baghdad. As Ma'mün returned in fact to the
capital ofthe caliphate in August 819, thus ending his long stay in Khurasan (see
Chapter 13.4), Naşr should have contacted the Byzantines before that date, perhaps
in spring 819, if not earlier. Undoubtedly the presence of the caliph in Baghdad
iınplied a reinforcement of the central authority that threatened Naşr's strongholds

30 Mich. Syr. 500-501, trans. Chabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 36-7.

31 PınbZ #4707 seems to confuse both persons, for the article speaks on pp. 136-7 of
contacts between the Persian rebel Naşr and Manuel.
31 Mich. Syr. 51O, trans. Chabot (1899-191O) vol. 3, 52 ınentions again these two
localities as the main cities ofNaşr.
ı; Mich. Syr.490-501, 505-7, 509-12, trans. Chabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 22-3, 25-7,
30-31, 36-9, 46-7 aııd 52-5.
ı4 Weltecke ( 1997).
 Tlı<! E/11siı·C! Mcımı<!I Ilı<! A r111eııicıı1 89

in the JazTra, so that he perhaps considered it aclvisable to cover his back by opening
negotiations witlı the Byzantines. Moreover, tlıe Byzantine teıTitory closest to the
JazTra was the Am1eniakoi theme, which was accessed from Melitene and Adata
through tlıe passes ofthe Antitaurus ınountains, wlıereas tlıe theıne ofthe Anatolikoi
lay further southwest and was mostly accessible through the Cilician gates. Tlıis
may ınean that Manuel was strategos ofthe Aııneniakoi in 819.
Moreover, we know from one letter of Theodore Stoudites that a certain
Krateros was the strategos of the Anatolikoi in February 819,35 and it seems
unlikely that Manuel would have assumed the post immediately after, just in time
to open negotiations with Naşr, as Treadgold argues.36
Nevertheless, the text ofMichael the Syrian says neither that Manuel remained
in office when Michael If sent ambassadors, nor tlıat he was dismissed from it. Nar
is Manuel mentioned as the strategos of the Armeniakoi when Thomas invacled
Anatolia at the start of Michael's reign, for Olbianos held the post at that time.37
Olbianos is mentioned as having remained faithful to Michael when he faced
Tlıomas' attack, but this cloes not imply that he had been in clıarge since Leo's
reign. 38 Since the other only strategos ofAnatolia who took sicles with Michael was
precisely his cousin Katakylas, strategos ofthe Opsikian theme,w we may perlıaps
suppose tlıat batlı were appointecl by Michael immediately after his accession to
power, replacing Leo's partisans. This cloes not however mean that ali remaining
strategoi in Anatolia were newly appointed by Michael. Some of Leo's partisans
could have continuecl to hold their strategeiai in Anatolia, for Michael probably did
not have sufficient time to replace them with new commanclers: Thomas, who had
begun his uprising uncler Leo, was already threatening Anatolia. Moreover, it was
alsa not aclvisable far Michael to rearrange at once the whole chain ofcommand in
Anatolia, far this would have created a voicl ofpower precisely at the most critical
moment, when the clestiny of Anatolia was at stake. Accordingly, it coınes as no

35 Pratsch (1998) 257-8.

36 According to Treadgold ( 1988) note 304, Theod. Stoud. says in his Letter Nr. 407
that he was transferred from Bonetta to Smyrna when a single strategos ruled "the five
themes". He further considers that Manuel was appointed "monostrategos" of the whole
e?st (like Bardanes) after February 819, when Krateros was strategos of the Anatolikoi.
However, in letter 407 Theodore mentions only that he was questioned by an "heresiarch"
who tried to persuade him to abandan icon worship "by making mention of his authority,
for he was put in charge of the five themes" (avaı:[0ecr0m ı:ouç ıiiı; el;apxiaç 7ı.6youç, eni
yap ı:wv nsvn: 0quiı:mv ı:s0eıı:m). There is no rnention of any "strategos" in the text and
the possibility of the rnan being some kind of ecclesiastical representative of the patriarch
for the whole of Anatolia is rnore likely. LbGr s.v. tl;apxia gives the meaning "kirchliche
Verwaltung, Amstbezirk (Funktion) eines Exarchen (Delegierten des Patriarchen)" with
reference to this,passage of LetterNr. 407.
37 Th. Coııt. il.1 1 (54.1 ) and Gen. 11.2 (23.4-5) .
.ıx PmbZ#5646 and PBE s.v. "Olbiaııos 3".
;,, Tlı. Coııt. 11.1 1 (53.22) aııd Gen. 11.2 (23.6) aııcl 11.3 (25.48).
90 The Eıııpcrur Theoplıi/us emel ıhe Ecısı, 829-841

surprise that most of the strategoi in Anatolia followed not Michael but Thomas,4°
especially if thc lattcr artfully played his cards and now offered some suppoıt to
them, as the case ofGregory Pterotos (see Chapter 3.3) clearly shows.
in any case, Manuel does not seem to play any role in the civil war, for
Olbianos had probably taken over his coınmand ofthe Arıneniakoi. The reasons
for Manuel's dismissal can only be guessed at, but I surınise that he was very close
to Leo, perhaps even a relative, ifthe common appellation of"Aınalekites" to
both is not simply coincidence, as we argued in section 5.1. Leo could have filled
soıne provincial posts with relatives, as Bardas, a cousin of his, was strategos
of the Thrakesianoi in 819.41 We do not know whether Bardas was dismissed by
Michael or not, but the hagiographical sources speak ofa ten-ible end for him,
probably related to the death of his uncle and protector Leo.42 I do not, however,
think that the disınissal ofManuel as coınmander ofthe Aımeniakoi followed the
failed negotiations with the Arab rebel Naşr. Surely, the massacre ofthe Roman
ambassadors by Naşr, as described by Michael the Syrian, was a humiliation for the
Byzantine Empire and must have had political consequences. But it is interesting
to note that Naşr contacted Manuel in the spring of819 at the latest and it was only
Michael il at the beginning of 821 who answered his request positively and sent
the aınbassadors. The detay is perhaps explained by troubles in the east caused by
Thomas' uprising that probably affected the area south ofEdessa, where Naşr had
his stronghold. When, after Leo's murder, Michael finally contacted the Arab rebel
with some di:fficulties, the situation had changed, for Thomas was now the leading
force in the east. Naşr simply let drop the matter by killing the ambassadors. And
Manuel was probably not responsible for the failure.

5.3 Dating Manuel's Exile (1)

As we have argued, Manuel probably left his command in the Armeniakoi at the
beginning ofMichael 's reign. However, the most detailed versions ofhis exile in
the Greek sources say that Manuel left Byzantium and went over to the caliph in
Theophilos' reign. Let us now consider the evidence in some detail.
The Continuator says that Manuel, after saving Theophilos from impending
danger in a battle, was "fraudulently charged through slander with !ese-majeste

40 Th. Cont. I.l 1 (53.21-54.2): "Ali Asia followed him [Thomas], except for
Katakylas, general of the Opsikion and Olbianus of the Armeniakoi, for these generals
proved to be the only who kept faith with Michae\"; Gen. II.2 (23.2-24.7) in the translation
of Kaldellis ( 1998) 28: "Ali the themes hurried to ally themselves with him [Thomas] along
with their Strategoi. Only Olbianos, the Strategos of the Armeniacs, kept his troops in tine
by his shrewdness, and also Katakylas, the Strategos of the Opsikion theme, and they both
remained loyal to Michael".
41 Pratsclı ( 1998) 260-61.
-12
PmhZ #789 aııd PBE s.v. "Bardas 30".
 The E!ıısil'e ,Wanııe/ the Arıııenian 91

and conspiracy", and indeed "by a few of his own associates" who were envious
of his fame. Accordingly,

when he [Manuel] learnt from a man he trusted, wlıo had formerly been Manuel's
servant but was now tlırouglı favour a wine-pourer and attendant ofTlıeophilos,
tlıat tlıe latter was about to blind him and deprive him of his eyes, he undertook
a rebellion and went over to the Hagarenes.43

it is not easy to date Manuel's exile by the· battle previously fought,44 for the
Continuator neither provides a dating for it nor mentions any place name. in fact,
the vague narrative of this battle, centred on the heroic rescue of Theophilos by
Manuel, seems only to be conceived to provide an appropriate setting for the
ensuing account ofManuel's disgrace that is typically described as a consequence
ofhis changing fortune.
A further battle referred to by the Continuator before this one makes it evident
that tlıe sequence of events in his work laclcs any reliability. .ıs The clating of tlıis
previous battle, fought now at Charsianon, is in fact controversial, for it can be
datecl either in 831 or, perhaps nıost probably, in 837 ..ı,, Wlıatever tlıe riglıt clating
is, this can:ıpaign at Charsianon could not lıave prececlecl Manuel's exile, since he
had already returnecl from it in 830, as we will see in Chapter 14.1. Moreover, it is
clear that Theophilos could not have taken the field, be it with orwithout Manuel,
before 830, for the emperor came to power in October 829!
it seems, therefore, that the Continuator inserted the account of the battle aııd
the ensuing flight ofManuel to the Arabs at the poiııt in his narrative that seemed
to him the most appropriate for chronological consicleratioııs we caııııot further
specify. In fact, as I tried to demonstrate in my study of this author, the sequence
ofthe battles ofTheophilos in the Continuator is simply an arbitrary arrangement
of different accounts taken from different sources aııcl without absolute datings.
The Continuator did his best to establish a chronological sequence, but he is not
reliable in this respect.47
The parallel naıTative of Genesios about this e\/ent, taken from the sarne
source, provides us with a suppleınentary piece of evidence, for Genesios says
that Mamıel's slanderers "falsely accused hiın ofplanning a rebellion when he was
strategos" (bı:ıtı.oıoopoucrı ıvwoaıç ıca0ocricocnv m:parqyı::ı'ıovn).48 Taken literally,
this would rnean that Manuel planned a conspiracy from his position as strategos,
but as no comınand of Manuel is mentioned during Theophilos' reign this is
again of110 help. Moreover, considering the rhetorical tendency of Genesios, the

43 Tlı. Cont. Ill.25 (118.4-12).

.ı.ı Tlı. Cont. III.24 (116.9-118.3).

' Tlı. Cont. IIl.23 (114.17-116.8),
4
.ır. For the dating and identification of tlıe battle see Clıapter 15.2 .
.ı1
Signes Codofier ( 1995) 668-9 .
.ı, Gen. 111.9 (44.23-24).
92 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ı/ıe Eası. 829-842

participle cr-rparrıysuovn could be understood in a general way, referring only to

the leading of a campaign. Finally, Genesios does not preserve any account of
the campaign fought in Charsianon and places Manuel's exile after an account of
Theophobos' rebellion (838) and death (shortly before Theophilos' own death in
842).49 Genesios, usually unconcerned with the chronological order of his sources,
is also not reliable.
According to the Logothete's chronicle, Manuel was "the most famous
comnıancler ofal I the Eastern troops" (6 6vo�tacr-r6-rarnc; cr-rpaTTJAO.TTJÇ na.v-rrov -rföv
sv Avarnı..fi) and was "held in great honour by the eınperor" (nµroµsvoc; napa. -rou
BamMwc;). But it happened that after exchanging some worcls with Myron, the
logothete ofthe dromos ancl the father-in-law of Petronas, he was falsely accused
by Myron before the emperor ·'of claiming the imperial power and planning
teJTible deeds against him" (<he; -r�c; Bamı..siaç opeyswı Kai s�tsı..s-rarn ottva. Kar'
utnou). Although the protobestiarios Leo denounced this.accusation as false to the
emperor, Manuel feared the emperor's rage and secretly abandoned the city and
rode without stopping until he aıTived at the passes of Syria, joining the Arabs. 50
This informatioıı is iııserted in the reign of Theophilos, but as Warren
Treadgold rightly observed, it is a later addition, intended to provide biographical
background at the moment when the chronicler intends to describe Manuel 's
participation along with Theophilos in the expedition of 837 against Sozopetra
and Arsarnosata. 51 The chronicler, who ınentions Manuel for the first time at this
point in his work, here traces the previous biography of the famous general from
his exile up to this campaign. Accordingly, the only thing that can be deduced from
the Logothete is that Manuel went into exile long before 837, for his exile in the
caliphate lasted some years, as we shall see.
But if Manuel's exile aınong the Arabs lasted some years and we know that
he had already returned to Byzantiuın in 830, there is the possibility that he had
already passed over to the caliphate during Michael's reign. In fact, the Logothete
does not give any name to the eınperor with whom Manuel quaıTelled. Here, the
reference to Myron and Petronas can be of soıne aid. Petronas was evidently
Theodora's brother, who caıne to prominence during the reign of his brother­
in-law Theophilos, but was already related to the iınperial family in 821, when
his sister Theodora married Michael's son. As we suggested in Chapter 4. 1, the
marriages of Theodora's sisters probably took place during Michael's reign.
Possibly Petronas also ınarried at that time. But he is not the protagonist of the
episode, otherwise he would have been referred to as Manuel's nephew. It is
moreover Myron, the father-in-law of Petronas, who takes the lead in denouncing
Mamıel. 52 He must accordingly have been older than Petronas, perhaps even older
tha_n Manuel himself. He could perhaps be identified with the Myron addressed by

49
Gen. 111.8 (42.71-43.3).
su Log. (A), Tlıeoplıilos [130] 15-16 (220.103-221.115).
51 Treaclgold (1979b) 172.
5' PmbZ#5214 aııcl PBE s.v. "Myroıı 2".
 Tlıe Elusive Manııel tlıe Armeniıııı 93

Tlıeodore Stoudites in a letter dated 815-818. 53 in tlıis letter, Myron is addressed

as an important dignitary and his support to the Stoudites and fidelity to orthodoxy
is praised. This raises no objection with identifying lıim with Petronas' father-in­
law, as he could have remained an iconophile and, despite this, a tnıe servant first
of Leo the Armenian and then of his successor Michael of Amorion, who relaxed
the persecution against icon worshippers. Theodore Stoudites corresponded with
other members of the imperial family who were icon worshippers, like Leo's
widow Theodosia.54
There seems to be some confusion in the oriental sources about the exact
beginning of Theophilos' reign and his role in the last years of Miclıael's
reign. Thus Michael the Syrian asserts that Michael resigned as emperor after
marrying Euphrosyne, "for men who maııy twice cannot reign over the Romans".
Theophilos received the crown of his father, who lived on "four more years after
his son's reign had begun, but he neither bore the imperial crown nor seated on
tlıe imperial throne". 55 As Michael married Euphrosyne c. 824 and died 829, this
later phase of his reign lasted four or five years and is grosso moda in accordance
with tlıe chronological inclications of Michael the Syrian. Miclıael is mistaken
about the prohibition of a seconcl nıarriage for enıperors (and normal people) in the
Orthodox Churclı, altlıouglı tlıe fact that Euphrosyne was a mın ancl tlıe mourning
was not respected could explain the scandal. What coulcl lıave caused Miclıael tlıe
Syrian, or better his source, tlıe patriarch Dionysios of Teli Mabre ("I" 848), to speak
about a ban on second marriages in tlıe church?
Michael also reports in his chronicle that some noblemen tried to convince
Constantine V to remarry after the cleath of his first wife, for they knew that
emperors could not reign if they took a second wife. Constantine, lmowing this
interdiction, macle the nobles swear that they would recognize his son as ernperor
in his place. They accepted and Constantine continued to rule as emperor under
the fonnal authority of his son Leo IV until his own cleath. 56 Also Michael II, as we
shall see in Chapter 6, was concerned about the accession of his children to power
and forced the senate to accept them as heirs, but in his case his concern was about
the füture children of his second wife. Another difference is that Constantine in
fact married three tirnes and third marriages were, if not condemned, viewed with
diffidence by the Orthodox Church. There was some scandal over Constantine's
third marriage,57 perhaps comparable with Michael's rnarriage to a mın.
Nevertheless, the fact is that Michael the Amorian is described by Michael
the Syrian as having played no role as emperor after his second marriage. No
other source· mentions that Theophilos could have actually shared the power with
his father beyond his nominal position as co-emperor. But this is in principle not

n Theod. Stoud., Letters, Nr. 259. See PnıbZ#5213 and PBE s.v. "Myron 3".
54 Theod. Stoud., Le/ters, Nr. 538.
55 Mich. Syr. 522, trans. Chabot ( 1899-191O) vol. 3, 72.
56 Miclı. Syr. 471-2, trans. Clıabot(1899-1910) vol. 2, 517-18.
57 Rochow (1994) 11-15.
94 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/os and ılıe Eası. 829-842

inconceivable. In fact, Theophilos had already taken part in soıne military actions
during thc civil war. 5g Moreover, we do not know how long Michael suffered from
the kidney disease to which he finally succumbed,59 but Theophilos could have
assumed more tasks in face of the increasing inability of his father. This could
have fuelled stories about Michael's resignation after his second marriage. Finally,
we cannot ignore that Theophilos as co-emperor could have taken some decisions
ofhis own during his father's reign and that the exile ofManuel could reflect some
kind of"family troubles", for Manuel was the uncle ofTheophilos' wife.
There are further chronological problems with the beginning of Theophilos'
reign in Tabarı. The Arab historian tells us in HA 209 (4 May 824 to 23 April 825)
that: "In this year, there died Michael son ofGeorge, emperor ofByzantium, who
had reigned for nine years. The Byzantines appointed as nıler over themselves
Theophilos son of Michael".6° Curiously enough, TabarT and Michael the Syrian
make Theophilos' reign begin in the same year. But TabarT also puts Leo's death
four years too early, as he mentions his ımırder in HA 200 (11 August 815 to 29
July 816),61 so that the whole chronology ofthe Byzantine emperors ofthe period
is displaced.
We do not know where the original error lay (a gap produced by Thomas'
uprising?) and whether the erroneous dating of Michael's death together with a
CO!TeCt reckoning of his regnal years (riine) affected the dating of Leo's murder.
Unfortunately, the reign ofMichael II is not mentioned by many Arab authors, so
that we cannot check how widespread this false dating could have been in other
oriental sources.6� However, if Theophilos was already crowned as co-emperor
in 821 and took part in soıne events during the reign of his father, some oriental
writers could have considered him the reigning emperor before Michael's death -
especially ifTheophilos was soınehow responsible for Manuel's exile during his
father's reign.

5.4 The Akrites Manuel

Before we proceed further with the problem ofproviding a date for Manuel's exile,
it is important to remark at this point that the information hagiographers collected
when composing Manuel's two Lives (now lost, but preserved through the use the
chroniclers made ofthem) must not be interpreted merely from the narrow point of

58 PıııbZ#8167 (629).
59 Treadgold (1988) 257-8.
60 TabarT III. l 073, trans. Bosworth (1987) 144.
61 TabarT III.1001, trans. Bosworth (1987) 45.
62 Eutychios, Aıına/s 408, makes Michael (III) follow Theophilos when the latter died
during the caliphate of al Wathiq (842-847) but again in 409 makes Theophilos follow
Michael (il?) wlıeıı he died during the caliphate of Mutawaldcil (847-861). For these
chronological probleıns see further Griffith (1982) 168-73 and Chapter 21.7.
 Tlıe Elıısive Maııııel tlıe Armeııiaıı 95

view ofa Constantinopolitan monastery extolling its founder, as ali scholars have
believed since the studies of Henri Gregoire.63 As Manuel's hagiographers based
their work on previous sources, the nature ofthese must be considered along with
the intentions of the writers themselves. I do not meaıı that these sources were
mistaken about the chronology of the emperors reigning in Byzantium, as in the
cases ofMichael the Syrian aııd Tabarı. But it could be that these sources were also
easterıı in a certain sense and, focusing on Manuel as their hero, were unconcerııed
about the major political figures of the time. This is particularly likely for ali the
events related to Manuel's exile and his stay among the Arabs. In fact, some details
ofManuel's life at this time have an oriental colour and suggest some kind oforal
reports about his activities in the east. To put it plainly, Manuel's life seems in
certain episodes to have been nıodelled on the epic account ofa frontier-warrior,
an akrites.64 Let us exarniııe some instances.
To begin with, when Manuel stayed in Baghdad he is saicl by the Continuator
to have won many victories over the enemies ofthe caliph with the help ofRoman
prisoners on whose behalfhe had given the 1 Iagarenes
- guaraııtees that they would
not escape. The Coııtiııuator describes these victories in the following way:

it was tlıen, accorcling to tlıe report, tlıat he took Clıorosaıı ancl ınacle it subınit to
tlıe Aıııeraınnounes not only tlırouglı tlıe excellent courage of tlıe men but also
tlıeir somelıow strange ancl al tereci appearance, for tlıe clıange of garıııents ancl
unexpectecl variation of languages threw tlıe enemy into fright. What is more,
he cleliverecl thenı from the nıany wilcl beasts which were causiııg thenı injury
ancl harın, ancl having beconıe a cause of great benefit to tlıem he was especially
lovecl by tlıe nıler himself ancl his couııcil.65

There are soıne points of interest here. First, it is said plainly that Manuel
contributed to conquering the Khurasiin, which cannot be the case, as the Khurasiin
was the region where caliph Ma'rnün had always had his main support and resided for
years until his returıı to Baghdad in 819. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding
on the part ofthe Greel< author and the text said only that Mamıel fought in that vast
region and helped the caliph Ma'mün to crush some dissidents in the east.66 But it

63
Gregoire (1934).
64
See Beck (1971) 48-97 for an overview of this kinci of epic song, ancl the
introcluction in Jeffreys (1998) for more specific details on the Digenis.
65
Th. Cont. III.25 (118.19-119.4): ön: ıcai ı:o Xopocra.v Myaı:m ımı:acrx,aıv ımi ı:ip
a.�,·- ,ıa�LVouvfi iııroı:al;m oiı ı:ip 8ımpı',patv µ6vov dç avo'pdav aiıı:oiç, W.:Jı.a. -rip ıcal ıcmvöıç
ırwc; ıcai ıraprııı.ıı.ayµı',vwç 6ıp0�vm mhoıç· ij ı:ı, yap ı:&v crx,rıµaı:wv µaı:apot.ı'] ıcai ıi ı:öıv
cpwvöıv ırapa. Ml;av el;r.ıUay� de; ôBtAiav e�miırmv �vayıcaÇı, ı:ouc; ıtOAB�L[ouç. Ou �l�V ôE
ı'ı.t-t-a. ımi ırot-Aôıv ı'.ı:ı:ı0acrcrwv Brıpirov ıcaı:amvo�u\vwv auı:ouç ıcai Pt-r.ıırı:6vı:wv EABu0ı,poıcrac;,
ımi �ıayat-rov afooç ıca1ı.G:ıv miı:oic; yı,yovciıç, oımpı,p6vı:roc; ı']yaır�0rı auı:cp ı:e ı:ip iipxovrı ıcai
ı:fi yapoucriçı auwü.
"'' in tlıis sense see Sigııes Coclofier ( 1995J 519.
96 Tlıe Emperor Tlıenplıilos aııcl tlıe Ecıst. 829-842

could also be that some kind of literary distoıtion, not to say exaggeration, is taking
place here: the author represents Manuel's exploits in a bombastic manner, linking
hiın with the conquest of the most important region of the Abbasid caliphate.
Second, the simple appearance of Manuel 's waıTiors reportedly threw the eneınies
into fright, a remark typical of epic poetıy. Third, aınong the exploits of Manuel a
strange fight against "many wild beasts" (ıı:oU&v an0acmwv 0rıpiwv) is mentioned
that also derives fronı the realm of popular epic. The beasts fought by the epic
hero could be lions or dragons, but this does not change anything about the fact
that these episodes are not history, but literary eınbellishment. See for exaınple
the inıportance given in tlıe Digenis to the fighting ofwild beasts as a way through
which the hero, aged only 12 at the time, tests himself and increases in prestige.67
A further episode in Manuel's exile is the secret enıbassy of John the
Graınnıarian to Baghdad to interview the pronıinent exile and convey to hiın
Theophilos' pardon. The Continuator describes thus how John succeeded in
ıneeting Manuel at his house in Baghdad without being noticed:

lannes was dispatclıed by Tlıeoplıilos' wislı fronı our country and clıanged his
dress: and assinıilating lıiıııselfand ınixing in witlı the rag-wearing lberians and
nıonks wlıo travel to Jerusalem in prayer he established lıimself in the lıouse
wlıere Manuel dwelt in Baglıdad, pretending ta beg ancl telling Manuel of the
emperor's regret. As testimony of what he said, he gave him tlıe emperor's
meclallion and clırysobull, which promisecl sympathetic affection and complete
amnesty ofwrongs. Taking these in his hands, as iffired in his soul, Manuel took
thought far his return home.68

It was usual for eınperors to give some en/colpion or personal object as a

guarantee of their word, and Nikephoros is also said to have sent a little cross
of his to Bardanes the Turk to confirm his pardon.69 But here the sending of the
enkolpion only enhances the dramatic effect of the ambassador who disguises
himself as a mendicant monk in order to visit secretly Manuel's house in
Baghdad. This recasts history as folktale or romance, for no official ambassador
ofTheophilos would have remained unnoticed in Baghdad. 70 And to make such a

67
Digenis Akrites G.IV.72-195.
68
Th. Cont. III.26 (119.14-23): � -ı:ov 'Iavvııv yvoı�LTI -ı:ou 0eoqıiı..ou a.qı' ı'Jµiiıv
�LE-ı:acr-ı:ı'Jcracra Kal µe-ı:aµqıuxcracra ıcai -ı:o1:c; paKoou-ı:oumv "IPrıpcrı Kai µovax,oıc; ,öte; npoc;
-ı:cı. 'Iepocr6ı..u�ta �LE,cı. ı..t-ı:fjc; <pm-ı:iiımv al;oµmoıcracra. -ı:e ıcai cruyKa-ı:aµ[l;acra -ı:qı ev cp otT]-ı:ö.-ı:o
o'iıccp 6 Mavouı'Jı.. Ka-ı:a -ı:6 Bayocı. ayıca-ı:fo-ı:rıcrev enaı-ı:e1:v -ı:e npocmoıııcra.�LEvov ıcai -ı:ı'Jv -ı:ou
pacrıMroc; �LE-ı:a.voıav ö.vaoıoa.crıcov-ı:a. Kai µa.prupac; -ı:füv eipıı�uıvmv -ı:6 -ı:e -ı:ou pacrıMmc;
ayıc6ı..nıov ıcai -ı:6 x,pucropoı'ıı..ı..wv eoioou, cru�ma.0eıa.v -ı:e Kal nav-ı:eı..fj ıcaıciov a.�tvrıcr-ı:iav
ciıayyııı..ıÇ6�LEva· a ıcai ı..a�ciıv de; x,e1:pac; 6 Mavouı'Jı.., ıcai oiovei -ı:ı'Jv ıırux.ı'Jv a.vaıcadç, -ı:ı'Jv
oııcaoe E�leA.E-ı:a ena.vooov.
<>'> Th.Cont.1.3(9.15-17).
711
The official purpose of tlıe enıbassy is eveıı clearer in Gen. ili. 1 O.
 Tlıe Elusive Ak11111e/ ılıe A rı11eııiaı1 97

longjourney in the disguise ofa ınendicant monk is obYiously unnecessary: there

were easier ways to contact exiles! Or should we think that Byzantine diplomacy
acted through secret agents, in a kinci of conıınando mission? And wlıat if the
secret agent was John the Grammarian hiınselt� as seems to be the case?7 1 No
need for that, especially if one considers the important role ofdisguises in epic
tales since the days ofthe OdysseyY Finally, the awakening in Manuel's lıeart of
his Clıristian feelings when grasping the eınperor's nıedallion İs another moving
episode from an edifying story describing the return of the faithful and orthodox
exile to the country froın which he was unjustly expelled. it is no coincidence that
the text emphasizes more than once that Manuel never converted to Islam during
his long stay anıong the Arabs. 73
A third passage will confirnı that we are facing here a literaıy fictionalization
of the events and not a sinıple recording of facts. it concerns the moment when
Manuel says farewell to the caliph's son ('Abbas), who had hitherto been his best
friend, for he wants to return to his countıy, where he belongs:

For as they approachecl tlıe place, Manuel embracecl maııy times Isnıael's son
ancl saicl, "Go, ıny clıilcl, go safo to your fatlıer, ancl know that I go to none otlıer
tlıan rny emperor ancl lorcl incleecl".7-ı

Friendship between a Muslim and a Christian is veıy coınmon in the Byzantine

frontier epic, as the case ofthe Digenis epic clearly shows, where the protagonist
is named the "Twyborn" because he was bom oftwo races, a Muslim emir and the
daughter ofa Byzantine general. At Digenis' death Christians and Muslims came
together to his burial.75

71
Tlıe monk is narnecl Jannes three times, the surname the iconophiles gave to the
famous iconoclastic patriarch, but also a popular hypocoristic variant ofloannes.
71
The fact that John the Graınmarian clisguises himself as an Iberian monk is perhaps
evidence of a close relation between the Iberian Bagraticls and the Abasgians with the
Byzantines during tlıis period, as considered in Chapter 15.2-3. The Iberians descending to
Jenısaleın probably crossed the lands oftlıe caliphate but they passed not through Baghdad,
but Syria. For Iberian monasticism and its presence in Palestine (specially at Saint Sabas)
see Maıiin-Hisard (1993) 567-76.
73
Coınpare for exaınple the fidelity of Digenis' grandfather with the Islaınic faitlı
when he was taken captive by �he Byzantines, as describecl by Digenis' grandmother to her
apostate son:- "For when the Roman arınies encircled hiın, / the generals swore him most
terrible oaths / tlıat he would be honoured as a patrikios by the eınperor / and become a
protostrator, ifhe were to throw down his sword. /But he kept the Prophet's commandments,
/ spumed renown and paid no attention to wealth" (Digeııis Akrites G.II.66-71). Curiously
enough, Manuel was protostrator under Michael I.
74
Th. Cont. lll.26 (120.15-19): iipn yap eıcı::im: 8� ıı:ou ere1crıcriaÇoY, ıca.i reo1cM. Tov
TOÜ 'Icr�LU�A. viov ıcamcrrea.craw:voç "'ı\m0ı», E<pıı, «ı'.ıyt�<;, iim0ı, TEICVOY, ripoç TOY remepa.
crou· B�lE 0€ i'.cr0t reopEUO�lEVOV ou repo<; iiUov, repo<; O€ TOY E�LOV ÖVT(l)Ç Bacntcfo ımi ıdıpıov".
75
Digenis Akriıes G.Vlll.202-10.
98 Tlıc! Emperor Tlıc!ophi/os aııd !he Eası, 829-842

Significantly, ali these moving and picturesque scenes have been removed by
Genesios from his naITative,76 where there are neither fights against beasts, nor
disguises of John, nor a moving farewell to the caliph's son. This is certainly
not by chance, as Genesios surely detected the fictional and literary character of
these episodes and considered them inappropriate for his "historical" naITation.
The proof is provided by Genesios himself, who labels Manuel as "mır own
Achilles" (tov Kae· ��tfö; Axı)J...ea)77 when mentioning his exile among the Arabs.
As Achilles was undoubtedly one of the epic heroes par excellence,78 Genesios
wanted to introduce Manuel as such to his readers, who may have been more
conscious than we are of the fictional and epic character of the sources about
Manuel, perhaps a popular figure of Byzantine heroic poetry at the time.
The use of oral or popular poetry by Genesios and the Continuator to shape
history is likely not only in the case ofMamıel, but also in otber instances oftheir
naITative ofthe period. Thus the Continuator, after referring to the defeat ofthe !ast
ofThonıas' figbters in east Anatolia, ınentions the existence ofa complementary
source for tlıese events, wbere a jongleur plays a leading role. This man, perhaps
named Gyberin (to ru�eptv),79 is described as a "ceıiain rustic man, who cared
about his voice and rejoiced in the harmony of the songs, these rustic' ones and
without meter" (Ü.vöpa nva ü.yopucov ... <prov�ç bn�tı::1ı.ouµı::vov ıcai ta'i:ç Olöai:ç
tı::pn6�tı::vov e�t�tı::1ı.föç ta'i:ç a.vet�tevmç tautmç ıcai a.ypomıcai:ç). Tlıis man contacted
through a song the oikonomos ofthe rebel Gazarenos and convinced him to betray
his master.80 These ıipomca tpayou8ıa seem to have been popular at the time, for
some later epic compositions were apparently based on events ofthe ninth century,
such as the seizure of Amorion by the Arabs. Arethas of Patras mentions in a
scholion jongleurs of Paphlagonia who sang these stories from house to house.81
Paphlagonia was the land from which Theodora's (and accordingly Manuel's)
family came.
in contemporary history many biographies parallel to that of Manuel can be
read, such as that of the Armenian Tatzates of the Andzevatsi family who, after
faithfully serving Constantine V and Leo IV for 22 years since 760, suffered
relegation at Eirene's court because of his hatred for the eunuch Staurakios and

76 Gen. III.10 and 1 7.

77
Gen. IILIO (44.29).
78
There is even a poem in political verses about Achilles composed in the Palaiologan
period and named Aclıilleis, of which several versions are preserved. See also Digenis
Ala·ites G.VII.85 for another reference to Achilles.
79
See PnıbZ #2532 and PBE s.v. "Guberios I". We have notice offoupep as a family
name in the second half of the ninth century (see PmbZ #1452 and 2527 and PBE s.v.
"Gumer I "), but it is hard to say ifthe forıns are related. As a matter the fact, the name in
the text may not refer to the jongleur, but to the govemor ("gubemio" or even "gubemis"
are attested in later Latin) who sent him to contact Gazarenos. An Arab word may also be
behind the Gyberiıı (Arabic 'ibrZ)ııı for Jew?).
80
Th. Cont. 111.19 (72.13-73.4).
�1
Beck ( 1971 ) 50.
 Tlıe Elıısive Manııel the Armeııian 99

went back to the service ofthe Muslims. Caliph MahdT even appointed him prince
ofArınenia in 782. 82 Ghewond says that Harün al-RaslıTd, tlıe son ofMalıdT, "even
considered lıim as his fatlıer", a situation that recalls tlıe close ties between Manuel
and 'Abbas. Tlıe meınory of tlıese akrites-figlıters was not only occasionally
preserved tlırouglı tlıe offices of tlıe Church,83 but also tlırouglı loca! cults, as
is illustrated by an iınage recently found by Nicole Tlıierry in a nıral church
in Cappadocia, near Koron. 84 The iınage, dating perhaps to the ninth century,
represents two ınounted soldiers confronting a devi] lying in the ıniddle, which
they pierce witlı their lances. An inscription identifies them as the scribon Leo,
who is said to have been buried on the spot (probably near to the place where he
was slain), and the tourmarches Michael, who probably died at the same time. No
better evidence can be found of the preservation of the memory of these frontier
soldiers by the same coınmunities for which they were fighting. The birth of the
oral epic tradition was probably not unrelated to this pious preservation of the
ınemory ofthe fallen in the battlefield.
in conclusion, it can be taken for granted that some of tlıe inforınation used
either by the Continuator or by his source (the Lives ofManuel) was based on oral
traditions about the Am1enian general, who was probably a popular figure at the
time, having led an adventurous life on both sides of the eastern frontier.

5.5 !Dating Manuel's Exile (H)

The ultimate oral origin of some of the sources about Manuel has impoıiant
consequences for the dating, for these kinds of popular stories and songs are
usually unconcemed with chronology. It could therefore be that Manuel went into
exile during the reign of Michael II and returned to Byzantium with Theophilos,
but that these sources also made Theophilos responsible for Manuel's exile for the
sake of simplification, just to avoid too many "characters" featuring in the story.
Moreover, there is also positive evidence for Manuel's exile beginning in
Michael's reign. The Continuator, after stating that Manuel fled to the Arabs at
the beginning ofTheophilos' reign and telling the whole story ofhis stay among

8" See Ghewond 140-43 and Theoph. 456. See Tritle (1977) 279-300 for a detailed
study of the personality ofTa\zates. Tritle considers his motives for leaving Armenia for
Byzantiuın as having to do with the prospect ofa lucrative service in the army. His final
retum to the service ofthe caliph had rather to do with Eirene's dismissal ofthe iconoclast
strategoi.
83 Detorakis and Mossay (1988) edit a Triodion they date to the end of the ninth
century or the beginning ofthe tenth, where an appeal is made for keeping alive the memory
of the soldiers who died on the battlefield against the barbarians. See vv. 192 ütv��tmç
n�Lacr0omav), 248-9 (µv�µrıc; al;icoç ırap' aı'.ıriZıv avı:mırxave-re) and 319-20 (cTıv cr��lepov
,ııv �tv��nıv ıim,e?ı.ou�tev mcrrwc;).
"• Thierry (2009).
100 T/ıe Eıııperor T/ıenplıilns aııd ılıe Ecısı, 819-841

the Arabs and his return to Byzantium, makes an interesting reınark to close this
section of his narrative:

There are also those who say tlıat Manuel fled to the descendants of Hagar aııd
returned througlı the solicitude of Theophilos, but that he did not flee under
accusation of !ese-majeste in the time of Tlıeophilos but rather of his father
Michael the Stamınerer, and was either driven by his hatred for the latter or else
teared an old ennıity on his part. 85

This indicatioıı, which is lacking in Genesios (who usually avoids discussing

the problems caused by conflicting sources), is corroborated by an independent
source, the Arınenian history of Vardan the Great. There we read the following
about Manuel 's exile in connection with an account of Leo 's murder:

Michael had alteınpted to kili him [Leo]. He had not succeeded, aııd when the
emperor heard of it he wished to put him to death. But he was entreated by the
eıııpress [to delay] uııtil Easter day had passed; therefore he was put in prison.
The jailer was a friend of Michael's who had bribed the manglabitai - who are
the royal courliers and iııtimates. These unexpectedly fell on the emperor with
their swords in the church at the hour ofthe liturgy. He fled to the attar, which he
grasped. But they mercilessly slew him on the spot like wild beasts. So Michael
became emperor. He went out to seek the great general Manuel Mamikonean.
The latter hastened to Kamax, where he took refuge with 150 men. From there
[he went] to Mamun, the prince of the Muslims, who had killed his brother
Mahmet and was mling over the Taciks. He greatly honoured him, provided
a stipend of 1306 measures of silver per diem, and other immeasurable and
incalculable presents daily.86

According to ali this evidence, it is safe to conclude that Manuel took flight
to the Arabs at the beginning of Michael's reign, probably in connection with the
civil war and after he had lost his command in the theıne ofthe Anneniakoi. We do
not know the reasons for his quarrd with Michael and whether his status as Leo's
close supporter played a role. Fuıthermore, we do not know what the marriage
of his niece Theodora with Theophilos meant for his position in the palace and
in what kind of conspiracy he could have been involved, provided the accusation
of Myron against him was. true. But it is not unreasonable to suppose that Manuel
was a victim of the balances of power during the first part of Michael 's reign,

85
Th. Cont. III.26 (120.23-121.5): Eicri ö' o'i ıpuyft µev xpııcrucr0m ı:ov Muvouı'jıı.
ıpum ırpoç wuç el; t\.yup, ıcui lita ı:ı'jv 0EO<piıı.ou, ü.JÇ dpııı:uı, E7tUV8tı.06vm cmouö�v, oı'.ı
µı'jv ıcu0ocrloımv eyıcıı.ı,0svı:u ıiıri 0aoıpiıı.ou <puyaiv, eıri Mıxuı11ı. öe ı:oü Tpa.uıı.oü ı:oü ı:oı'.ıı:ou
ıruı:p6ç, ai'.ı:a ımi �Licraı ı:qı npoç uı'.ıı:ov <pap6�tavov, ai'.ı:a öı) ıca.i ıruıı.mav öaöouc6ı:u µfivıv
uuı:oü.
�,. Vardan the Great 182.
 Tlıe Elıısiı·e Mcınııel tlıe Arıııeııiw1 101

as the Anıorian fell unsure about his allies and was faced by Thonıas' uprising.
Manuel's exile did not necessarily nıean tlıat ali former supporters of Leo sided
with Thonıas, for we have seen that Thonıas rebelled against Leo (Clıapter 2.1)
and that division prevailed among Leo's partisans in his !ast years. it is however
clear that his return to Byzantium at the very beginning ofTheophilos' reign had a
symbolic value, as ifthe new emperor tried to recover some kind of lost consensus
among the former supporters of Leo.
The return ofManuel to Byzantium was one ofthe first political consequences
of Theophilos' rise to power. Perhaps the punishment of Leo's ımırders by
Theophilos at the veıy beginning of his reign, which we discussed above in Chapter
3.3, was thought by the emperor to be a step towardsreconciliation witlı some
of the former suppoıiers of Leo, Manuel included. These partisans of Leo were
probably alienated from Michael without following Thomas and were therefore
potentially recoverable as supporters for the new ernperor. Theophilos wanted,
understanclably, to widen the spectrum of his supporters but also perhaps to move
away fromMichael's policy for sonıe ideological or personal reasons.The fact that
Theophilos was a ınore fervid adherent of iconoclasm than his father may provide
an easy explanation for tlıe change. But in order to start anewTheophilos also had
to get rid of Euplırosyne, Michael's second wife and Theophilos' stepmother. Let
us now consider what Michael's marriage with Euphrosyne in 824 could have
meant and how her banishment from the palace byTheophilos is to be interpretecl.
 Chapter 6
The Daughter of Constantine VI
and her Stepson

6.1 Marrying a Nun to Obtain Legitimacy

The political balance at court changed with the end of the civil war. By then
Michael's wife, Thekla, was dead. The widower emperor decided to contract a
second marriage, and Euphrosyne, a daughter of Constantine VI, was elected as
the new empress. We know the date from Michael the Syrian, who says that Thekla
died in the fourth year of Michael's reign, that is to say, in 824. 1 The ınaıTiage with
Euphrosyne probably took place shortly afterwards. The sequence of events in the
Continuator seenıs to corroborate a dating of c. 824-825. 2
Michael's was surely a bole! clecision, for Euphrosyne had been a n'un since 795,
when tlıe eınperor Constantine VI divorcecl his wife, Maria of Anınia, Euphrosyne's
mother, and marriecl his mistress Tlıeoclote. Both Maria and Euplırosyne then
retired to a monastery for nuns on tlıe island of Prinkipo. Michael's marı-iage to a
mm was to provoke scandal ancl rejection for canonical reasons. The Continuator
considers the marriage a fomication (:ıı:opvda)3 and Theodore Stoudites also
condemns the event.4 Why did Michael take the risk? He must have known of the
scandal caused by the earlier matTiage of Constantine to Theodote, but probably
considered it more important to legitimate and strengthen his position as emperor
(he was a parvenu without any noble ancestry) by linking his dynasty with that
of the Isaurians. This was precisely what Thomas had intended to do when he
pretended to be Constantine VI. Even Leo the Armenian changed the name of his
son Symbatios to Constantine probably for the same reasons.5
However, Michael's decision was hazardous not only because his chosen wife
was a nun, but also because it implied some change of policy. According to the
Continuator,6 the ernperor did not want to appear to disregard the due mouming
for his deceased wife, so that he forced the senate in secret to urge him publicly to
contract a new marı-iage. The excuse was that an emperor could not reign without

1 Michael the Syrian 522, trans. Chabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 72.

Signes Codofier (1995) 320-21.
3 Th. Cont. I.8 (49.3-4).
4 Pratsch (1998) 83-11.4 and 147-78, and Cholij (2002) 38-53.
Signes Codofier (1995) 176. See Speclc (1978) 387 for a positive image of
Constantine VI at that time.
" Tlı. Cont. 11.24 (78.4-79.12).
104 Tlıe Empcmr Tlıeoıılıi!os cmd ılıe Ecısı, 829-842

an empress at his side. The seiıators even feigned to begin an insurrection if the
emperor did not yield to their plea. Thus the enıperor demanded that his subjects
swear an oath to the effect that they would never cease to defend his future wife
and "the children bom of her" (ra EK raurrıı:; EKyova), "but that they will consider
her along with these their Lady and their eınperors" (&.na Ka.Kdvııv tE µEr· EKElVO)V
pacrıı..foı:; EXOLEV mi 8fon:otvav). 7 After the senate agreed, the emperor disclosed
the name of his chosen bride, Euphrosyne, and nıarried her.
If we are to give credence to this account, 8 Michael expected Euphrosyne to
bear him children, who would have been destined for the throne. Considering that
she was bom shoı1ly after 790,9 she ımıst have been 34 years old by the time of her
marriage witlı Michael, an age, if not the most suitable, slill very appropri(lte for
conception. 10 But the birth of new male heirs to tlıe throne by a second marriage
could only stir up trouble, for Theophilos, Michael's son by his deceased wife
Thekla, was already co-emperor. There were precedents for this. The emperor
Herakleios, who had also married twice (and again not without scandal tlıe second
Lime, for the chosen bride was his niece Martina), died in February 641 leaving the
empire to both Herakleios Constantine (as Constantine 111), his eldest son from his
first marriage to Euclokia, and Heraklonas (as Herakleios II), bom of his second
ınarriage to Martina, who was to be honoured as empress and mother of the two.
The succession was not without problems, for when Constantine 111 suddenly died
in May 641 Martina was suspected of poisoning him in order to favour her own
son Heraklonas. An Armenian general, Valentine Arsakidos (Arshakuni) rebelled
against Heraklonas and marched with the troops from Asia Minor to Chalkedon
forcing a frightened Heraklonas to name Konstans II, son of the !ate Constantine
III, as co-emperor. However, the discontent did not cease and in September of the
same year the Byzantine senate deposed Heraklonas, whose nose was slit. 11 Did
Michael of Amorion have this case in mind when he tried to obtain guarantees from
the senate for his second wife and future children? In any case, no new children

7
Vat. gr. 167 has &.ıı.ıı.a. K&.ıcEivııv -ı:e �te-ı:' eıcEivouç pamMaç ax.oıev ıcal oforcoıvav.
Beldcer suggested putting ıcai instead of µe-ı:', which makes the syntax smoother. However,
the sense is clear through Skyl., Miclıael il, 17 (44.87-89).
8
Treadgold (1988) 246-7 seems to consider that the Continuator distorted the facts
and that the senate acted on its own will when it forced the emperor to remarry. According
to Treadgold, the senators "found court society dull without an empress, probably the more
so because Thecla had been from a rich Constantinopolitan family whereas Michael was a
simple provincial". For him, "Since ... Michael was a puritan who regretted his first wife
and already had an heir, their union, which remained childless, may have been a rnarriage
in name only."
9
PıııbZ #1705 and PBE s.v. "Euphrosyne l ".
10 Mich. Syr. 522, trans. Chabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 72 mentions a son ofEuphrosyne
supposedly killed by her own ınother out of fear of seeing him converted to Judaism, the
religion Michael apparently fostered. This inforrnation is not to be found elsewhere and
seenıs highly suspicious. See PmbZ #l 705A and PBE s.v. "Anonynıous 728".
11 Speck ( 1988) 425-97 and Treadgolcl ( 1997) 307-11.
 The Daııglıter rıf" Consıaıııiııe VI wıd her Sıepsoıı 105

were bom to the enıperor fronı his nıarriage to Euphrosyne. A male heir, however,
was bom in the meantiıne to Theophilos and was baptized as Constantine, probably
to honour the name ofthe father ofTheophilos' stepmotlıer, Euphrosyne. 12
Theophilos may have viewed his father's second marriage with displeasure,
although no source reveals any quarrel between father and son over this matter.
The question at stake here is whether Michael risked a confrontation with his
own son only out ofhis desire for legitinıacy or whether there were other reasons
behind his move. As the sources renıain silent we can but speculate. However,
there is a possibility that with a new marriage Michael wanted to free hiınselffronı
the "Armenian party'' assembled around Theodora's family.'3 This possibility is
worth exploring, although we must first consider briefly the stance ofTlıeoplıilos
towards his stepmother.

6.2 lEuphrosyne's Banishment from the Palace and t!ıe Return of the
"Armenian lParty"

We do not lcnow whether Theophilos ever slıowed aiıy sympatlıy for his
stepmother. Despite the fact tlıat she did not bear any clıildren, he coulcl have
eventually felt that she threatened his position as presuınptive heir to the throne.
in any event, wlıen Michael cliecl in 829, Theophilos was at least 25 years old, but
the Logothete says tlıat he ought to lıave slıared the power with Euphrosyne. 14 This
remark is followed in the chronicle by the narrative ofthe bride-show supposedly
organized by Euphrosyne for her stepson. As the man-iage of'Theophilos actually
took place much earlier, in 821, when Euphrosyne had not yet married Michael
(for Thekla was alive), 15 we must reject this information of the Logothete, who
probably made Euphrosyne regent for Theophilos as he thought that otherwise
she could not have arranged his ınarriage with Theodora. 16 The Continuator does

12 Tlı
e only literary mention of this son ofTheophilos is found in De Cer. 645.21-23,
wlıere his sarcoplıagus is mentioned.
13 In fact, Euphrosyne was alsa of Armenian blood, for her mother Maria of
Amııia came froın a Paphlagonian family of Armenian descent, well known through
the Life of Philcıretos (see for example Treadgold [1988], note 375). However, she was
obviously chosen as wife by Michael not for that reason, but for being the daughter of
Constantine VI.
14 Log. (A), Miclıcıel il [129] 6 (216.1-2): ecrxs ı:ııv apxııv avı:' au-ı:ou 0ı::6qııı..oç, 6
ui.iıç auı:ou, µı::ı:iı. ıfjç �nıı;piıç auı:ou Euqıpooı'ıvrı.
15 See Chapter 3.1 for more details.
16 • There are no coins ofTheophilos and Euphrosyne together, but this does not prove
anything, for Euphrosyne 's supposed regency did not !ast more than som,e months. it is
interesting to note that the L{fe o/T/ıeodorcı 4 (260.47) mentions Euphrosyne in connection
with the bride-slıow organized forTheoplıilos (for it seenıs to consider that Euphrosyne was
in fact Tlıeophilos's motlıer), but has her play no role in the arrangement, only putting lıer
 106 Tlıe Eıııpemr T/ıeoplıilos cıııd ılıe Eası, 829-1342

not mention this regency and correctly makes the reign of Theophilos start in
October of 829. 1;
Tlıe chronicle of the Logothete further nıentions that after the marriage
Euphrosyne (whom he rnistakenly labels as Theophilos' mother) "abandoned
voluntarily the Palace to retire to her nıonastery, named Ta Gasıria" (EKoucrieııç
KateA0oucra roü n:a1ı.ariou EV rft µovft aürfiç, n Em.ovu�ıov ra racrrpia, �cruxaÇeV). 18
For Treadgold, tlıis proves that "she had planned ali along to retire as soon as she
had man-ied offTheophilos". 19
However, the suspicious stress of the Logothete on the ''voluntary" (EKoucrieııç)
character ofthe retirement ofEuphrosyne20 seems to react against another version of
the events, according to wlıiclı Euplırosyne did not willingly leave the palace. This
stress is even more enlıanced in the L[le qf' Theodora, where tlıe author says that
Euphrosyne retirecl to a monasteıy "because ofher own decision and not under any
compulsion, but ofher own free and voluntaıy will" (ifüq. n:poaıpfoet Kal ouı< Ô.VCLYKll
rıvl E0e1ı.oucri<:p ot Kai aı'.ı0aıpıhcp y vci)�ın).21 Are these authors indeed concealing
soıne other version ofevents? The Continuator once again comes to our aid.
Tlıis writer states tlıat the first act ofTheophilos' reign22 was the punishment
of Leo 's ımırderers (see Chapter 3.3). He says that this act was performed
apparently in order to present him as a just emperor, but "in reality to keep
lıimselfout ofthe hands ofthe conspirers, so that nobody could attempt anything
against him"Y The Continuator qualifies the execution of Leo's murderers as a
harsh act perfonned treacherously, since Theophilos summoned the conspirators
against Leo to the Magnaura under a false pretext. Significantly, after relating
this episode, the Continuator further says that: "in addition to this Theophilos
added another praiseworthy and noble deed" (npom:m0eiç wurmç -ı:6 tnmverov
EKetv6 y e ıcai. KaMv), namely that "of expelling his mother-in-law and forcing
her to rehım to the monastery in which she had earlier been tonsured as the
nun Euphrosyne" (ro CL7teA.CLCTaı Kal npoç rııv EV Tİ 'CO np6-ı:epov aneıcapıı µov�v
Euqıpocruvrıv, -ı:ııv fourou �LT]tpmav, 71:0tfjcrm naıı.ıwocrrficrm). Some lines follow

maids at the service of the bride already chosen by her son. it seems that the Logothete went
a step further and ınade Euphrosyne responsible for the bride-show.
17 Th. Cont. III.1 (84.18). According to the Life of Theodora 4. Euphrosyne
spent ten months in the palace after the celebration of the marriage of Theophilos with
Theodora. But nowhere in this Life is it stated that during this time Euphrosyne acted as
regent.
18 Log. (A), Theophilos [130] 5 (217.20-21).
19 Treadgold (1979b) 174.
20 Signes Codoiier (1995) 367, note 1.
eı Life o/Theodora 4 (260.4-5).
,,
Th. Cont. III.1 (86.5): -rOv crUA/ı.oyov Eıcetvov r6v ıcp&-rov.
el Th. Coııt. ili.! (85.3-4): rfi o' a1ı.q0eiç.t El;oı0ı::v eaurov riiıv Eıı:t�OUAEU6vı:crıv
ôıarqpti'ıv, tiıı.; ö.,· �ıı\ nç ıcar' aiırou n veavıı::ucrqrm.
 T/ıe Daııg/ıter of Coıısta11tiııe VJ cmd lıer Stepsoıı 107

in which Michael il is again criticized for having illicitly married a mm and

demanded ofthe senate oaths offidelity to her. 24
I fonnerly considered, developing Treadgold's argument, that the Continuator
made this comment out of hate for Euphrosyne, whom he wished in fact to be
banished and expelled from the palace. In fact, the Continuator expresses in
every possible manner his rejection and contempt for Euphrosyne and the illicit
nature of her marriage with Michael, because she had been a nun.25 However, the
Contimıator also makes Theophilos a target ofhis criticisın ali through the book
dedicated to his reign, so that he could scarcely have invented the banishınent of
Euphrosyne from the palace; which so obviously favours the image and prestige of
Theophilos as a just emperor. He seems, on the contrary, to be forced to recognize
Euphrosyne's banishment by Theophilos as a positive deed. As he could neither
fail to mention the fact nor diminish its significance (as he did with the punishınent
of Leo's ınurderers by the eınperor), he decided to mention it briefly, even in
positive terıns, but to take the focus away from Theophilos through harsh criticisın
ofMichael for marıying a nun. 26
it seems therefore likely that Theophilos expelled Euphrosyııe froın the palace
wlıen his father died and he inherited power. With this act he tried to diseııtaııgle
himselffrom his father's controversial nıarriage and also to rnake a display ofhis
justice and righteousness (see the Epilogue). It is not by chance that this ıneasure, as
the Continuator stresses, was taken along with the punishment ofLeo's ınurderers,
who could also have been his father's accoınplices. We must not even nıle out the
possibility that the fear ofconspiracy against him, alluded to by the Continuator,
was indeed real. With these two measures Theophilos wanted to prevent this threat
and, perhaps, to a return to the policy ofMichael's first years, when he relied on
the "Armenian" party. The "Armenian" marriages ofTheophilos' children, as will
be shown in Chapter 7, !enci credence to this supposition.
But what actually happened to Euphrosyne? She did not simply remain on a
remote estate, but significantly was sent baclc to a monastery, from which she should
have never come out in the opinion ofmany contemporaries. The identification of
this monastery poses some problems and also has consequences for mır argument.
Let us examine this question in some detail.
The Continuator telis us that Euphrosyne was sent to the monastery on the
island ofPrinkipo, where she had been living as a tonsured mm (between 795 and
824).27 However, we know ofthe existence ofa monasteıy named Ta Libadia (Ta.
Aı�a.oıa) in Constantinople where she was buried and which she probably entered
some time after leaving the palace. 28 According to De cereınoniis, she !ay buried
there with her parents (Constantine VI and Maria ofAmnia), her sister Eirene and

14 Th. Cont. III. 1 (86.11- 18).

15 Treadgold (1988) note 376 and Signes Codofier (1995) 366-7.
16 This digression has been omitted by Skyl., Tlıeoplıi/os 2 (50.19-22).
17 Tlı .. Cont. 111.1 {86.10) and 11.24 (79.6-9).
ıs Berger ( 1988) 646-8. For Euplırosyııe see PıııbZ#l 705 aııd PBE s.v. "Euplırosyııe !".
108 Tlıe Empemr Tlıeoplıilos emel ılıe Eası, 829-842

Anna, one of the daughters ofTheophilos."'' More problematic, as we have seen,

is the inclication of the Logothete that Euphrosyne retired to the monastery of Ta
Gastria (Ta facrtpta). The same information appears in the L[fe of Theodora,
which again offers a version very close to that of the Logothete.30This information
must be mistaken, for we know that Theoktiste, Theodora's mother, was actually
the founder of this monastery.31
This is expressly statecl by the Continuator in a further passage, in which
Theoktiste is mentionecl in connection with the family ofTheodora. In this passage,
which follows inınıediately after the crowning ofTheodora, the Continuator telis
us that Theoktiste was honoured with the dignity of patrikia zoste and summoned
Theodora's daughters to her house where she gave them gifts as well as advice
on icon worship. These details provide the frame for a well-known anecdote: the
youngest ofthe claughters, Pulcheria, found an icon in a box and told her father of
her discovery, who became furious ancl forbade his daughters from visiting their
grandmother in the future.32The author specifies in this context that Theoktiste's
house was located "in the place where the monastery of Gastria is now fixed
and establishecl she had bought it fronı the patrician Niketas".33 it is a curious
coincidence lhat Pseuclo-Synıeon repeats the saıne story as the Continuator,
including the cliscoveıy of Pulcheria and with very similar worcling, but making
Euphrosyne, and not Theoktiste, the protagonist. Pseuclo-Symeon thus again links
the monastery of Gastria to Michael's wife. 34 As there are other sources that link
the monastery with Theoktiste, it was surely Pseudo-Symeon who committed an
error. it makes more sense that the daughters cali Theoktiste their grandmother,
rather than Euphrosyne. 35
But why clid Pseudo-Symeon mention Euphrosyne in place of Theoktiste?
Either the similarity between the names Eu<ppocnıvrı and <l>ıı.ropiva (the other
name of Theoktiste) or confusion between grandmother and step-grandmother
(or even between Theodora's and Theophilos' mothers) ınay have prompted the
error. We cannot know .how and where the confusion that linked Euphrosyne with
the monastery of Gastria took place, although the Life of Theodora seems to be
somehow connected with this error. The role of Euphrosyne in the bride-show

29
De cer. 11.42 (647.10-15): icrtEOV, ön ev tfi �lOVfi ı-fi ;\,eyo�ıevn tiiç K.upaç
Eıiqıpocruvnç 'icrramı ;\,6.pval; aıı:6 Ai0ou Bu0ıvoü, ev cp ((7t01CEltal Kwvcrmvrtvoç 6 uloç
Eipıivııç 6 nıqı;\.w0eiç, ıcai Mapia 11 yuvı) aıiı:oü, ıcai al oı'.ıo 0uya-repeç aıiı:oü, Eı'.ıqıpocruvrı
� yuvı) Mıxa�;\. ı:oü Tpap;\.oü, ıcai Eip11vrı 11 aoe;\.qı� aıitiiç, ıcai "Awa � 0uy<'ı.rrıp 0eoqıi;\.ou
ı:oü pacrı;\.ewç.
30 Life of Tlıeodora 4 (260.6).
31 Th. Coııt. IIl.5 (90.2-5). See Berger (1988) 657.
32
Th. Cont. Ill.5 (89.22-91.10).
JJ
Th. Coııt. Ill.5 (90.3-4): ğv0a o� ıı t(l)V focr-rpiwv �ıov� T�V ıı:�l;ıv ğxeı Ta vüv Kai
'iopucrıv -�v fü: ı:oüı:ov el; EICELVOU ı:oü ıı:a-rpudou al;rovrıcra�LEVTJ Nııcıım-.
J4 Pseudo-Syıneon 628-9.
J; ln Th. Cont. Ill.5 (90.17-18) Tlıeoktiste is referred to as "grandınanıa" üı<'ı.�ı�uıç).

Tlıe saıne name is applied to Euplırosyne in Pseuclo-Syıneoıı 629.

 Tlıe Daııglııer c!f Conslaıııine VI cmd lıer Sıepson 109

for Theophilos, as told in this Life, is limited to putting her ınaids (0ı::pmı:aıvi8ı::ç)
at the service of Theodora, who is accordingly served by them "in appropriate
and advisable ways" in order to prepare for her wedding. 36The chambemıaids of
Euphrosyııe serviııg the future eınpress are appropriate for the staff ofa patrikia
zoste, whose main duty was precisely to attend to the toilet of the empress and
dress her.37 in fact, some details connected with the bride-show can be related to
the glamour and protocol of the staff ofa patrikia zoste. And then, asTheoktiste,
according to the Continuator, was appointed patrikia zoste in connection with tlıe
crowning of her daughter, and as, furthermore, this crowniııg took place at the
same time as her wedding, we may suspect that it wasTheoktiste who attended her
daughter for her wedding (as was to be expected), and not Euphrosyne, who was
later to be her stepmother-in-law.
We can therefore rule out Euphrosyne obtaining power or authority after
Michael's death. lf this was her intention, Theophilos hindered it, for one of his
first acts of government was to expel her from the palace aııd baııish her to a
monasteıy.
When Euphrosyne clied, she was buriecl in the monasteıy of Libaclia along
with her parents. it is not by chance that Michael was buried next to his first wife,
Thekla, as we read in De cerimoııiis, ancl namely in Justinian's !-leroon, along with
ali previous Isaurian emperors (except Constantine VI) ancl Theophilos. 38 it was
surelyTheophilos who took this step ofbuıying his father and mother side by side,
thus signifying his ficlelity toThekla's memory.This fidelity toThekla is supported
by a comment in TabarT, where it is said thatTheophilos trusted the command of
an aımy to "one of his own kinsmen, the son ofhis maternal uncle" (probably one
ofThekla's brothers). 39
The coolness and distance ofTheophilos to Euphrosyne is understandable, as
his father had chosen her as füture empress and mother of emperors. But, beyond
the personal quarrels, we must consider the political motivations that led Michael
to marry Constantine Vl's daughter.There was of course the legitimacy provided
by a scion of the prestigious Isaurian dynasty. Nevertheless, it is also conceivable
that after the end of the civil war, Michael felt that he could now free himself
from the obligations he had contracted with the "Armenian party" and fonner
supporters of Leo. Until that point Michael, who was related to Leo through his
wife Thekla, had allowed many of Leo's men to hold important ofiices during
his reign (for example in the Eastem themes), for he wanted to stress continuity
againstThomas, who could have presented himselfas an avenger of Leo in order

36 Life of Theodora 3 (260.47-49): ai -ı:�ı; pacrıAtCTCHJÇ Eucppocruvrıı;, ı:�ı; �nıı:poı; ı:ou

pacrıMwı;, oiıceı6n:pm 0epaıı:mvioı::ı;, ai crı::�tvoıı:ptıı:wı; pıouam, avc:Aapovı:o auı:ııv ıcaı �tc:-ı:a
ı:�ı; ıı:poaıııcoı'.ıaııı; nµ�ı; uıı:ııpeı:ouv auı:fi ıcoaµicoı; ıcai c:ı'.ıı:aıcı:coı;.
37
Guilland (! 971 ).
38 De cer. Il.42 (645.17-20).
3''
TabarT rı 1.1239, 1243, trans. Boswortlı ( 1991) 102, 106. See PmbZ #7259A-B s. v.
'"Thekla''.
110 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ılıe Eası. 829-842

to get more backing for his uprising. Michael even appointed patriarch Antonios
Kassymatas, who had been the leader of the iconoclasts in Leo's time. John the
Grammarian, mentor to his son Theophilos, probably continued to carry influence
at court. Although we cannot know the influence ali these persons may have
continued to exert in Michael's final years, the fact remains that Manuel remained
exiled in the caliphate until Theophilos' accession to power.
The first measures taken by Michael's son as sole emperor, punishing Leo's
murderers, expelling Euphrosyne from the palace and calling Manuel back to
Constantinople, are most easily understood as the reversal ofMichael's policy of
gradual detachment from Leo's supporters. The new active iconoclastic fervour of
Theophilos also fits in with this change of course, as it con-ected the ambiguities
and uncertainties of his father.
 Chapter 7
The Armenian Family Network

7.1 Theophilos' Armenian Relatives

As we have seen, Theophilos was godson of the Annenian eınperor Leo. He was
atso born of and ınarried to Armenian women (Thekla and Theodora) and had
close links with other Armenian relatives of his wife Theodora (Chapter 4.2). Most
important, these relatives continued to figure prominently in his reign after his
father's death in 829.This was the case with:

Manuel the Anneniaıı, as we will see in Chapter 8.2;

Bardas, Theodora's brother, who led an expedition in Abasgia during
Theophilos' reign; see Chapter 12.2; 1
Petronas, another brother ofTheodora, who was droungarios of the watch
and later chargecl by the emperor with the deticate mission of executing
Theophobos;2
• John the Grammarian, who, as we saw in Chapter 4.3, was godfather to
Theodora's children and appointed patriarch towards the end ofTheophilos'
reign;
• the patrician Constantine Baboutzikos (probably a member of a noble
Georgian family and married to Theodora's sister Sophia), who took an
active paıi as droungarios (of the watch?) in the defence of Amorion in 838
(see Chapter 12.2);3

1 Bardas, kaisar during tlıe minority of Miclıael III, married a dauglıter ofhis to an
Armenian called Symbatios (see for him PınbZ #7168 and PBE s.v. "Symbatios !"), thus
confirming tlıat tlıe Armenian elites favo.ured marriage among his countrymen.
1 Log. (A) Tlıeoplıilos [130) 10 and 43 (218.51-219.66 and 231.322-4). See PmbZ
#5929 and PBE s.v. "Petronas 5".
3 PmbZ #3932 and PBE s.v. "Konstantinos 30". Gregoire (1927-1928) 799-802,
referring to unpublislıed researclı by Peeters, considers tlıe possibility tlıat a letter of the
empress Theodora, copied in tlıe Passio of tlıe Georgian martyr Constantine (supposedly
executed in Baghdad after tlıe raid of tlıe Muslim general Bugha in Tifüs in 853), was
originally sent to the relatives of Constantine Baboutzikos after his execution in Samarra
in 845. His hypothesis has not been questioned until now. Constantine is called patrician
and droungarios in the sources but Treadgold ( 1988) note 408 said that he must have
been droungarios of tlıe watclı for "this was tlıe only non-naval drungariate nearly exalted
enough to be held by a patrician". IfBaboutzikos was tlıen droungarios ofthe watch İri 838,
then he was tlıe fourtlı person to hold this position during Theophilos' reign, along with
Petronas, Ooryplıas and Coııstantine Maniakes: see Külın (1991) 107-8. Since Petronas was
112 Tlıe Eıııpemr Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Easl. 829-842

• Theodosios Baboutzikos, who was probably the brother of the above­

ıııentioned Constantine, and was sent as aınbassador at least twice during
the years 840-842 to Yenice and the Frankish court to obtain support
against lhe Musliıııs and arrange the betrothal of Louis II (Lothair's eldest
son and king of ltaly) to one ofTheophilos' daughters (see Chapter l 8.2);4
• "the son of his ınaternal uncle", whoın Theophilos, before departing for
Anzes to join battle with AfshTn in 838, left in charge ofthe main Byzantine
army on the Halys and executed later for not having been able to cope with
the ımıtiny among the troops;5
the Martinakios who is referred to as a person close to the emperor "through
certain kinship" (ıı:pompKF.tm�tevov airrq:ı ıı:wç Kara cruyyevswv) and was
tonsured by Theophilos because ofa dubious prophecy which accused his
family of claiming the imperial throne.6

Probably some of the other Armenians who played a prominent role during his
reign had kinship or personal ties with the iınperial family. We cannot be sure in
ıııost ofthe cases, but it is perhaps worth considering soıııe ofthem.
Constantine Maniakes is a good example. 7 His Armenian origins are expressly
stated by Genesios, who records that he "was sent to Theophilos by his relatives
and the rulers of his native land as a hostage and ambassador" (a� apxıw&v Kal
cruvauraoetı.<pffiY crraMvra ıı:poç �acrtMa 0e6<pltı.OY 8ıı:tKl1PUKB1JO'e(J)Ç öµepov).
With the passing of time, the emperor leamt to be fond of hiın because of his
physical strength and noble disposition, and appointed Constantine droungarios
of the watch, a post for which Theophilos chose close relatives of his, tike his
brothers-in-law Petronas and (perhaps) Constantine Baboutzikos. Maniakes later
even became logothete of the dromos. 8 It was probably Constantine who made

cleposed, perhaps at the beginning ofTheophilos' reign, Constantine Baboutzikos captured

by tlıe Muslims in 838, and Ooryphas is said to have been droungarios ofthe watch during
the rebellion of Theophobos after 838, we should put the appointment of Maniakes as
droungarios either before ConstantineBaboutzikos or after Ooryphas.
4 PınbZ#7874. See Shepard (1995) and Chapter 20.1 for the embassies ofBaboutzikos
in the west.
5 TabarT III, 1239 ancl 1243, trans. Bosworth (1991) 102 and 106.
6
Th. Cont. III.27 (121.15-20). This reference is lacking in Gen. III.15 (49.74-86),
whose references to the Martinakios family are somewhat vague and perhaps reflect an
ambiguous wording of the coinmon source which could have been misunderstood by the
Continuator. According to PBE s.vv. "Anastasios 60" and "Martinakios 1", the Martinakios
mentioned to Theophilos in the prophecy could have been the same as the Anastasios
Martinakios who was sent by Leo the Armenian as his special envoy to punishTheodore
Stoudites during his exile (see also PınbZ #316 and and PBE s.v. "Anastasios 60"). The
Martinakios family came to prominence again through Eudokia, the wife ofBasil I, so that
we have a prophecy ex eventu: see Mango (1973) and Winkelmann (1987) 186-7.
1
PınbZ #3962 and PBE s.v. "Konstantinos 41".
" Gen. IV.3 (58.2-10).
 Tlıe Arıııeniaıı Fami�ı· Neıırnrk 113

the Mariiakes family prominent in tlıe service of tlıe enıpire, since it is the first
time we hear of it in Byzantium. If Markopoulos is right aııd the family of the
historian Genesios, a descendant of Constantine Maniakes, had Pontic roots,9
then it would be advisable to link the taking of Maniakes as hostage with the
campaign Theophilos pursued in the region of Sper in 835, because at this time
the emperor, according to Steplıen of Taran, "took many prisoııers among the
Amıenian faınilies" (see Chapter 15.1). However, the important issue here is the
way the emperor ınanaged to attract members of the Armenian nobility to his
innernıost circle. The parallel with the case of Tlıeophobos is eloquent. in this
case, the Khurranıite leader (see Chapter 11), son ofa noble Persian, was raised at
the imperial palace in Constantiııople probably as a privileged hostage, so that in
the end he turned out to be one ofthe men closest to tlıe emperor.
Leo the Philosopher provides us with further evidence of the promotion
to lıiglı offices of persons closely related to the imperial fanıily. 10 He is twice
referred to by the Continuator as a relative ( cousin) of the patriarch John the
Graınmarian. 11 This was surely one ofthe main reasons for his being first awarded
a public stipencl as a teaclıer in the Church oftlıe 40 Martyrs in Constantinople by
Theophilos 12 and later appointed bislıop ofTlıessalonike by Jolın tlıe Granımarian
himself. in the aforementionecl passages the Continuator gives as tlıe first reason
for Leo's appointment as bishop his wisdom and learning, in wlıat appears to be
the recognitioiı of Leo as a notecl scholar uncler Theophilos. However, it seems
unlikely that Theophilos, as stated again by the Continuator, cliscovered Leo's
talent only when the philosopher handed to the emperor (through the agency of
the logothete) the letter the caliph had supposedly sent to him with an offer to
come to Baghdacl.13 The fact that John was Theophilos' own tutor (see Chapter
4.2) was most probably behincl the high position and favour Leo enjoyed during
his reign. We do not know how Ma'mün became acquainted with Leo's talent, or
even whether the story of Leo's disciple who revealed his master's wisdom to the
caliph reflects an historical event. 14 But it appears likely that as early as 831 Leo
was developing for Theophilos an alarm system announcing the Muslim inroads
and alerting him when they set offfrom the foıtress ofLoulon (see Chapter 14.4).

9
Markopoulos (2009).
10
See PmbZ #4440 and PBE s.v. "Leo 19" for an appraisal of the sources relating to
Leo. His post as director ofthe Magnaura sclıool under Theophilos, advanced by the Log.
(A) Theophilos [130] 35 (228.255-261), is to be dated to the reign ofMichael III.
11 Th. Cont. IV.26 (185. 10-11): Aııcov sicı::ivoç ö �ıfyaç -ı:ı:: ıcai <ptA.Öcro<poç, öç ıca-ı:u

mryyılvı::ıav µev -ı:oü sl;aoııA.(jJOU -ı:0 ım-ı:puıpxn 'Iavvn cpıceico-ı:o; Th. Cont. IV.27 (191.2-3):
cııç OllCetOll�leVOV -ı:ou-ı:qı ICU'l:U crııyyEVetaV.
11 Th. Cont. IV.27 (189 .16-18): ıcai 7rA.OU,iÇeW.l ıcai ev -ı:0 -ı:ôiv ayicov �l · va0 öıöacrıeeıv

Öl]�tocriçı. rrapu.-ı:ou pamMcoç sm:[yg-ı:m.

IJ
Th. Cont. IV.27 (189.11-12): aihıı ıı ai-ı:ia -ı:ı'jç -ı:ouÖg -ı:oü ı'Lvöpoç rrpoç -ı:ov PamMa
yvci.ıcrecilÇ -ı:e ıcai oiıceicomç.
14
Lemerle ( 1971) 150-54, Speck ( 1974a) 2-5, Signes Codoiier ( 1996) aııd Magdelino
( 1998a) 199-202.
1 14 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd t/ıe East, 829-841

Theophilos had no need ofa caliph to discover Leo's capacities, although the
story is a good reflection ofa certain cultural rivalıy between the caliphate and
Byzantiuın, as we shall see in Chapters 23 and 24. In any case, Leo was closely
connected through .John the Grammarian to the iınperial family, whatever his
ethnic origins may have been.
Ofa more hypothetical nature is the kinship ofTheophilos with the person of
the spatharokandidatos Petronas Kamateros, sent as ambassador to the Khazars
by Theophilos and later appointed strategos of Cherson (see Chapter 19.1). 15
Nothing certain is known about the origins of Petronas, but the similarity of
Petronas' name to that of Theodora's brother has led to suggestions that they
were the same person. This is probably to be excluded, for our Petronas was a
menıber ofthe Kamateroi, but perhaps some kind ofkinship or relation did indeed
exist between Petronas Kamateros and the imperial family. The sources report
that for his mission Petronas was accoınpanied by ships of the imperial army
but also of the (maritime) katepano of Paphlagonia, the region from which the
family ofTheodora came. The presence of the fleet of Paplılagonia, anchored at
Amastris 1<• on a mission to the north ofthe Black Sea, was ofcourse self-evident,
for regular connectioııs between Amastris aııd Clıerson should be assumed. 17
These connections could have been precisely the reason for the interest of the
Paphlagonians in tightening ties with their northern neighbours. The election of
Petronas Kamateros for a ınission in Khazaria could thus have been related to his
Paphlagonian origins. Again, we must reınember here that the empress Theodora
probably belonged to a rich family of merchant sailors. As we have seen, the
Continuator reports that Theophilos was furious when he discovered that his
wife was the owner ofa large cargo ship. 18 The possibility that the eınpress' ship
carried cargo froın Cherson to Constantinople is appealing and can be used as
complementary grounds for explaining the interest of the emperor in controlling
the northern coast ofthe Black Sea through an alliance with the Khazars.
it is however the marriage of one of the daughters of Theophilos to the
Armenian Alexios Mousele which constitutes the most compelling evidence
of the importance of the "Armenian party'' under Theophilos, for it makes
it clear that the ernperor not only promoted the relatives of his wife, but also
fostered further links with noble Annenian houses. This is not the place to deal
extensively with Alexios' life, but perhaps some debated aspects ofhis career can
be commented upon, for they will shed some light on the family network we are
considering here.

15 PıııbZ #5927 and PBE s.v. "Petronas 7".

11' O
ikonoınides (1972) 349.
17 See Chapter 20.I for regular connections betweeıı Criınea and Paphlagonia (Sinope
and Aınastris).
"' Tlı. Coııt. 111.4 (88.4-89.14 ). See Clıapter 4.2 ancl the Epilogue.
 Tlıe Arıııenian Famizv Netırnrk 115

7.2 Kaisar Alexios Mousele: His Career and Imperial Ambitions

Alexios was not a secondary figure, for he was appoiııted kaisar and therefore
probable successor of Theophilos at a time wheıı the enıperor had ııo nıale heirs
to the throne. However, except for the Continuator, we have at our disposal few
sources about his life, so that even the chronology of his cıırsus hoııoruııı and the
dating of his nıarriage to Theophilos' daughter Maria is anything but clear. 19 Bııt
before entering into any discussion of Alexios' career, it is worth reproducing here
the Continuator's words:

it also behoved lıinı [Theophilos] to take thought for his owıı affairs aııd his
faınily and to make provision as he deemed fitting. Therefore, because he was
then the father of five daughters, and appeared destitute of male offspring, he
thought it necessaıy to many Maria, the very !ast ofali - she beiııg preferred to
tlıe others - to a nıan. This man was descended fronı the race oftlıe Krenitai, fronı
a place in the land of the Arnıenians; his name was Alexios, witlı tlıe surnanıe
Mousele. He was fair of forııı, in tlıe prime ofage, and he lived in tlıe area oftlıe
acropolis in tlıe so-called lıouses oftlıe Krenitissa. Al first, because of tlıe ollıer's
affection for his dauglıter, Theoplıilos lıonoured lıiııı with the office ofpatrician
and proconsul; and then he proclaimed hiııı ıııagister and, fiııally, kaisar; aııd
giviııg him aıııple troops he dispatched lıinı to Lagobardia, for there was tlıeıı an
urgent necessity. And thus he went off, accomplishing his task well and as was
fitting to the emperor. For tlıis reason the enıperor's fondness for lıinı aboundecl,
but together witlı this abounded also nıen's envy of him, and some of thenı
reviled and uttered slanders against hinı: tlıat he covets the empire and that one
day the Alplıa must gain dominion over the Theta. Tlıerefore, wlıen the kaisar
Alexios learııt oftlıe false accusations stitched togetlıer against him, as iftaking
precaution against envy, he maııy times besought the enıperor to lıave mercy
on lıim and allow lıinı to take up the monastic life. But at the time Theophilos
would not allow this, citing as a reason the widowlıood ofhis daughter, and thus
the aforementioned kaisar continuecl witlı full calm his activity in public affairs.
However, after Tlıeophilos begat Michael, and his daughter, the kaisar's wife,
left tlıis life, he so honourecl her as to place her remains in a coffer covered with
silver aııd to graııt, through iambics chiselled upon it, the privilege ofasylunı to
persons who souglıt refüge there, whatsoever the crimes they stood convictecl of;
and as for Alexios, who had;secretly changed estate and clothed himselfin tlıe
monastic liabit, Tlıeoplıilos, being unable to convince him to take it off again,
grudgingly agreed, heaping many reproaches on tlıe otlıer because he clıose not
to be with lıim, but in some hole and corner. Whereupon he gave lıim as a gift
tlıe imperial monastery in Chrysopolis, as well as that ofByrseus and also that in
Elaias. But the other, whilst living in the monastery in Clırysopolis, once wanted
a walk and came to the place called Anthemios, tlıeıı a part of the iıııperial

1''
Pm/ıZ#l95 and PBEs.v. "Alexios 2".
116 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/os aııd t/ıe Easr, 8]9-84]

Mangana, and said: '·Each of these holy places bears the etemal name of its
founders"; aııd he chose to purchase this place through inıperial decree and to
construct his own ınonasteıy. This was done by order of the eınpress Theodora,
his ınother in law. Wlıereupoıı, haviııg built it up very well and brought it to
nıonastic regulation. he left this life and was buried there, his tomb and inscribed
inıage above it being witness of what we have recounted. Moreover, near lıinı
is also buried his brother Theodosios who was enrolled in the ranks of the
patriciaııs and who letl ınany nıarks of his nıost excellent life in the ınonastery.20

The fırst thing to be noted in this passage is tlıe remark ofthe Continuator near
tlıe end of his account tlıat Alexios' "toınb and the inscribed iınage oflıim above
it" (rov ra<pov Kai r�v aürou iivoo0Ev smycypa�t�tevııv EiK6va) bear witness ofwhat
the historian has recounted. Altlıough the wording is aınbiguous, the text seems to
suggest that the Continuator obtained his information about the person from some
kind ofinscription on Alexios' tomb. it this interpretation is correct, the reliability
of tlıe account, which is lacking in other histories of the period, would be very
lıigh. 21 However, other sources have preserved additional details, whiclı are not so
favourable toward Alexios. Among them we will make particular reference to the
version ofthe Logothete.22
üne thing appears clear in ali the accounts: Alexios' Arınenian origins. Ali
the sources unanimously say that he was Arınenian by birth and connect hiın
with the Mousele faınily (Moocrıf>ı.e, MoucrEtı.e). He was probably related to
another Alexios Mousele, who was droungarios ofthe watclı and strategos ofthe
Armeniakoi in 790-792, and was involved in the confrontation between Eirene and
Constantine VI.23
The Continuator further specifies that "this man was descended from the lineage
of the K.renitai, from a place of the (land of) the Annenians" (6 o' a�p ıııç r&v
Kpt]vtr&v ıcaıı,ycro ycvEfiç, xcopaç rıiç r&v Ap�tEvioov) and adds that at the time "he
Iived in the area of the acropolis in the so-called houses of the Krenitissa" (oiıc&v
ıcm:a. TO rıiç aıcpo1t6AEOOÇ µepoç, ıca.ra. . raç oihro ıcatı.ouµevaç rıiç KpııvtTtO'O'T]Ç
oiıcia.ç).24 This has been sornetimes understood as ifthe name ofthe Krenitissa house
in Constantinople, deriving from a nearby fountain or ıcpiJVTJ, had been transfeITed
to the family occupying it. 25 However, the morphology of the name K.renitissa
(Kpııvtricrcra) points rather to the name of a female member of the family of the
Krenitai. Curiously enough, we have no other references in the sources about the
K.renitai, whereas the family name Mousele is well attested. Moreover, it appears
strange that the kaisar Mousele received two family names, the first (Mousele) being

w Th. Cont. lll.18 (107.14-109.16).

21 Signes Codofier (1995) 457-9.
" Log. (A) T!ıeophilos [l 30] 11-14 (219.66-220.103).
2.1
PmbZ#193 andPBEs.v. "Alexios l".
24
Th. Cont.111.18 (107.19-108.1).
25
Moritz ( 1896-1898) vol. 2, 38. See Signes Cocloiier ( 1995J 451.
 Tlıe Arıııe11ia11 Faıııizı• Netıl'Ork 117

his "sumame" (imcovu�Lia) and the second (Krenites) his "Iineage" (yı::vı::a.). Might it
be that Alexios' "lineage" actually referred to his native country as a place name?
The Continuator refers in fact to the ''lineage of the Krenitai" as coming "from a
place ofthe (Iand of) the Armenians".
it is therefore appealing to connect the K.renitai with the Armenian city ofKarin,
renamed Theodosiopolis in 415 by the Byzantines (today Erzurum). The district
around it was named Karenitis (Kaprıvi:rıç) by classical authors.26 Constantine V
briefly recovered the city for the eınpire in 754 and settled its inhabitants in the
Balkans. The report ofthe Arınenian historian Ghewond is as follows:

During his [Manşür's] reign, the king ofthe Greeks [Constantine V ] ınoved fronı
his inıperial portals with a massive multitude offollowers and arrived at the city
called Theodosiopolis in the region of Karin. As King Constantine, son of Leo,
instantaneously destroyed the forlress walls of the castle, he opened the house
of the treasury and took away gold and silver of nıuch quantity. Anıong those
lreasures he found a fragnıent of the Lord's cross, wlıich he took and carried
away with hiııı. Furtlıermore, he took the city troops ancl lhe local Saracens,
along witlı their fanıilies, to the land ofthe Greeks. Many ofthe iııhabitaııts ofthe
same district asked the kiııg to allow tlıem to follow him, in order to be relieved
of the heavy yoke of servitude to tlıe Arabs. Haviııg secured permissioıı [from
enıperor Coııstaııtine] they [the inhabitants ofthe district] prepared tlıemselves,
packed their beloııgings and moved, placiııg their trust in the power ofthe Lord's
cross and in the gloıy of the emperor. They separated themselves [from tlıeir
owıı people], left their homeland, and weııt to the country ofthe pious king. But
the following year YazTd [[bıı Usayd] prepared the troops, which were uııder
his comnıaııd, reached the city of Karin and imposed a poll tax throughout the
country. He also assembled the iııııumerable multitude aııd assigned foremeıı for
the coııstruction work oftlıe ruptured walls ofthe city, aııd he himselftook care
of it. He later allowed the Arabs to migrate to the city aııd !ive there with their
fanıilies for the purpose ofprotecting the city from the enemies. He also made
arraııgements for food to be distributed to tlıem from our laııd ofArrneııia.27

It is of course just a possibility that the Annenian lineage of the K.renitai

derived precisely from some noble families of K.arenitis settled in Byzantium in
the second half of the eighth centuıy, the time when the first Mousele appears in
our sources. Obviously, bofünames, Krenitai and Karenitis, are similar enough as
to make theit identity likely. But we must also take into account the campaign of

26 Strabo 11.14.5. See RE s.v. KaprıvT-nç and Talbert (2000) map 89 and vol. 2, 1275.
27 Ghewond 29 (123-4). I make some corrections in the translation ofArzoumaniaıı
following Bedrosian. See Arzoumaniaıı ( 1982) 181 and 183-4 for some short notes on the
passage. Other sources, including Theoph. 427 (AM 6243) and 429 (AM 6247), speak
rather of deportation of the Armenians by Coııstaııtiııe V, wlıo settled thenı in Thrace; see
Ditten(l993)76-7, 183-90.
 118 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası, 829-842

Tlıeophilos against Theodosiopolis/Karin in 835, as we slıall see in Chapter 15.

We simply do not know the motives that pushed Theophilos to march so deep into
the east for the first time since Constantine V's reign, but it is easy to imagine that
the Armenian inhabitants of the Karenitis, who settled in the empire after 754 and
reınained faithful and loyal servants of the empire, had not forgotten their native
homeland. I f mır Alexios Mousele were one of them, he surely would have taken
part in the campaign, a successful one, for Theophilos forced the inhabitants of
Theodosiopolis/Karin to pay tribute to the empire. That Alexios Mousele had a
great iııflueııce at the emperor's couıt is in any case not to be doubted, for there
were even rumours accusing him of claiming the throııe, nımours that finally
forced his retirement from the palace and his entrance into a monastery.28
However, as we slıall now see, it is likely that Alexios was not appointed kaisar
until 837-838, so that it would not have been hiın in person but the supporting
"Armenian party'' at the court who somehow dictated the targets ofTheophilos'
campaigıı in Armenia in 835 and was, accordingly, behind the proınotion of
Mousele to the highest magistracy of the empire after the emperor himself, that
of the kaisar.
To establislı a chranology for Alexios' marriage and subsequent career we
ımıst again take into account the information provided by the Coııtinuator. As
we see, Alexios married Maria, who appears to have been the youngest of the
emperor's five daughters, since she is referred to by the Continuator as being "the
veıy last of ali the other" (ı:�v nacr&v ecrxa.ı:rıv ... oucrav ı:&v aUrov) daughters
of Theophilos.29This information seems to be confirmed by the Continuator in
another passage, where Maria is listed in !ast place after the other four daughters of
Theophilos: Thelda, Anna, Anastasia, Pulcheria and Maıia.30There are also other
sources confirming that Thekla was the oldest of the daughters,31 and coins have
been preserved withTheophilos, his wifeTheodora andThekla on the obverse and
Anna and Anastasia on the reverse,32 confirming thus that Anna and Anastasia were
younger than Thekla. Against ali this evidence, it has occasionally been argued
that Maria was in fact the eldest daughter of Theophilos, but that her untimely
death (before the aforementioned coins with her sisters were stnıcl<) made her age
and position among her sisters unknown in later times, so that she was mistakenly
placed at the !ast of the daughters' list and considered to be the youngest of ali
them.33 However, the evidence appears to be overwhelmingly in favour of Maria
being the youngest of the daughters and there is no compelling reason to doubt this.

28
Th. Cont. III.18 (108.6-13).
29
Th. Cont. III.18 (107.17).
ıo Th. Cont. Ill.5 (90.5-7): rcevı:e oe ijcrav ı:ov apt0�t6v, � ı:e 0eı<7ı.a ıcal 'Awa.,
A.vacrı:a.ofo ı:e Kal I1ou7ı.xepia Kal rı Ma.pia.
31
PnıbZ#726J andPBEs.v. "Thekla l".
31 Grierson (1973) 415-16.
n See Brooks (1901), Bury (1912) 465-8 and Signes Codoiier (1995) 380-84.
Pulcheria is preseııted in Th. Coııt. lll.5 (90.20-21) as an infaııt clıild (ıw.i 111ı.udq. ıcpo,;
 Tlıe Amıe11ia11 Fami�ı• Ne/lı'ork 119

Therefore, if Theoplıilos maITied in 821 (see Clıapter 4.1) aııd Maria was in
fact the youngest oflıis five daughters, she vvould have been borıı at the earliest in
825-826 and reached the canonical age for nıarriage ( 12) only in 837-838, whiclı
appears to be a late date for tlıe beginııing ofAlexios' career. As we have seen, the
Continuator says that Theophilos gave Alexios first (ırpföı:ov) the ranks ofpatrician
and anthypatos, then (Em:ım) appointed lıinı magistros, and finally (ı:o foxaı:ov)
kaisar (Kafoap).34 It was with this title that he was sent to ltaly (ı\ayopap8iav)
with troops.3; The account of the Logothete specifies that Alexios was sent to tlıe
west as dux ofSicily (8oüıca :2:tKeAiaç;) and nıentions that the Sicilians denounced
him for attempting to seal an alliance with the Arabs and conspiring against the
enıperor.36 Theophilos nıade Alexios conıe back to Constantinople tlırouglı tlıe
agency ofthe arclıbishop Theodore Krithinos37 and put lıinı in prison. it was only
later that the enıperor letAlexios out ofprison and was reconciled witlı him.38
Ifthis cw-sııs honorıım of Alexios began after his nıarriage with Maria in 837-
838, it would lıave been in fact a veıy fast one, for the Continuator says thatAlexios
retired to a monasteıy after Maria diecl and Michael (ili) was born to Theoplıilos,
that is to say in 840.39 Moreover, Alexios had triecl to retire even before Maria had
died, although the enıperor did not conıply wi'th his request. Alexios would thus
have been kaisar for a veıy short period before 840 if he began his career only in
837-838. He would not have had enough time to carıy out such varying cluties,
provoking the envy ofthe court and attempting twice to retire to a monasteıy!
There is however another possibility. The Continuator cloes not say that
Alexios actually nıarried Maria, but just that the emperor "thozıght it necessaıy

fü; ıcai vqı vrpı:ıaÇoucm, "a child! both in age and in mind") in contrast to her sisters. This
explains that, when she found icons in a box, she narvely told her father ofher discovery as
ifthey were dolls. Howevef, this scene could have taken place before the birth ofMaria, Of
even at a time when Mafia was only an infant baby and not able to ııttef a word.
34
Th. Cont. III.18 (108.1-3). The less detailed account of the Log. (A) T/ıeop/ıilos
[130] il (219.68-69) says that Alexios-was appointed patrician and "after a shoft time"
üte,' oıı.iyov) magistros, but no mention is made of the title ofkaisar, pefhaps because the
Logothete (of his source) considefed mofe important his command in the west tlıan tlıe title
itself, which had not specific functions attached to it.
3;
Th. Cont. III.18 (108.3-5).
36
Prigent (2006) has recently proved beyond any doubt that Euphemios pfoclaimed
himselfemperof in Sicily during the feign of Michael II, only some years befofe Alexios
was sent there. Michanian and Pfigent (2003) 135-6 have also shown that tlıe strategoi
of Sicily ranked among the most important offices of the period, on the same !eve! as the
commandefs of the Anatolikoi and Opsikion.
37 PnıbZ #7675 and PBE s.vv. "Theodoros 66 and 328".
38 Log. (A) Theoplıilos [130] 11-14 (219.66-220.103). ltmust be ruled out tlıat our
Alexios was the Mou[crıııı.i]qı pacr[ııı.Jııcqı crım0apicp owner ofa seal found in Sicily and
commented upon by Kislinger and Seibt ( 1998) 24.
-"' Mango(l 967).
120 Tlıc Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aml ılıe Ecısl, 819-841

to mart)' Maria ... to a man" (Mapiav ... ({)lı0rı 8dv cruÇm1saı av8pi).40 Moreover,
when the eınperor began bestowing titles upon Alexios, he is said to have acted
_just "because of the otlıer's [Alexios'] affection for his daughter" (8ıa ,o ıı:poç; nıv
0uya,epa rnurnu cpıMcrrnpyov),➔ 1 but no specific mention of an existing maıTiage
is ınade. lt is only when, already being kaisar, Alexios makes as if to enter a
monastery, that the Continuator says that the emperor did not accept it, alleging
·'the wiclowhood of his daughter" (,�v xııpeiav ı:fjç; 0uympoç),➔2 thus presupposing
that she was alreacly Alexios' wife. in fact, when Maria finally dies, she is referı-ed
to as "the wife of the kaisar" (rnu Kaicrapoç; 8s ya�ıc,�).➔3 It is perhaps suggestive
to think that Alexios was first betrothed to Maria when she was 7 years of age, in
832-833.44 According to this supposition, Alexios could have started his career
as early as 832-833 after his betrothal to Maria, but was only appointed kaisar
some years later, in 837-838, with the expedition to Sicily in view.45This means
that Alexios could not have taken part as kaisar in the first triumph ofTheophilos
in 831.This triumph is certainly the one described in a protocol preserved in De
cerimoniis, where the emperor is welconied by a kaisar when returning to the
capital after a campaign (see also Chapter 14.2).
We know that Theophilos had a second triumph in 837 after a victorious
campaign in Sozopetra and the Fourth Armenia. This is perhaps the triumph
alluded to in a note copied at the end of the protocol of the 831 triumph. There
it is said that a second triumph (again undated) of this eınperor took place later,
at which the saıne procedures were followed, except for a welcoıne given to the
eınperor by children carı)'ing flowers when he was to enter the city.46 This might
also ınean that a kaisar took part in this second triumph. But was Alexios this
unnaıned kaisar?
We do not know when Alexios was sent to ltaly, although 838 is a likely date.47
Theoretically, he could have been present in Constantinople in 837 to take partin
the triuınph as kaisar when the eınperor retumed froın his campaign in the east. As
we shall see in Chapter 11.3, Theophobos is a very likely candidate for the kaisar

40 Th. Cont. III.18 (107.18-19). Log. (A) Tlıeoplıilos [130] 11 (219.67-68) says that
Theophilos "made him his son-in-law" (Eicrımotfıcraı:o yaµppov), but as we have seen his
account is briefer than that of the Continuator and, therefore, more imprecise in the details.
41 Th. Cont. IIl.18 (108.2).
42 Th. Cont. IIl.18 (108.14 ).
43 Th. Cont. III.18 (108.17).
44 I argued in this sense in Signes Codofier (1995) 454-5, albeit supposing that
Theophilos married only in 830.
45 Ignatios, Lffe qf GregoıJ' Dekapolites §52 mentions the presence of a kaisar in
Chrysopolis (modern Kavala) at the Via Egnatia at an indeterıninate time. it is supposed
that he was fighting the Bulgarians, not on the way to Sicily. But it is difficult to form any
firm conclusions on this evidence. See Makris (1997) 115.
46 Conslantiııe VII, Tlıree lreatises 150.880-884.
;7
This is tlıe date ofa Sicilian campaign by Byzantine troops ınentioııed in Arab
sources. See Sigııes Codoiier ( 1995) 453-4.
 Tlıe Armenicııı Fcııııi�I' Network 121

mentioned in 831. But it is to be doubted that he continued to enjoy this title in 837,
for in the meantime he had been appointed ruler over the Persians in the eastern
Caucasus and Azerbaijan, as we also consider inChapter 11.4. lfTheoplıobos had
retained the title of kaisar until 838, when he teli into disgrace after the battle of
Anzes, and Alexios was already appointed kaisar in 837, then we would have had
two kaisares for the years 837-838.This is by no means irnpossible (consider the
two sons of Constantine V we will mention below), although we ought then to
conclude that either the second triumph of Theophilos recorded in the protocol
was not that of 837, but a previous one (seeChapter 16), or that only one of the two
kaisares took part in it. This latter possibility suggests we consider that Alexios
Mousele was sent to Sicily in 837 immediately after being appointed kaisar as a
consequence of his marriage to his legal bride Maria.
There are further reasons to exclude the appointment of A lexios as kaisar before
831. According to the Continuator, the emperor decided to marry his daughter to
Alexios because, since "he was then the father of five daughters, and appeared
destitııte of ma/e o.ffspring, he thought it necessaıy to nıarry Maria, the veıy !ast
of ali - she being preforred to the others - to a man"_.ıx I f tlıis infornıation is true,
Theophilos would have given up hope of having a male heir when he nıarried
Alexios to his favourite daughter in 837-838. This is presunıably connected with
the prenıature death of his heir Constantine, wlıich took place in the first years
of Theophilos' reign and is most probably to be dated in the first half of 831.
Moreover, ifConstantine died even later, for instance in 835, as assumed by some
scholars, this would coıifirm otır thesis that Alexios could not have been appointed
kaisar at the beginning ofTheophilos' reign.49

48 Th. Cont. III.18 ( !07.15-19): eırnl 71:EVTS �lEV i\ruxs Tl]Vl!CUUTU 0uyarepcov umipxsıv
71:UT�P, epııµoç Of; appsvııc�ç wpiiTo yo�ç, TI]V naaii'ıv ECTXUTl]V Mapiav ı'jya�l]�lEVl]V oucrav
TWV /j).J..cov cp�0!] osiv cruÇsfi/;at avopi.
49 Constantine, Theophilos' son and co-emperor, appears on some coins with his father,
but dating ofthe issues is controversial; see Grierson (1973) 406-51, Treadgold (1975),
Füeg (2007) 25-8, 71-3 and Lightfoot (2011). Füeg and Lightfoot have shown that the
coins that represent Theophilos with his son Constantine are more numerous than hitherto
assumed and thus stand as a direct challenge to Grierson's assumption that Constantine's
reign could have lasted only a few weeks. However, whereas Liglıtfoot follows Treadgold
and dates the coronation ofCoqstantine to 833 and his death to 835, Füeg follows Grierson
and stili defends an early dating of both events, c. 830-831. If we accept the dating of
Grierson and Füeg, Constantine would have been dead in September 831 as he does not
appear next to his father Theophilos on the seals ofthe komerkiarioi struck in the years
6340 and 6341 ofthe Byzantine era. See Zacos and Veglery (1972-1985) vol. II, nr. 285
and Oikonomides ( l 986) 46. If, however, we admit that Constantine was crowned only in
833, we nrnst assume that Theophilos appointed a kaisar at the beginning ofhis reign before
his son and presuınptive heir was crowned, for Constantine had already been bom during
tlıe reign of Miclıael il, as we saw in Clıapter 6.1. Tlıis appears less probable, especially
considering tlıe importance of tlıe kaisar's tille, as we will ııow argue.
122 T/u., E111peror T/ıeoplıilos cmd ı/ıe Ecı.ı-1, 829-842

Obviously, being appointed kaisar did not automatically mean that the person
designated was to be tlıe future pacrıı,suç, as is made clear by the case ofConstantine
V, who appointed Kaicmpsç the elder sons of his third marriage, Christopher and
Nikephoros, but reserved the imperial succession for Leo, the son of his first
marriage.50 However, the title promoted the person to the highest position in the
court and the administration, and made of him a most likely candidate for the throne
if no male heirs were born to the reigning emperor. For example, the appointment of
Bardas as kaisar in 862 was justified by Michael's lack of male heirs.51
At the same time, the appointment of a kaisar as co-emperor lay in the sole hands
of the reigning emperor, who could therefore abstain froın promoting the kaisar
to PacrıAsuç and future heir to the throne and choose instead at any time another
person for the office. This is what actually happened with Theophilos, since it was
finally his son Michael, and not the two kaisares, who was appointed co-emperor
in 840. Nevertheless, the kaisares could also be a potential danger for the emperor,
for although the last word on their future appointınent as basileis (PacrtAttç) was
left in the emperor's hancls, they could easily develop imperial aınbitions. Thus
Nikephoros (Constantine V's son) plotted against his brother Leo IV as soon as their
father clied.5" As we saw, there were also accusations against Alexios for pretending
lo the throne. Ancl Theophobos, who was probably the first kaisar of Theophilos'
reign, was cleposecl after rebelling against Theophilos (see Chapter 12).
it is against this background that we must consider the reasons Theophilos
had for engaging Alexios to the youngest of his daughters, instead of the eldest.
This engagement has always puzzled scholars, for if the emperor wanted to assure
an alternative to the throne, he woulcl have married Alexios to an elder daughter.
Since Theophilos chose Maria as a wife for Alexios perhaps as early as 831, only
a betrothal was possible between them and Alexios had to wait until 837-838 for a
canonical marriage with a 12-year-old wife. Maria being so young, she could have
died in childbirth soon after the wedding. This was by no means unpredictable
and makes the decision of Theophilos even more questionable. Considering the
mortality rate at the time, it would have been more advisabie to arrange a marriage
to an elder daughter. Why did Theophilos choose the youngest instead?
The sources seem to imply that Theophilos chose Maria as wife for Alexios
because she was the most beloved of his daughters.53 This alone appears as
an unsatisfactory explanation for the events. However, one must take into
consideration that, for reasons of which we are ignorant, none of the other
daughters of Theophilos married; instead they all entered into a monastery with

50 PıııbZ # 1101 and 5267 and PBE s.vv. "Christophoros 1" and "Nikephoros 5". PBE
s.v. "Anastasios 23" suggests that the adoptive son of the usurper Thomas was appointed
kaisar, but this is just a guess not suppoıted by any statement in the sources. See also PnıbZ
#317.
51 PnıbZ #791 and PBE s.v. "Bardas 5".
52 Theophanes 450-51.
5' Tlı. Cont. lll.18 ( 107.18) and Log. (A) T/ıeoplıilos [ 130) 11 (219.68).
 Tlıe Arıııeııian Famizl' Netımrk 123

their ınother whenTheodora was banished from the palace during the reign of her
son Michael 111. 54
it has also been suggested thatTheophilos arranged for Maria to be betrothed
to the future kaisar, despite her being a child, for he wanted to avoid the couple
gaining pronıinence too early.55This again does not make sense if we think that
Theophilos relied on them as the only option for the succession if no further nıale
heir was bom to him. He had no need to waste time in such a way - unless, of
course, another option was already available to him. This makes it likely that the
kaisar appointed by him in 831 represented for him the first option. IfTheophobos
was this kaisar, as we will argue in Chapter I 1.3, this has consequences for
understanding the career of Alexios duringTheophilos' reign and the influence of
the "Armenian party'' at the court.
The marriage of Theophobos to the emperor's sister was probably expected
fronı the very beginning to produce children, for the sister was not a child tike her
niece Maria. IfThekla, the eldest ofTheophilos' daughters, was born in 822, she
could not have reachecl the canonical age for marriage unti 1834, so tlıatTheoph ilos
clicl not have any other option in 83 1 than to marry his sister to the kaisar-to-be in
orcler to assure the succession to the throne.56 The cancliclate choseıı is therefore
revealing, for the Persian Theophobos clicl not belong to the "Armenian party''
aııcl his election as husbancl ofTheophilos' sisler and appointrnent as kaisar coulcl
only have been intendecl to balance the excessive influence the Armenians had at
court. To assuage the "Arn1enian party'', Theophilos coulcl always argue that his
claughters were not yet old enough for marriage. For this same reason, he coulcl
even have arranged at the same time the betrotlıal of his youngest claughter to a
leacling figure among the Armenians, suclı as Alexios Mousele. But this may have
been for him just a seconcl option.
it remains for us to consider whether the impencling danğer that macle the
emperor hun-y b.ack to Constantinople in 838, shortly after the battle of Anzes, was
relatecl to the accusations of conspiracy that the Sicilians macle against Alexios
Mousele. Michael the Syrian ancl Bar Hebraeus mention that after the battle of
Anzes an envoy came to the emperor from his mother in Constantinople announcing
that nımours had reached the city that he was clead and that "some nobles wanted
to appoint a new emperor". Theophilos left Amorion when the city was preparing
to resist the assault of the annies of the caliph, ancl returned to Constantinople,
where he executecl "the nobles who wantecl to proclaiın another emperor''. 57
Treadgolcl connected these events with a remark preserved in the Continuator and
Genesios about the execution of some conspirators againstTheophilos as a result

'" PmbZ#7261.
55 PmbZ#4735. See also PBE s.v. "Maria 4".
56 I thank Prof. Otto 1<.resten for his valuable comments on this subject.
57 Michael the Syrian 535-6, trans. Clıabot ( 1905) vol. 3, 95 and Bar Hebraeus,
Clıroııogrnp!ıy 149, trans. Budge ( 1932) vol. 1. 136.
12-ı Tlıe Eıııperur T/ıeoplıi/os aııd tlıe East, 829-842

of the prophecies uttered by a ventriloquist sorceress.;s Nane of the conspirators

meııtioned in this passage seems to be connected with Alexios Mousele, who
was at the time probably far away in Sicily, as Treadgold remarks. However, it is
not to be excluded that Alexios Mousele was considered a convenient candidate
for the throne in soıne aristocratic circles of Constantinople when the rumour of
Theophilos' death reached the capital. These circles were perhaps afraid of the
growing influence of Theophobos, who was proclaimed eınperor by the Persian
troops at the saıne time, following the disaster at Anzes, as we shall see in Chapter
12. If the Sicilian envoys who, according to the Logothete, accused Mousele of
conspiracy/9 arrived at the court during the summer of838, then they could have
unexpectedly backed the candidacy of the emperor's son-in-law to the imperial
throne, aııd this without the kaisar himselfhaving heard ofthe recent defeat ofthe
imperial anny in Anatolia. This would explain the furious reaction of the emperor
against his son-in-law, whom he ordered to return immediately to Constantinople
and kept in prison far some time despite the securities he had given him through
the agency ofthe bishop Theodore Krithinos. This explains as well the repentance
ofthe emperor and his pardon, after he was able to establish Alexios' innoceıice.
in any case, it appears certain that whether the usurpation Theophilos faced in
Constantinople in 838 had anything to do with Alexios Mousele or not, it was not
Theophobos whom some circles in Constantinople wanted to proclaim pacrÜı.ı::uç
when they heard of the defeat ofthe emperor at Anzes. On the contrary, the fact
that Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus speak of "nobles" when refen-ing to
the conspirators executed by Theophilos upon his arrival in the capital makes
it evident that they rallied the support of the conservative families against the
"barbarians" backed· by the Amorian emperor. That Theophobos rebelled at the
sarne time could not have been just a coincidence, but a sign of the division
prevailing in the empire between these two groups. In Chapter 8 we will consider
additional evidence for the opposition ofthe aristocratic families ofthe empire to
the "barbarians" (Annenians and Persians) supporting Theophilos.

58 Th. Cont. 111.27 (121.10-122.15) and Gen. lll.15 (49.74-50.12). See Treadgold
( 1988) 30 l and note 411 and Signes Codofier (1995) 92-3 and 539-41.
'" Log. (A) T!ıeop!ıilos [130] il (219.71-73): i:uec1ı.oi nveç ave1ı.06vreç oıepa1ı.ov
Touwv TQJ pam1ı.d, c;)Ç Ta fLEV TCİ)v Xptcrnavfüv wıç AyapııvoTç ırpoôl8wcrı, 1<ara 8E T�ç
�acn1ı.eiaç crou fLSAETr)..
 Chapter 8
Opposition to the Emperor

8.1 Clıecking Aristocratic Resistance

We do not find any mention of relatives of Michael II during Theophilos' reign.

This is perhaps evidence not of Theophilos' sympathies for the relatives of his
wife, but rather ofthe humble origins ofMichael's family. It was probably notjust
that Michael 's relatives were unfit for assunıing responsibilities in government,
but that they could not afford the necessary support and connections Theophilos
needed for ruling and preserving his power. The Amorian emperor was, exactly as
his father, a homo novııs, surely regarded with diffidence among the aristocratic
families of the capital. The Armenian family of Theodora provided hinı with
sonıe !oya! servants whom the emperor could trust for delicate missions and for
establishing a power base in the administration ofthe capital. Vassiliki V lyssidou
suggests that Theophilos faced real opposition from the aristocratic families ofthe
empire, 1 so that he understandably tried to secure allies among the high officials of
the state by promoting close relatives to these posts. The widespread connections
ofTheodora's family elan were therefore a reliable basis for his power. Theophilos'
maıTiage to Theodora was probably a calculated political move by his father,
whose intentions we can trace through its consequences.
Curiously enough, it seerns that Theophilos disregarded the clear iconophile
stance ofmost ofthe rnernbers ofTheodora's family, who continued to hold high
positions in the state after his death and turned into devoted defenders of images
- persons !ilce Bardas, Petronas or even her uncle Manuel who, according to some
sources, lived well into the reign ofMichael III,2 not to speak ofTheodora proper
or ofthe future patriarch Photios, the champions oficon worship. 3
Apparently, as Hans-Georg Thümmel suggests, the significance of the conflict
about images was secondary for the ruling elite and even for the hierarchy of
the Church, which explains the ease with which the bishops changed sides after

1 Vlyssidou (2001).
2 Signes Codofier (2013a) for a new reflection on this question with previous
bibliography.
3 For the kinship between Theodora's sister Kalomaria and Photios see Th. Cont.
IV.22 (175.3-12). For coınınents on this passage (which presents a textual problem and
has been amended silente by the editors according to the wording of Skylitzes) and also
for a discussion ofthe life ofPlıotios during Theophilos' reign, see Bury (1890), Ahrweiler
( 1965), Mango ( l 977). Nogara (1978), Treadgold (2002), Settipani (2006) 167-81 and
Signes Codofier and Andres Santos (2007) 3-11.
126 Tlıe Eıııpemr Tlıeoplıilos cıııd ılıe Eası, 819-841

tlıe synods of 754,787,815 and 843. Tlıümmel considers political and economic
necessities lo be more of a determinant for rulers and argued tlıat it was only
under Photios that theology made the veneration of icons a permanent and
central issue of orthodoxy.-ı it is in this sense that the image ofjustice proınoted
by Theoplıilos is to be understood, as Ylyssidou has already establislıed, as an
essential part of the political nıessage of an enıperor \Vlıo was fighting for a
political program based on the reinforcement of tlıe state against the centrifı.ıgal
forces of tlıe Byzantine aristocracy. 5 This image ofa just enıperoı; which we will
consider in the Epilogue, survived the enıperor's deatlı and rivalled the blackened
characterization ofTheophilos as a fı.ırious iconoclast promoted by tlıe iconoplıile
(official) hagiography atler 843.
That the enıperor punished when necessary his close relatives (see again the
Epilogue) is further evidence, however, that the basis provided by Theodora's
farnily was clearly insufficient to assure his power base. To rally supporters around
hirn, Theophilos was probably obliged to share power with other groups, who
eventually followed his political program.
The appointnıent of eunuchs to key positions in the adrninistration, persons
such as the logothele ofthe drornos Theoktistos6 or the strategos oftlıe Boukellaroi
Theoclore Krateros,7 was surely used by Theophilos as a further way to balance
the power ofthe aristocratic families, exactly as Eirene had done some thirty years
before by appointing eunuchs such as Aetios8 and Staurakios.9
Moreover, as we shall see in Chapters 10.2 and 11.4, the eınperor seems to
have promotecl the integration ofKhurramite fighters into the Byzantine army and
even fostered the ınaITiages of Persian men to Greek woınen in order to create
a loyal contingent of troops upon which he could rely under any circumstance.
His bid for the Persians and the appointment ofTheophobos as their exousiastes
was surely unwelcome in many traditional circles, which spread the image ofa
philobarbarian (s0v6q>ııı.oç, q>ııı.oe0viıç) emperor and thus appealed to the patriotic
sentiments ofpart ofthe population. 10

4 See Thümmel (1991) 37-9, who presents a balance of his previous analysis ofthe
conflict. Among otlıer things, Thümmel writes: "Die Benennung der Periode nach dem
hervorstehenden Ereignis tauscht über dessen relativ geringe Bedeutung für das Staatswesen
hinweg. Die politischen und wirtschaftlichen Zwange waren insgesamt starker. Nicht einmal
die Theologie ist eindeutig durch den Bilderstreit gepragt worden." See also Mango (1977).
5 See for example Vlyssidou (2001) 447: "Le rang social eleve de ceux qui agissaient
contre les lois et !es graves peines qui leur ont ete imposees ne doivent etre attribuees
uniquement ala volonte de Theophile de rendre justice, mais aussi asa lutte pour s'imposer
a une classe superieure, habituee a se comporter d'une façon arbitraire, sans se soucier de
l'existence des lois imperiales, aussi bien que de l'empereur en personne."
6
PmbZ#8050 and PBE s.v. "Theoktistos 3".
7
PmbZ #7679 and PBE s.v. "Theodoros 67".
8
PmbZ#l06andPBEs.v. "Aetios 1".
'' PmbZ #6880 and PBE s.v. "Staurakios l ".
'" L(fi? r?{Metlıodios l249D and Acta Marı. Amoı:, vers. ı, 27 .5. See Vlyssidou (2001 ).
 Opposiıion to ılıe Emperor 127

Finally, if Jonathan Shepard is right, Theophilos coulcl even have thought of

contacting Viking mercenaries to fight the Muslinıs in Africa. 11
We do not know, however, how far the emperor went in his attempt to remove
aristocratic families from power either in Constantinople or in the provinces, for
we have no information about the family background ofmost ofthe protagonists
ofhis reign, such as the patrician Aetios who was strategos ofthe Anatolikoi12 or
the droungarios ofthe watch Ooryphas. 13
Anıong the few officials whose noble ascent is expressly mentionecl in the
sources we fincl a strategos ınember ofthe noble Melissenoi family, whoseArmenian
ascenclency we consiclerecl in Chapter 1.1, 14 or another official namecl Bassoes,
who is referrecl to as "ofillustrious ascenclants" (m,ptcpav�ç EK ıı:poy6vwv), 15 both
clefenclers ofAmorion in 838; or Kallistos, komes ofa palatine schola and clux of
Koloneia who, according to his biographer Michael the Synkellos, "had illustrious
parents" (yovdç eıcsıc.rı-ro ıı:ı,pupavdç). 16 Since these figures ceıiainly do not rank
among the main protagonists of Theophilos' reign, we can perhaps conclucle
that the enıperor clicl not especially choose persons of noble fanıilies for the
main posts of the aclministration. it is however questionable whether Theophilos
systematically excluded the aristocracy from militaıy comnıancls in Anatolia, as
he probably knew well that any radical change coulcl have put the clefences ofthe
enıpire in great clanger, as was exactly the case cluring tlıe invasion of Harün al­
Rashıcl in 782. 17
The results of his policy are clifficult to assess in the battlefielcl, where the
participation ofthese noble commaııcling officers woulcl perhaps be most seıısecl. We
know for example that the imperial troops rnutiniecl and took flight in 838 as soon
as the emperor left them on the Halys to fight the contingents leci by Afshın. But the
clefenclants ofAmorion dicl their best to resist uncler the most aclverse circumstances
until the treason ofBoiclitzes sealed the fate ofthe city (see Chapter 17.3). Ofthe
other campaigns on the eastern front, most. of them victorious, we lmow almost
nothing about the participation ancl engagement of officials of noble families.
Nevertheless, the final clissolution ofa specialized unity ofPersian troops after 838
(see Chapter 12) must uncloubteclly be seen as a victory for the traclitionalists and
the aristocracy against the "philobarbarian" Theophilos.
A good approach for unclerstanding the stance of some aristocratic milieus
towarcls the policy of the emperor is provided by the L!f'e of Kallistos written
by Michael Synkellos ancl transmittecl as a version of the Acta Jvlartyrum

11 Shepard ( 1995). See alsa Chapter 20.

12 PınbZ #108 and PBE s.v. "Aetias 2".
13 PınbZ #564-6 and PBE s.v. "Oaryphas 3".
14 PıııbZ #4952 and 82 I 1. Far the Melissenai see Settipani (2006) 492-505.
15 PınbZ #982. See alsa Winkelnıaıııı ( 1987) 164.
16
ılcıa Mart. Amoı:, vers. r, 23. 15.
17
Tritle ( I 977).
128 T/ıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/us c111d ılıe Eası. 829-842

Amorieıısium, nurnberecl r by the eclitors. 18 As we mentioned above, Kallistos is

recorded in the L{fe as having been bom of a distinguished family. His father
sent him to Constantinople in order to study (ı:�ç EV ypawtaCil xapıv JtatÖEUCiE())Ç).
When he grew older, '·he enlisted in the irnperial army" (�ç ıwı:aıı.6you yivı;ı:aı ı:ı'jç
üıı:6 ı:ov aÜı:oKpaı:opa crı:paı:eiaç) "because of his physical strength, his handsome
appearance and the good name of his family" (füa ı:e pcil�uıv crcoµaı:oç Kai Ka1ı.1ı.oç
Kai cruyyı;vo)V ı;üi5oKİWJCitv). With time he rose to become komes ofthe tagma ofthe
scholai (ı:�v ı:ou KO�trıı:oç a/;iav EV ı:0 ı:ayµan ı:&v cpııı.oxpicrı:ü)\I Emtxrov crxoıı.&v). 19
When Kallistos left ancl returned to the palace because ofthe obligations attached
to his dignity (füa ı:6 ı:ı'jç a/;iaç a.K6ıı.ou0ov), he avoidecl meeting his fellow officers
in the street and chatting about trifles, but preferred instead to ride alone on his
lıorse. Wlıen the opportunity arose, he sat alone at the place reserved to his dignity
(Eni ı:ou ı:6ıı:ou ı:ııç a/;iaç aüı:oü) ancl read the Scriptures.20 But when one day he
appeared before the eınperor with "unwashecl hair and neglected beard" (aux�ıııpQ.
nvı ıı:6�ın Kai a.<pı1ı.01<a1ı.q:ı yı;vı;ıa8t), Theophilos reproved him for not respecting
his authority (ı:oü ıcpaı:ouç �ıou ıcam<ppovföv) witlı his carelessness (a.ıcocr�ıiaç)
ancl orderecl his hair to be forcibly trimmed. 21 On another occasion the emperor
rebuked lıim for renıaining unmarried, since Kallistos had embraced celibacy. 22
Although Kallistos was promoted to the dignity of the imperial protospatharioi
(ı:o'i:ç oiıcı;ıaıcoıç r&v pamıı.ucföv crıı:a0apiwv övı:a Evapi0�nov), he failed to coınply
with the orders ofthe emperor in persecuting the iconophile monks ofthe Pelekete
monastery and was consequently beaten and expelled "from his fratria" (�ç ıı:ı;pi
auı:ov <ppaı:piaç), ıneaning probably the officers at the imperial palace, for his
expulsion from the palace ('ı:&v a.vaıcı:6pwv EÇEA.a:uvı;ı) is expressly mentioned later
on in the text after a long digression about the piety and sufferings of Kallistos.23
Then Theophilos "gave him the command of his beloved Ethiopians" (auı:ov.. .
ıca0icrı:rJCHV iipxovı:a ı:&v cpı;\.owısvrov auı:0 Al0t6ıı:rov).24 The author then makes
the following comments:

For this ınan [Theophilos] was more philobarbarian (cptAoeSv�ç) than any other
emperor before and had gathered together the biggest company (ıı:;\.eicrı:rıv
cruµ�Lopiav) of men of different tongues, whom he ordered under compulsion
to ınarry (Çaı'.ıyvucr8m) the daughters of the citizens (noHı:wv) and even of the
inhabitants of the capital (acrruyerı:6vwv), thus ruining the favourable destiny
of the Romans and bringing about a crisis for the Christians. But any account
about this must be left out and we must now proceed further with our subject.

18
For the person see PıııbZ #3606 and PBE s.v. "Kallistos 2".
19
Acta Mart. Aıııoı:, vers. r, 23.20-24.
20
Acta Mart. Aıııoı:, vers. r, 24.1-12.
21 Acta Mart. Amoı:, yers. r, 24.30-25.7.
Acta 1\ılart. Anıoı:, vers. r, 25.7-19.
11

,ı Acıcı ıHarı. Amoı:, vers. r, 25.20-35 and 27.1-2.

2·'
Acıcı Mcırı. Amoı:, vers. r, 25.20-35 and 27.2-5.
 Oppnsitioıı to tlıe Emperor 129

After thus putting hiııı over the squadron of the Ethiopians (-ı:o �avöov -ı:föv
Aiflıorrrııv), he [Theoplıilos] sent lıiııı to figlıt along with tlıe comnıanders ofthe
people (apxııyföv -ı:ou ıı.aou) who had already arrived for pacifying the land of
tlıe Getthai (eiprıw:ucraı -ı:aç-ı:föv fı;-ı:Oföv xeııpaç). He [Tlıeophilos) expected one
of two tlıings: eitlıer tlıe righteous was convinced of rising up against lıim, or,
nıuch easier, he was to die badly because oftlıe uııruliness ofthe barbariaııs (-ı:fi
a-ı:al;ir,ı-ı:ou &Ovouı;). Tlıis !ast thing seemed to tlıe saint more bearable thaıı the
first oııe, for he preferred tlıe death of the body tlıan beiııg forced to act against
tlıe soul by tlıese men of nıonstrous appearance (-ı:oiç a-ı:6rr0tı; Oı;a�tacrı). Tlıis
ıııost pious Kallistos, being tlıus under tlıe n.ıle ofsuclı a mob (ev -ı:fi rnıau-ı:ıı ...
öq�ıaycııy[çı), endured on his way many tenıptations fronı tl10se reckless men,
wlıo eitlıer plundered, beat and carried offtlıe properties oftlıe poor peasants or
fell in an entlıusiastic freıızy and slıowed tlıe unlawfulness oftlıc barbarians (-ı:föv
�ap�apoıv ... -ı:a eıcOecrµa).25

Although his troops were guilty of such disorders, Kallistos managed to

survive and returned safely to the court.21' Tlıen tlıe emperor appointed him dux
and sent lıim to Koloneia.27 Kallistos found that some of the officers of his new
posting were Maniclıeans, but wlıen he tried to convert them, he was handed over
to some of their co-religionists, who were living under Arab rule. Tlıere he was
kept in prison witlı a few attendants until the caliph heard about him and had hinı
conveyecl to Syria, when he joined the other ofncials captured in Amorion in 838. 28
The rest of the text describes how the martyrs were put to death after repeated
attempts to convert them to Islanı. 29
There are some points of interest here. First ofall, the "Ethiopians" mentioned
in the text may refer to the Khtlffamite Persians. John Haldan considered the
possibility that a military contingent of black people coming from Africa could
have been formed at the time, but the only evidence advanced for this unity is
a reference to the presence of "black Christians" in the palace in the later ninth
century by the Arab prisoner Harün ibn Yal)ya.30 This parade guard ofblack people
may have existed in the imperial palace at the time, but it has nothing to do with the
"Ethiopians" ofour text, who are fighting the enemies ofthe empire far away fronı
the capital. I think, rather, considering the polemical nature ofthe text, that the name
"Ethiopians" is just used for referring to dark-skinned orientals ("men of different
tongues") serving in the imperial arıny in a special unit, which cannot be but the
tourma ofthe phoideratoi, controlled by the Persians. This racial reınark is not to be

15
Acta Mart. Amor., vcrs. f, 27.5-19.
16
Acta Mart. Amoı:, vers. r, 27.22-24.
17
Acta Mart. Amoı:, vers. r, 27.32-28.4.
18
Acta Mart. Amoı:, vers. r, 29.1-35.
19
Acta Mart. Amoı:, vers. r, 30-36.
ııı Haldon ( 1984) 251-2 and note 681. See also Ditten ( 1993) 328-31 witlı further
bibi iography.
130 Tlıe Eıııııeror Thenplıi/os c111d ılıe Ecısı. 829-842

overlooked, especially because it is made in a hagiography conceived for a broad

audicncc of rcadcrs who probably shared the distance of the author as regards the
eastemers. Readers ol'the capital were probably addressed in the first instance, for
they are singled out as acmıyı::irovı::ç; anıong the people affected by the compulsory
nıarriages established by Theophilos with the "barbarians". This is also a clear
allusion to the policy of mixed marriages between Persians and Romans we know
fronı other sources, which do not mention that other "barbarians" were included
in these provisions of the emperor.31 Therefore the disgust at the ''Ethiopians" felt
by the pious Kallistos might reflect the wider opposition of the aristocrats, among
whom Kallistos belonged, to Theophilos' policy towards the Persians.
Another poiııt to be stressed is that the Persian contingent was not only active
on the eastern frontier, for Kallistos is sent with them to the land of the Getthai,
that is to say the Bulgarians, who settled in the lower Danube where the ancient
Getai came from. 32 This important remark, which seems to have been overlooked,
confirıns that the Persian contingent were not just active on the eastem frontier.
They were conceived by the emperor as a general alternative to the "Roman"
troops and could eventually be senl offto fight the Bulgarians in the west.
Another interestiııg aspect of the text is that, despite the opposition of Kallistos
to the emperor and despite being beaten for refı.ısing to prosecute the iconophile
monks of Pelekete, he continues to hold a position in the anny. He is indeed
expelled from the imperial palace and sent to the Danube with a "barbarian"
squadron, but it is doubtful that his new mission was really a punishment as the
hagiographer clainıs. In fact, Kallistos' resistance to punishing the nıonkiı of
Pelekete could easily have been an invention of the hagiographer, who needed
some proof of the iconophile faith ofthe "saint" before he was sent as prisoner to
Baghdad along with the other "martyrs ofAmorion". In fact, Kallistos' purported
refusal to comply with the emperor's orders conceming the monks ofPelekete was
witnessed only by the emperor and perhaps by some courtiers. Maybe the reason
for the supposed relegation ofKallistos, who was nevertheless later appointed dux
of Koloneia, !ay more in his aristocratic defiance of some common rules, like the
one ordering ali officers to have short hair. This rule is expressly mentioned in a
comment preserved by the Continuator:

Now because he [Tlıeophilos] had by nature rather little adomment ofthe head
and was stripped ofhair, he decreed that this should be shom everywhere on the
skin and that no Roman slıould be permitted to wear his hair beyond the neci<.
If anyone was caught doing so, he was to be tortureçl with many whippings in
order to recall him to the virtue ofhis Roman forebears (ırpoı:; ı:ıjv ı:öıv ırpoy6vcov
'Pcow.ticov); for they prided themselves on keeping their hair in such a way.

31 For this policy see Chapter 9.

n Instead of faw.ı the author speaks offeı:0m, in a form that is surely contaminated
witlı roı:0oı. This does not change our identification, for by the time they invaded the
easlerıı enıpire at tlıe enci oftlıe fourtlı century the Gothic lands !ay in tlıe Balkans.
 Oppositioıı ta ılıe Empemr 131

Tlıerefore he issued a law tlıat 110 oııe slıould dare in aııy wise allow his lıair to
grow beyoııcl the ııeck, 33

The suggestion that the emperor issued such a rule because he was becoming
bald and therefore envious of the long lıair of his soldiers is obviously to be
discounted. in fact, we find in other sources additional references to regulations of
this kind in the army, such as for example in tlıe L{fe ofStephen the Younger, where
a courtier sent to Stephen by Constantine V disguised as a monk is unmasked by tlıe
saint "because he had shaved himselfto the skin following the edict oftlıe tyrant"
(foımiµwro yap !,l(Jü) ı:�ç rou npocrcoıı:ou öopaç KaTCL ı:ııv aı'.ırnu rnu rupawou
ötamy�v). 34 The existence ofsuch a rule for the Roman soldiers is accordingly not
to be denied,35 altlıough it is more difficult to ascertain its scope; perhaps it was
just a hygienic regulation for the soldiers, also extended to courtiers. Curiously
enough, this regulation was apparently based on ole! Roman customs, ifwe follow
the indication of the Continuator. A passage of the Secret Histoı:v of Prokopios
nıay perhaps be connected witlı our argument:

... Tlıe factioııalists clıaııged tlıe style of their lıair to a quite ııovel füslıioıı,
haviııg it cut veıy differeııtly from tlıe otlıer Romans. Tlıey did not touch tlıe
moustache or beard at ali but were always aııxious to let llıem grow as loııg as
possible, like the Persiaııs (wcmep oi f1epcrm). But tlıe lıair on the froııt of the
head they cut right back lo the temples, allowiııg the growth behind to hang
dowıı to its full length in a disorderly mass, like the Massagetae do. This is wlıy
they sometimes called this the Hunnish look.36

As we see, Prokopios distinguishes between "Persian" long lıair and "Hunnish"

ponytails. It would ceıiainly be difficult to classify the "unwashed hair and neglected
beard" ofKallistos as a fashion, like the long hair ofthe factionalists ofJustinianic
times. But perhaps Kallistos' untidy hair was not just a consequence of personal
neglect and monkish disdain of the body, as the hagiographer obviously intends.
In any case, what matters here is the fact tlıat Theophilos did not apparently allow
the Roman units of his army to wear their hair long, as the Persians traditionally
did. This may be evidence that the Khurramite Persians formed separate units in
the Byzantine army (with special regulations?) or, alternatively, that the rule was
issued after 838, when the Persians were scattered among the regular rnilitary
units following their failed rebellion against the ernperor. Be this as it may, it

33
Th. Cont. m.17 (107.6-13 ).
34
Stepheıı the Deacon, L(fe ofSteplıeıı t/ıe Yozıııger §38 ( 137-8). See Auzepy (1997)
6-7 and 232-4 for a French traııslation and comments on the passage.
35
See Signes Codofier (1995) 447-8, where some textual arguments for the
promulgatioıı ofsuch a nıle are discussecl.
ır, Prokopios, Secret Histoı:ıı Vll.8-10. 1 cite the translation ofWilliamson and Sarris
(2007).
132 T!ıe Eıııpemr T!ıeoplıifos aııd tlıe Eası. 8:!.9-841

appears that Tlıeoplıilos was not so disrespectful of the "Roman" traditions as

the hagiographcr suggests. perhaps because the emperor was conscious of the
social and etlınic tensions among the different communities of the eınpire. Had
Theophilos been the "philobarbarian" depicted in the sources, he could not have
avoided facing a rebellion in the anny.

8.2 Manuel and Theophobos: Rivals or Targets of the "Romans"?

it is against tlıe background of the aristocratic opposition to Theophilos that we

should perlıaps judge the information provided by the Continuator and Genesios
about the prevailing rivalry between Manuel and Theophobos, two of the main
protagonists ofTheophilos' reign.37
According to the sources, Manuel was appointed magistros and domestikos
of the scholai by Theophilos upon his return to the enıpire.38 Genesios and the
Continuator lıave Manuel acconıpany ing Theophilos on three canıpaigns in
Anatolia, but it has been repeatedly argued that these are merely versions of a
single campaign, that of 838, and particularly of the battle of Anzes. transmitted
by different sources. I will not examine here again ali tlıe evidence connecting ali
tlıese different versions to a single everİt, for the question will lead us far from mır
topic. 39 However, it is worth recalling some facts that are perlıaps of interest.
Manuel appears in two oftlıese versions rescuing the emperor from the eneınies
surrounding him, when Theophilos faced utmost danger. ln one ofthese versions
(Version A), he appears as the sole protagonist ofthe events.40 ln the other (Version
8), however, the Persian Theophobos appears at the side of Manuel.41 Both then
counsel the emperor to fight during the night, "but others argued, to the contrary,
that it was better by day, and the ruler was persuaded by them". The fight then
goes badly for the imperial troops, which are put to flight by the Turkish archers,
but "the leaders ofthe iınperial divisions [i.e. Manuel] together with the Persians"
defend the emperor bravely despite being surrounded by the enemy. Only when
the night comes, putting a provisory end to the fight, "whilst Manuel was occupied
with the watch, he somehow heard in the language ofthe Saracens that the Persian
company had made some accord with them and that they had agreed to betray the

37 For an assessment of Theophobos' life see Chapters 1 1-12. For Manuel see
Chapter 5.
38 Th. Cont. III.26(1 20.21 -23), Gen. IlI.1 4(48.32-33) and Log.(A) T/ıeopfıilos [130]
22(223.1 54-155).
39 For a comment on these doublets see Gregoire (1933), (1 934), Signes Codofier
( l 995) 491 -500, 507- l l, 564-9, (2006), (201 3a) and Varona Codeso(2009b) 269-84.
40 Th. Cont. IIl.24(11 6.9-118.3) and Gen. III.9 (43.4-44.22). In both writers this first
rescue ofTheophilos by Manuel preceded the latter's exile. But this cannot have been the
case, as we argued in Chapter 5.3 aııd 5.5.
➔1
Tlı. Coııt. 111.31 ( 1 26.16-129.1 1) aııcl Gen. 111.13-14 (47.2 1--49.66).
 Opposilioıı ıo rlıe Eıııperor 133

arıny of the Romans". Towards dawn, Manuel again nıanages to get the emperor
out and bring hinı to a safe place.
in a third account (Version C) Manuel and Theophobos appear again fighting
at the side of the enıperor..ı2 According to the Continuator, Manuel counsels the
enıperor "that soıneone should take a contingent of soldiers and go out to ıneet
the eneıny, and this by day", but Theophobos "wanted the eınperor to be in the
ranks and to set upon them by night together with the Persian infantıy". However,
Theophobos does not convince the eınperor, "for ınany others said that Theophobos
was expropriating the gloıy of the Romans (roç mpı;rı;pıÇwttvou rou 0ı;ocp6pou rııv
rföv 'Pco�taicov 86/;av) and therefore wanted them to do battle at night". Theophilos
finally fights during the day but, despite fierce resistance, "the scholai together
with the doınestikos [Manuel] were constrained to give way and to take flight".
Now, the eınperor is surrounded by the enemy on a bili with help only froın the
iınperial corps and two thousand Persians, Theophobos amongst theın. During the
night the emperor ınanages to escape the enemy and then rewards Theophobos'
men for loyalty in such difficult circuınstances.
it is surely idle to try to establish which of these versions comes closest to
the truth. But it is eviclent thal the sources reflect a clear rivalry between Manuel
and Theophobos and distort the facts by favouring one or tlıe other. The reasons
for this nıanipulation !ay undoubtedly in the iınportance of the battle of Anzes of
838, where the emperor suffered a huıniliating defeat that anticipated the disaster
of Amorion, as we shall see in Chapter 17.2. Neither Manuel nor Theophobos
wanted to appear as responsible for the failure, so their paıiisans concocted
different versions favouring their respective heroes. It could be that the versions
originated in the ınonasteries founded respectively by Manuel and Theophobos,
as Gregoire argued. However, as we saw in Chapter 5.5, Manuel's fame probably
started before he founded the ınonasteıy where his memory was preserved. He was
a popular figure at the time, the prototype ofan akrites waJTior, and his Iegend may
even have originated first in popular songs. This explains why Manuel appears in
ali three versions, whereas Theophobos is ignored in one ofthem. Moreover, two
versions clearly present Manuel as the day's hero (Versions A and B), whereas
Theophobos appears in a better light in only one of theın (Version C). Finally,
Theophobos is never presented as taking part directly in the fight. In Version C he
just gives the right advice to the eınperor, but his Persians are tl10se .who defend
Theophilos and are rewarded by him for their braveıy. Genesios even omits any
reference to the flight ofManuel with his troops in Version C and in consequence
in ali his work.43

42
Th. Cont. III.22 (112.22-114.16) and Gen. III.5 and 8 (40.15-20 and 42.71-43.87).
43
Gen. III.8 ( 42.71-43.87). See Signes Codofier ( 1995) 498-9 for the possibility that
tlıe source of the Continuator did in fact only ınention the flight of the tagınata but not of
Manuel with them. This supposed flight of Manuel could lıave been an inference of tlıe
historian.
134 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıilos Cllld t!ıe Eası. 8]9-84]

Readers therefore get a more favourable impression of Manuel than of

Theophobos. The Amıenian general is depicted as a brave waıTior, fighting for
the emperor until the last moment and even encouraging Theophilos to follow
him across the enemy lines in order to escape the impending danger. Moving
dialogues between Manuel and Tlıeophilos are reproduced by our historians, wlıile
Tlıeophobos is characterized only as a synıbolic figure, respected by Theophilos
for his ascendency over the Persians. He does not say a word, just defends hiınself
against the accusations ofusurpation his enemies are spreading against hiın. As we
will see in Chapter 12, the Continuator and Genesios ınention that the Persians in
fact revolted against the emperor after Anzes, clearly coınproınising Tlıeophobos
in fronl of the emperor and in the enci causing his execution. Manuel, for his part,
either died honourably in Anzes as a result ofhis wounds, or lived on to participate
in the restoration ofthe icons after Theophilos' death.44
it would be interesting to idenlify the "eııvious men" ( cpııı.o�amcavoi nvcç) and
"sycophants" (1:&v auKocpa.v1:&v) who, according to Genesios, denounced to the
eınperor the iınperial ambitions ofTheophobos when he counselled Theophilos to
fight by ııight.45 The Continuator, wheıı rendering this same version ofthe events,
mentions that Theophobos was criticized for pı'etending to "usurp the glory of
the Romans". We surmise that Theophobos could have met the opposition of
some traditional sectors of the army, linked with the aristocracy, who saw with
diffidence the ascendency of the "barbarian" Persians over the emperor. These
are the same persons whom Theophilos pardoned despite their desertion after the
defeat at Anzes (see Chapter 17.2).
The Armenian Manuel was not among the enemies of Theophobos, for the
versions favourable to Manuel do not say a single word against Theophobos.
On the contrary, in Version B Theophobos appears to side with Manuel against
those who give the wrong counsel to the emperor. It is in this same Version B of
the Continuator that Manuel "soınehow heard in the language of the Saracens
that the Persian company had made some accord with them and that they had
agreed to betray the army of the Romans and go bacl< to the leader whom they
had deserted" (npoç -rııv el; �ç a.nfo1:rıaa.v XIDpsiv ıcscpaıı.ı'jv).46 The corresponding
passage ofGenesios agrees that the Persians were already speaking to the enemy
trying to parley with them and thus betray the emperor to the caliph. 47 We can
perhaps question this version of the events, as Mas'üdı presents the leader ofthe
Persian troops, Naşr, as the rescuer ofTheophilos at Anzes.48 In any case, no word
is said against Theophobos, who appears resilient in accepting his appointment as
emperor when the Persians revolt in Sinope (see Chapter 12.2). Finally, the flight
of Manuel with his troops in Version C is not only dubious, as we indicated, but

44
Signes Codofier (2013a).
45 Gen. III.8 (42.76 and 86).
4<, Th. Cont. III.32 (128.14-16).
47 Gen. 111.14 (48.50-54).
4'
Mas'üdT, Tlıe ,'\;/eadows-of Go/d 136, trans. Vasiliev ( 1935) 332.
 Opposition ıo ılıe Emperor 135

also, and ıııost inıportant, appears unmotivated. No single word against Manuel's
treacheıy or cowardice is mentioned in any ofthese versions. 49
We nıay conclude that both Manuel and Theophobos, the Armenian and the
Persian, enjoyed the favour of Theophilos before Anzes. They probably focecl
opposition from some traditional sectors ofthe arnıy who consiclered tlıeınselves
neglected by the emperor and this probably contributed, if not to the defeat at
Anzes itself, surely to tlıe political upheavals and usurpations that followed. The
clifferent versions ofthe battle ofAnzes were probably promoted by the partisans
of Manuel and Theophobos in order to defend their honour ancl prestige against
their common eneıny. In doing so, they discredited eaclı other, but this appears to
be a side effect ofthe defence, not its main purpose.
We deal with the particular case of Theoplıobos and the Persian tagmata in
Chapters 9-12, where attention is paid to Theophilos' failed attempt to integrate
the "barbarian" Khurramites in the inıperial army. As for Manuel, we may perhaps
refer here to a stoıy told by the Continuator that appears to promote him as
protagonist. The stoıy adds further support to the existence of tensions between
"Romans" (of aristocratic families or not) and "barbarians" (Armenians and
Persians) in Theoplıilos' reign .
The Continuator mentions an anonymous domestilcos of tlıe sclıolai, to
be identified witlı mır Manuel, wlıo took part in the triuınph that followed tlıe
victorious campaign oftlıe emperor against the Arabs "at Clıarsianon".50 We will
deal with the clıronology and the problems related to this campaign in Chapter
14.2, where the altemative datings of 831 and 837 will be considered. For tlıe
moment it suffices to say that the account of the Continuator, mır only source
for these events, focuses neither on the caınpaign proper nor on the domestikos
but on the ensuing triumph and particularly on the singular fight fought at the
hippodrome between the eunuch Theodore Krateros and one Arab wan-ior taken
captive by the Byzantines. Since Krateros is one ofthe future martyrs ofAmorion
and easily defeats the "barbarian" infidel, this reveals a hagiographic source.
Moreover, the source has a clear patriotic stance, for the Saracen is defeated by
a "eunuch and one ofno noble birth" (im' a.vopoç suvouxou ıccd ou yeVVaiou ıw6ç).
It is perhaps revealing that it is the domestikos, along with the eınperor, who
appears in the text as supporter of the "barbarian" Saracen against the "Roman"
eunuch. The text is worth translating in ful!:

Now it happened that one of the Hagarenes taken prisoner was famed for his
dexterity of hand. The head of the scholai (6 -rc7ıv crx,o7ı.c7ıv rcpoem:oıç;) [i.e. Manuel]
acknowledged in written praises his great virtues in war, and he gave assurance that
he was adept in horsemanship and excellent in bodily strength and, ftırther, that he
went against his opponeııts wielding two spears with utmost skili aııd grace. Now,
when the triumph of the domestikos was beiııg celebrated in the place of contest

4''
See also Sigııes Codofier(l995) 497-9.
;ıı Tlı. Coııt. 111.23 ( 1 14.17-116.8).
136 Tlıe E111peror T/ıeoplıi{o.ı- aııd ılıe Eası. 829-842

or the horses (sırci youv SV ,0 't'(J)V tliiCO)V (J.�llA/,J']'t'llPlq> 6 't'OU OO�lEO''t'lKOU

8pia�ıpoç srnı,eırn) and this man took the lead. confirming the reports about hirn
by both by his stature of body and preeminence of soul, the emperor, who had
also been won over by these praises, saw and commanded that the man should
mount a horse and, taking t:wo spears, should display his dexterit:y and prowess to
ali the city. Wheıı this had been done and broughtjoy through the spectacle to the
nıore inexperienced, Tlıeodore, called Krateros, who not long afterwards became
leader of tlıe company or tlıe 42 Martyrs, came up to the emperor and mocked
the Hagareııe, saying that he had displayed nothing manly or remarkable. The
eınperor was irritated with him, "But can you, effeminate and unınanly creature,
do any suclı tlıing?" Said the other fortlıwith, "I have not leamt, emperor, nor can
I lıandle two spears, for in war there is no need of suclı ııonsense; but using one
spear I have finıı tnıst in God that I shall strik.e and huri him down from his horse".
Unable to bear the man 's boldness of speeclı, tlıe emperor affirmed, invoking the
oath upon his owıı head, that he would put the lıoly one to deatlı if the two did
not iııcleecl turn his words into actions. Tlıus. mounting his horse aııd taking the
spear in lıis two haııcls, Theoclore lıurlecl tlıe Saraceıı dowıı faster tlıaıı words can
clescribe, in veıy feıv rounds; ııor did this in aııy wise give lıiın grancl thoughts. The
emperor was ashamecl in as much as he saw tlıe Saraceıı tlırown down by a eunuch
and one ofııo ııoble birtlı; but for tlıe while he kept his cunniııg, slıowiııg favour to
lıinı in worcls out of respect for his valour and bestowing gamıents and robes upon
lıinı out of respect for his way of life.

it does not matter that Theophilos finally favoured the eunuch Krateros, who
seems to have played an important role in the campaign of 838. What matters is
the purpose of the text in depicting the emperor as a "philobarbarian", placing
at his side the domestikos of the scholai Manuel, who apparently proclaimed
a discourse in praise of the abilities of the Arab warrior. Moreover, Manuel is
even made the protagonist of the triumph at the hippodrome (6 -wü 8oµscrciıcou
0piaµpoç). This wording is misleading, for it was not Manuel, but rather the
emperor as the head ofthe imperial army during the campaign, who was obviously
honoured by the triumph. But it confirms that Manuel played a very important
role in Theophilos' reign and took sides with the honıines novi favoured by the
emperor, thus infuriating the traditional "Romans" who delighted in the victory of
Krateros, despite being a eunuch, over the confident Saracen. This same defence
of "Roman" values appears in the Life of another martyr ofAmorion, Kallistos, as
we saw earlier in this chapter.
 SECTION III
Supporting the Persian Uprising
against the Abbasids

During the iconoclastic period the turbulent region of the southern Caucasus not
only remained a melting pot of cultures and a puzzle of small principalities, as it
has always been, but also becanıe a fı.ındamental piece in the fight for control of
the area between the two main powers, Byzantium to the west and the Abbasid
caliphate to the south, as we have already seen in Chapter 2.3 when dealing
with the provenance of the troops recruited to Thoıııas' army. The difficulty of
the terrain and the old traditions of autonomy of tlıe local populations, especially
the Aıınenians and lranians, made it nearly iıııpossible for the two neighbouring
empires to assert control directly, so that they relied on loca! ageııts. Thus the
caliphate acted through the agency ofsorne loyal Arrneııian principalities, to which
honours and recognition were afforded, as well as through independentArab emirs
who had settled in specific areas such as Tiflis and Manazkert. For their part the
Byzantines tried to win over some western Armenian princes with the help oftheir
Chalkedonian countrymen established on inıperial soil.1
In the present section we will focus on the Persian Khurramites in the east
Caucasus and the coalition they foııned with the Byzantines against Abbasid
supremacy. We will first look briefly at the religious background to the movement
and its geographical extension (Chapter 9). But it is the fi.gures oftwo ofits main
leaders, the Persians Naşr (Chapter 1 O) and Theophobos (Chapters 11-12), to whom
we will direct our attention, as their siding with Theophilos is illustrative of the
emperor's expansionist plans towards the principalities ofthe Caucasus hinterland,
a project perhaps not unrelated to the importance of the Amıenian component in
tlıe imperial court under Theophilos, as we have already seen in Chapters 4-9.
Our analysis in this section will serve as a prelude to the campaigns in western
Armenia conducted by Theophilos between 834 and 836, including the diplomatic
manoeuvres·then made by the emperor (and more specifically his alliance with
the Iberian Bagratids to the northwest ofthe Caucasus). These questions are dealt
with in Chapter 17 at some length. The alliance with the Khazars, to be analysed
in Chapter 21, may be considered a part of the same overall strategy.

1
Foran overview oftlıese problems see Laurent aııd Caııard ( 1980).
 Chapter 9
Sorne Ren1arks on the
I(.hurrarnite Movernent

Much has been written about the Khuırnmite movement against Islamic rule. 1 Its
ultinıate roots are to be found in the Mazdakism, a gnostic religious nıovement that
flourished in the reign ofthe Sassanid king Kavad (488-531). For our purpose, we
are interested only in the !ate phase of the ınovement that started with the Abbasid
Revolution. As is well known, Islamized Persians, particularly tl10se coming fronı
the militarized region ofKhurasan, were the main driving force behind theAbbasids'
seizure ofpower in 750. The overthrow ofthe Uınayyads and the ensuing transfer
of the capital from Daınascus to Baghdad symbolized a new era for the caliphate
where Muslim converts, and especially lranians, began to play a more determinant
role than the Arab tribes thenıselves, who had formerly founded the caliphate by
expanding their power beyond the limits of the Arabian peninsula.2
However, among the Persians living inside the Abbasid caliphate there were
nıany levels of Islamization that depended on their adherence to the Sunni or Shiite
creed, but were also determined by the persistence of loca! religious traditions
connected with Zoroastrianism and Mazdakism. Many Persians who had initially
backed the Abbasids felt disappointed by the murder of the Persian revolutionaıy
IeaderAbü Muslim in 755 at the hand ofthe sameAbbasids he had brought to power.
His figure became a sort ofsymbol ofPersian self-assertion againstArab dominance
and was identified by many Arab heresiographers with the K.hurramite movement,
which developed mainly in the second half of the eighth century. The movement
eventually got the upper hand in the eastward regions ofTransoxiana and Khurasan
and extended later to West Iran, mainly to Azerbaijan, Işfahan and Jibal.
The peak of the revolt was reached in the region ofAzerbaijan between 816
and 837 under the leadership of Babak, who presented himself as a descendant
of Abü Muslim. Babak's insurrection caused many problems to the Abbasid
authorities, which were repeatedly defeated in their attempts to crush the rebels
until the Persian general AfshTn was entrusted by Mu'taşim with the direction of
the operation:s against Babak and defeated him with the help of some Armenian
princes. Babak was brought in chains to Saınarra, where he was gruesomely
executed. 3 The minute details TabarT provides about Babak's parade and death

1 See Aınoretti (1975), Yarshater (1983) and Madelung (1986), (1988), on which the
following exposition is based.
' See the classic study by Kennedy ( 1981 ) .
.1 For a translatioıı ofthe Arab sources on Babak see Vasiliev ( 1935).
 140 Tlıe Eıııpemr Tlıeop/ıilos c111d ı/ıe Eası, 829-842

are the best proof of the iınportance of the personage, whose head was sent to
Khurasan to deter his partisans from further rebelling against the caliph.4
But before the final defeat and death of the Khurramite !eader Babak in 837,
his uprising played a very important role in the histoıy of Byzantine and Muslim
relations. The Khurramites not only contacted emperor Theophilos to seal an
alliance witlı him against tlıe Abbasids, but also migrated in large numbers to the
Empire when their situation grew critical in Azerbaijan under pressure from the
Muslim troops. They are said even to have fo1111ed a contingent of Persian troops
under one of his leaders, the Persian Theophobos.
The main facts of the military campaigns against the Khurramites are well
known to lıistorians, who have devoted considerable attention to them based on
Byzantine and oriental sources.5 However, little appears to be known about the
religious doctrine ofthe movement or even about the !eve! ofsupport it had among
the local populations of the area.
Concerning the doctrine, it is only the testinıony of Arab writers that sheds
light on the main points of their credo. Ehsan Yarshater nıade a summary of the
evidence provided by these sources, from which the following aspects can be
highlighted: ( 1) belief in the two primordial principles of Light and Darkness: (2)
denial of God as active Providence; (3) occultation or return of divine leaders or
imanıs; (4) reincarnation or metempsychosis as the true meaning ofresurrection.6
As we see, these points clearly detach the Khurraınites from Islam but also f rom
Christianity. it cannot be doubted that important groups of Persian Khurramites
found refuge in Byzantiuın and formed special contingents under the banner of
the eınperor, but it appears soınewhat strange that they could conveıt so easily
to Christianity as is recorded by Michael the Syrian, who says that when the
Khurraınites found themselves in a critical position because of the attacks of the
Musliın troops, "most ofthe followers ofBabak along with the general Naşr ... went
to meet Theophilos, the emperor ofthe Romans, and converted to Christianity".7
The Continuator gives a soınewhat different account, for he records that Sa.bak
"made submission for himselfand all his people to the emperor" (ı:qı �acrı1c:i fou-ı:6v
rn ıcai 1:0 öı..ov s0voç ı'.ııı:�ıcoov -ı:e0c:tıcc:), but does not say that they converted to
Christianity.8 Significantly, he adds that the emperor "made it legal (voµo0c:-cd) for
any Persian to many a Roman and to be joined and united in wedlock".9 Ifwe take

4 TabarT III.1229-1234, trans. Bosworth(1991) 84--93.

5
See for example Rekaya(1974), Rosser(1974), Laurent and Canard(1980) passinı
(see index) but esp. 362-3 with a shoıt chronology of his fight against the caliphate, Ditten
(1993) 93-1 IO, Bartikian(1994) and Cheynet(1998).
r. Yarshater(l 983) 1011-12.
7 Mich. Syr. 531, trans. Chabot( 1899-191O) vol. 3, 88.
R Th. Cont. fII.21(112.12-13). Similar words appear in Gen. lll.3(38.55-56).
'' Tlı. Cont. 111.21 (112.15-16). in Gen. lll.3 (38.59-60) there is no reference to a
law, for he says tlıat Theophilos "ınan·ied the Persians to (create) a close kinship witlı tlıe
Romans" (ı:oıiı; nepcrcı.ı; . . . rcpoç Cl.y;(lCHElC/.V re ·pw�w.[uıv EV yc'ı.�toıç c'ı.p�toÇsrm).
 So111e Remcırks 011 tlıe K/ııırramiıe Moı·eıııenı 141

seriously this reference to a special law of the emperor allowing the maITiage of
Persians with "Romans", that is to say Christians, this would be the first evidence
for the existence of some kind of mixed marriages among Christians and non­
Christians that the emperor tried to slowly inıplement to pronıote the integration of
the KhuITamites in the long tenn.
That the Khurramites could not but remain attached to their beliefs after entering
Byzantine territory is perhaps confirmed by a curious remark the Continuator
makes after reporting the secret execution ofTheophobos in the imperial palace at
the end ofTheophilos' reign:

EKEİ0EV ouv ımi oıaPı::P6ıımı �ıexpı ı:oüoE rrapa TTepcraıı; rııi ö,ııw0aı 0avaı:ov
,ov 0ı::6cpopov aU' EV acp0apcriçı oıaÇ�v, 'L'l[) Kpupoııv r1U' OUK avacpavoov ,ov
EKEIVOU 0avaı:ov yı::vfo0aı ITO'L'E.

From theıı until now it is proclaimed by the Persiaııs tlıat Tlıeophobos would
not see deatlı but continued to !ive in incoınıptibility, for his death took place in
lıicliııg ancl was ııever revealed. ırı

This appears as clear confirmation that the kinci of leaclershipTheophobos exerted

upon his men was close to the concept of imamate followed by the Khurramites
and mentioned above.11
Ascertaining the extent of Khurramite support beyond the main area of
Azerbaijan is also problematic. This is an inıportant point, for it will allow us to
judge the impact of the campaigns leci by the Khuırnmites in northern Syria and
western Annenia that we will deal with in Chapters 15 and 16. In fact the existence
of Persian or Kurdish autonomous lordships in the Annenian lands during this
period was probably not limited to the lands of the Khmrnınite rebels to the east
and may have been ınore significant than is usually assumed. We must consider
for example that the so-called emirs of Manazkert, who at the beginning of the
ninth century rebelled against the authority of the Abbasid goveınors in Dvin,
were probably of Iranian origin. The first Qaysite lord of Manazkert, JalJIJaf,
who according to the Annenian historian Vardan married a daughter of Musegh
Mamikonian, came from a Persian house if we give credence to the Histoıy of
Armenia written by the katholikos Jolm VI of Draskhanakert in the first quarter
of the tenth century. 12 His successor, the emir Sawa.da, who again maıTied an

10
Th. Cont. III.38 (136.20-23).
11
Gen. III.7 (42.68-70) does not mention the incorruptibility, but says that the belief
tlıat Tlıeophobos is alive "is stili cuıTent today" amoııg the Persians, more tlıan a centııry
after events. See Signes Codofier (1995) 584-5.
11
Maksoudian (1973) translated the history into English, but only from Chapter
XXV onwards, so I take this information from the previous part of the work from Ter­
Gherwondyan ( 1976) 34, since tlıe Frenclı translation ofM.J. St-Martiıı (Paris, I 868-1869)
is appareııtly not reliable. Tlıe iııfo!ınation laken from katlıolikos Jolıanııes makes Ter-
142 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıilos a11d tlıe Eası, 819-841

Armenian princess, this time of the Bagratid house, is also presented as "a man
of Persian extraction" by the same author. 13 it is surely the case that the JalJbafids
were arabized, 14 as they are ııamed Sulami (i.e. of the tribe of the Qaysites) by
the Arabic writer Ya'qübT, but it caııııot be denied that their power had a strong
loca! basis and probably originated from intermarriage with Persian and Amıenian
lords. it is therefore interesting to note that Sawada, who nıled in Manazkert from
approximately 821, was defeated in about 833 by the anny ofthe governor ofDvin
when he led an alliaııce against him supported by the sparapet Siınbat and Prince
Sahak of Siwııik', two of the most enıiııent Bagratid rulers. lf we consider that
the Khurramite leader Babak, who had fomıerly joined the rulers of Siwnik' in a
conınıon cause against the caliphate, 15 stili held at the time a part of this eastern
province of Arınenia, we can conclude that Persian and Armenian disaffection for
the caliphate partly coalesced toward the beginııing of the second quarter of the
ninth century, although their differeııt interests hindered a steady union between
the partners, who more often than not went their separate ways.
it could of course be wrong to consider any autonomous Persian element
in Arnıenia and the Caucasus as a potential ally of the Khurranıites, since the
lslamized Persians formed the bas is ofAbbasid power. in the chronicle ofMi"chael
the Syrian the supporters of the caliph Ma'mün against the rebe.ls are ııamed
simply "Persians". This even explains the widespread support the Arab rebel Naşr
enjoyed in Syria against Baghdad between 812 and 825 (see Chapter 5.2). But we
must not automatically presume that every Persian supporter ofthe Abbasids was
a follower ofislam. A Persian ofthe Sogdiana, AfshTn, one ofthe most important
generals of the period and a man on whom caliph Ma'mün mostly relied, openly
despised the Law and had always witlı him the sacred books ofthe Persians. 16 The
continuous success ofthe revolt ofthe Khuıı-amites in Azerbaijan and other areas
ofPersia was perhaps a more serious problem for the Abbasids than is generally
presumed, for it acted as a symbol of Persian resistance.
Harün al-RashTd had already promoted and retained some Armenian nobles
(such as Ashot Msaker, named by him Prince of Armenia 17) in order to check
the separatist moves of ınany loca! Muslim lords. Any massive eınigration
of Annenians to Byzantiuın, like tlıose undertaken by the Aınatuni and other
Aımenian clans in the eighth centuıy should, in the eyes ofBaghdad, be prevented,

Gherwondyan affirm that "This gives us sonıe grounds for supposing that he may have
been ofKurdish descent, but unfortunately, our infonnation conceming Kurdish lıistory in
this period is so fragmentary tlıat it is impossible to ascertain whether there had been any
Kurdish activity in the southern districts of Armenia during the eighth and ninth centuries."
13 Maksoudian (1973) 98 (Chapter XXV).
14 Ter-Gherwondyan (1976) 34.
15 Laurent (1919) l 11, 319-20 and Laurent and Canard ( 1980) 139-40, l 65, 362.
16
Vasiliev ( 1935) 115.
17 Laurent (1919) 98-9, 103-4, 336 and Laurenl and Canard (1980) 131-2, 135-6,
402-3.
 Some Remarks 011 tlıe Klııırrcııııite Moveı11eııt 143

because it left control ofthe deserted lands in the hands ofMuslinı lords wlıo acted
independeııtly fronı the central power in tlıe capital. Sonıe oftlıenı could lıave had,
as we lıave seen, Persian origins.
in sunı, tlıe danger of tlıe Klıurranıites was felt by Ma 'nıün to be one of tlıe
nıost inıpoıiant threats to the Abbasid caliplıate. it is of no surprise that, according
to the naıı-ative of Tabarı, he wrote in his !ast will, addressed to his brother and
heir Mu'tasim, the following:

Hur ry away fronı nıe quickly on your journey ancl heacl speeclily for the seat of
your authority in lraq. Look to these people in wlıose iane! you fincl yourself, ancl
do not neglect thenı at any time. Lauııch against the Klıurramiyya expeclitions leci
by a conınıaııder who is resolute, fierce ancl firm, aııcl suppoıi hinı with fiııance,
arnıs ancl troops, both cavalr y ancl infaııtry. If tlıey are away canıpaigııiııg for
a loııg time, conceııtrate your atteııtion on them ancl seııd tlıem reinforcements
fronı tlıe auxiliaries ancl retaiııers whom you have around you.'"

Wlıat renclers nıore significant tlıe nıention oftlıe Klıurramites in this text is the
fact tlıat Ma'mün does not specify in it any furtlıer threat against the caliplıate. it is
in this context that we shoulcl appreciate the inıportance oftlıe contacts Theophilos
nıacle at tlıe same time with the Persian rebels and the Armenian lords. There
was real clanger far the caliphate that Byzantine policy coulcl succeed in joining
together the disaffected nılers ofthe Armenian territory against the caliph 's rule.

ıs TabarT 111.1 138, trans. Boswortlı ( 1987) 228.

 Chapter 10
Naşr the I<hurraınite

Among the nıilitaıy leaders of the Khurramite revolt against the Abbasids the
oriental sources mention a certain Naşr. His role in the movement and his identity
have been subject to intense debate since Henri Gregoire proposed his identification
with the Persian Theophobos,nıentioned in tlıe Greek sources as one oftlıe most
trusted men ofthe emperor Theophi los,even his presumptive heir to the throne at
the beginning ofthe reign. This identification is by no means a secondary issue for
the understanding ofTheophilos' policies towards the east. Accordingly we will
submit it to a detailed analysis in the pages that follow.

10.J The Literary Sources

We quote again in full the passage from Michael the Syrian where he refers for the
first time to the Khurramite leader Naşr:

in this time ınost of tlıe followers of Babak aloııg witlı tlıe general Naşr, since
they were suffering extreıne hardships caused by the war they had engaged
agaiııst tlıe Persians [i.e. the Abbasid troops], went to meet Theophilos, the
emperor of the Romans, and converted to Christianity.1

This passage makes the re bel Naşr a Khurramite follower ofBabak who became
Christian as he entered Byzantine territory seeking refuge in the face ofattacks by
Muslim troops. But when did his :flight to the Byzantine Empire take place?
According to Tabar1, in 833 the Khurramites rebelled in many areas of the
important province ofJibal,taking cities such as Hamadhan and Işfahan. Shortly
after Mu'taşim came to the power in August 833 he sent an expedition against
them under the command of the newly appointed governor of Jibal, Is!Jaq ibn
Ibrahım ibn Muş'ab. It was the veıy end ofthe autumn, the dhu al-Qi'dah month
of HA 218 (from November 18 to December 17,833). The governor reported a
victory over the rebels as early as December 25,833. He is said to have killed
60,000 Khurramites,whereas "the rest fled to the Byzantine territory."2
Was Naşr one the Khmrnmite rebeis ofJibal who then took refuge in Byzantium?
A further passage in Tabar1 about Theophilos' expedition against Sozopetra in 837
seems to favour this identification. The text reads as follows:

1 Miclı. Syr. 53 l, trans. Chabot ( 1899-1910) vol. 3, 88.

TabarT ll l.1165, trans. Boswortlı ( 1991) 2-3.
 146 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası, 829-842

it has been meııtioned tlıat Theophilos set out witlı a force of 100,000 men - or,
it has heen said, ınore tlıaıı tlıat - including 70,000 odd regular anııy aııd the
rest auxiliaıy troops, uııtil he reached Ziba\ra. He had witlı lıinı a group of tlıe
Mul)aıııirralı wlıo had been involved in tlıe revolt in Jibal aııd had subsequently
joined up witlı tlıe Byzantines al tlıe time wlıen lsbaq ibn lbralıTm ibn Muş'ab
had fouglıt witlı tlıeııı; tlıeir leader was BarsTs.3

Gregoire suggeslecl thal the name BarsTs in TabarT was a false reacling and that
the text originally had NarsTs.4 This would correspond to the Persarmenian name
of Narseh that was supposed to be the correct name of the Naşr cited in Michael
tlıe Syrian and, as we will see subsequently, also ofthe NaşTr cited in Mas'üdT. The
letters ba' and niin are easy to confound in Arabic, as the first has a dot below and
the lalter one above when they appear in the initial position.5 However, the Arabic
distinguislıes quite clearly long and short vowels and BarsTs has [a] whereas
NarsTs does not. Moreover, the only two literary sources that contain the name of
the Persian rebel write it with an emphatic "s" as Naşr or NaşTr and this [ş] can
hardly be nıistaken for a not emphatic one in the Arabic alphabet; neilher is the
metathesis sr > rs easily explained fronı a graphic poinl"of view.
We shoulcl consider finally that the fext ofTabarT, as Mohamed Rekaya notes,6
has a significant variant exactly on this point and should be rendered "they are
nanıed (bismi bihuın) BarsTs,"7 that is to say, "Persians," instead of "his leader
(ra'iszıhııın) was BarsTs." Accordingly, the text provides no eviclence connecting
Naşr with the Jibal Khurranıites.8
Curiously enough, Mohamed Rekaya took for granted that Naşr was a
Khurramite rebel in Jibal and tried to prove that the rebels of this region acted
independently of Babak.9 Certainly, as Rekaya rightly argues, the K.hurramites
were not organized into a homogeneous army in ali the regions where they gained
support, so that Babak could probably not have had a lieutenant in distant Jibal
following his orders, but if we make Naşr a lieutenant of Babak in Azerbaijan, as
is expressly stated by Michael the Syrian, this problem disappears. Naşr's direct
relation to Babak in Azerbaijan is assured by Michael the Syrian, whereas his link
with the rebels in Jibal is just conjectural.

3 TabarT III.1235, trans. Boswortlı (1991) 95.

4 Vasiliev (1935) 138, ııote 3.
5
Tlıese kinds of errors witlı dots are frequent. ln fact, tlıe name BarsTs is rendered
TarsTs in a furtlıer manuscript.
6
Rekaya (1974) 45, note 4.
7
TabarT III.1235 note e.
8
Miclı. Syr. 529, trans. Clıabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 84 mentions tlıe expedition of
lsbaq ibn IbralıTnı ibn Muş'ab in the year 1146 (835) "against tlıe rebels ofMadai and tlıe
ıııountain ofClıadqa" witlıout identifying tlıenı as Klıurraınites or naming Naşr.
'' Rekaya ( 1974 ).
 Na.yr ılıe Kh11rraıııiıe 147

The date ofthe flight ofNaşr to Byzantium should therefore not be connectecl
with the defeat ofthe Khurramites ofJibal in December 833 aııd could have taken
place some time later from Azerbaijan, as the position ofBabak in this region was
becoming iııcreasingly precarious, perhaps about 834-835. The warnı welcome
Tlıeophilos gave to his co-religionists in December 833 may have contributecl to
the flight ofNaşr from Azerbaijan to tlıe empire. Despite Rekaya, the Khun-amites
seem to be connected by tlıe same faith in ali the provinces where tlıeir rebellion
broke out. ıo Mas'üdT speaks in fact oftlıe rebels ofAzerbaijaıı and Jibal who took
refuge in the Byzantine Em pire during the reigıı ofTheophilos, as iftlıey formed
part ofthe same group. 11
Michael seems to conııect Naşr's fliglıt to the eveııts of the year 837, when
Babak was finally defeated, for he says that Theophilos, who apparently thouglıt
that he could defeat the Muslims with tlıe help of the Klıurramites, led an
expeditioıı against Sozopetra after they had fled to him.12 But Michael could have
sunınıarized his source, for he does not specify how nıuch earlier the Khuıı-anıites
arrivecl in Byzantiunı. He also seeıns to be unaware of the existeııce of several
campaigns of the Khurramites aııd Tlıeoplıilos in western Armeııia as early as
between 834 and 836, of wlıich we are iııforıned througlı Armeııiaıı sources (see
Clıapter 15). lf we suppose that Naşr was by tlıen the nıilitary coııırnander, his
arrival in Byzantium should be datecl to the beginning of 834. A further passage
in Michael the Syrian, in whiclı Babak, realizing "that his nıovenıeııt had become
weak and tlıat his followers had fled into tlıe couııtry oftlıe Romans," gives orders
to bury his treasure and takes flight to Byzantium, is too vague to be adduced in
support of the idea tlıat Naşr's flight had taken place just before. 13 The possibility
that Naşr had already joined tlıe Byzantines from Azerbaijan in 834 is therefore
tlıe most likely possibility.
The next comment about Naşr appears in the Golden Meadows ofMas'udI and
is connected witlı tlıe campaign ofTlıeophilos in 838. The Arab historian telis us
tlıat Theophilos saved his own life in a pitched battle against the army ofthe caliplı
due to "tlıe protection ofa converted Christian named Naşır who was helped by
some ofhis comrades." 14 This Naşır is undoubtedly the same person as the Naşr of
Michael tlıe Syrian. Tlıis information is very important, as we see that the Persian
fugitives have already entered Theophilos' anny.
After the crushing defeat of the emperor in 838 and the capture ofAmorion,
tlıe figure ofNaşr appears again in the narrative ofMiclıael the Syrian. According
to him, the caliph Mu'taşim demanded from the Byzantine emissary sent to him
by Theophilos · that ali tlıe Muslim prisoners be released but also that "Naşr the

10
Madelung (1988).
11
Vasiliev (1935) 333-4.
1"
Mich. Syr. 531, trans. Chabot ( 1899-191O) vol. 3, 88.
ı.ı Miclı. Syr. 533, trans. Clıabot ( 1899-191O) vol. 3, 90.
1•
Vasiliev ( 1935) 332.
148 Tlıe Eıııııeror Tlıeoıılıilos aııd tlıe Eası, 829-841

Klıourdanaya, his son and Manuel" be handed o ver to lıim. 15 Again Naşr is the same
person mentioned before by Michael in connection with Babak, "Khourdanaya"
being the Syrian equivalent for Arabic "Khourranıiyya." The petition of the
caliplı reveals that Naşr had been causing considerable trouble to the Muslims
since he fled to Byzantium. Manuel was another famous deserter ofthe caliphate,
an Armenian general and relative of the empress Theodora (see Chapter 5). The
problems Manuel's flight caused caliph Ma'mün during his campaign against
Cappadocia in 830 (see Chapter 14. l ) explain ali too well why his handover was
demanded by Ma'mün's successor Mu'taşim.
But if the mention of these two persons in the caliph's petition requires no
further explanation, how should we understand his demand that Naşr's son also be
lıanded over to him? We do not know lıow old Naşr's son was in 838, but l tlıink
we should disnıiss the idea that he was a child or a youth without any military
experience. 1 f this had been the case, the caliph could have made his demand in
order to avoid the son taking the place of the father and thus continuing the fight
against the caliphate in the future. But even if we concede that Naşr had only one
son and that this son was destined to succeed his father in a dynastic way (and this
is already sup·posing too ımıch), there would continue to be something strange
about the caliph's petition, as it was to be expected that other members ofNaşr's
family could alsa rightly succeed Naşr. That is to say, the delivery ofNaşr's son to
the caliph was ofno use insofar as dynastic or legitimacy rights were concerned,
as Naşr fled to Byzantium not alone but followed by many partisans (and most
probably relatives): any of them could assume his role in the fight against the
caliphate. Accordingly, 1 suspect that Naşr's son had already played a significant
role in the war, perhaps leading some arrny or detachment in person. This was
the reason that he was so important to the caliph, not just his being the son ofa
KhuITaınite rebel. We will return to this point below.
üne ınore ınention ofNaşr is found in Michael the Syrian, only a few lines after
the first, in connection with a fürther caınpaign ofthe Arabs against Byzantium. 16
Abü Sa'Td, the newly appointed governor ofMesopotamia (JazTra) and Syria, leads
an expedition against Byzantium. He enters the imperial territory through one pass
whereas a second contingent, led by the Arab general BashTr and the people of
Mopsuestia, enters through another. W hen BashTr has already taken many cattle and
captives from the Romans, Naşr encounters and defeats him, taking bade the Roman
captives. However, the general Abü Sa'Td comes to help his man and captures and
kills Naşr. No dating is provided, but as the inforrnation appears after the campaign
of Amorion and Abü Sa'Td replaces 'Abbas, the son of al-Ma'mün executed in
838 (see Chapter 18), the year 839 appears likely. By this time, as we shall see in
Chapter 18.1, the rebellion ofthe Persians in Sinope had already come to an end.
The place where the encoünter took place is not named, but given that most
ofthe Muslims who fought against the Khurramites were natives of Mopsuestia,

15 Miclı. Syr. 536. trans. Clıabot ( 1899-191O) vol. 3, 96.

"' Miclı. Syr. 536-7, trans. Clıabot ( 1899-1910) vol. 3, 96.
 Na.)·r ılıe Klııırra111iıe 149

it is to be supposed that it was somewhere along the Cilician border. in this

account Michael telis us that Naşr was the leader oftlıe Klıurranıites, wlıo fouglıt
to the death after their master was nıurdered. The piece ends by mentioning the
joy felt by the caliplı wlıen he saw Naşr's severed and salted head, because "he
had devastated Sozopetra." By this he ıneant that Naşr took part in tlıe campaign
Tlıeophilos directed against that city in 837 (see Chapter 16), a detail no other
source provides.
Arab poets offer additional infonnation about the place where Naşr's final battle
was fought, but tlıis evidence is difficult to assess. Abü Tammam wrote a poem
for the general Abü Sa'Td, where a defeat oftlıe K.huırnmites is mentioned taking
place at WadT 'Aqarqas in Byzantine territoıy. According to the poem, the throats of
the Khurramites were ali slit. 17 Marius Canard rightly identified this battle with the
one mentioned by Michael the Syrian in whiclı Naşr was finally put to death. This
battle is mentioned also, although more vaguely, in the pieces the Arab poet BubturT
addressed to Abü Sa'Td. 18 However, we do not know where the river 'Aqarqas flows,
and the Iocation in the Boukellarion theme advanced corıject1ırally by Belke and
Restle seenıs to lie too nıuch to the noıih ofthe Byzantine frontier. 19 The two Arab
poets nowhere mentioıı the supposed conversion of the Khurranıites to Christiaııity.

10.2 T he 'fourmarches oftlıe Phoideratoi ancl the Peı-sian Tourma

There is just one more piece ofinformation that sheds some light on Naşr, although
it has been disregarded until ııow. This is curious enough, as the inforınation is
provided not by later literary sources but by a contemporaıy Byzantine Iead seal.
Two seals bearing the name [A]ı\NAZ:IP on the reverse and dated in the first half
ofthe ninth centmy were docurnented rnany years ago. 20 The name and dating fit

17 Canard apud Vasiliev (1935) 400.

18 Canard apud Vasiliev (1935) 400-401, 403 and 406.
19 Belice and Restle (1984) 118, who discard, however, another possible location of
the place on the route Ieading from the Cilician Gates to Amorion, whiclı would fit with a
battle fouglıt on tlıe border.
10 Zacos and Veglery (1972-1985) vol. I.3, 1760, nr. 3148a and b. I Iıave been unable
to determine the present whereabouts of the seal, although I have contacted many scholars
in Washington, Paris, Geneva a\'ld Vienna in this respect. Jean-Claude Cheynet writes me
via e-mail on Dec. 20, 2011: "J' ignore qui est ce Nasr toumiarque des Federes. La gravure
est grossiere. Je ne crois pas qu'il s'agisse du fütur Theophobe, car la dignite de spathaire
est bien basse pour un fütur patrice." This points to a provincial provenance of the sea[ that
perfectly suits our argumentation in the following pages. Conceming the reading, although
it is not completely sure, it seems to me the most probable. See the comments A!exandra
Wassiliou-Seibt made to me via e-mail on Dec. 21, 2011: "Beide Exemplare bei Zacos­
Veglery erhalten den Namen des Sieglers nicht vollstandig. Das einzig sichere ist IP in der
zweiten Zeile cles Av. Die 1-lypothese Nasir ist nicht vertretbar, weil schon von der inneren
Symmetrie her in eler ersteıı Zeile 5 Zeichen ( 4 Buchstabeıı uııd eiıı Kreuz davor) Platz
150 Tlıe E111pcror Tlıeoplıilos cmd tlıe Ecısı, 819-841

perfectly in with 0tır Khurraınite. 21 The title and the office accoınpanying the name
in dative are even more interesting: �(amlı.tKq'ı) cma(0ap[cp) rni toup�uı(px.n) tci:ıv
<p(otöcpı'ı.tülv), "to the imperial spatharios and tourınarches ofthe phoideratoi".

Figure l Seal of Naşr/Nasir, as toup�tcı.pxrıç t&ıv <potocpfrrrov, Zacos and

Veglery ( 1972) vol. 1.3, 1760, nunıbers 3148a and b (present
whereabouts unknown)

As we saw in Chapter 2. l, the appointed tourmarchai of the phoideratoi

in the ninth century (Leo the Armenian, Thomas the Slav or even Michael the
Amorian) were of foreign or "barbarian" origin. This tallies well with the seal
ofNAtIP we are considering here, since the name Nasir is surely not Greelc, but
probably Persian or Arabic. That the Khurramite rebel Naşr, after leaving Babak
and entering Byzantium, could be appointed tourınarches of the phoideratoi once
he converted to Christianity should come as no surprise to us, considering the
evidence seen sofar. Infact, all appointed tourınarchai of the phoideratoi seem to
have been offoreign origin.

haben. Die bereits von Zacos-Veglery vorgeschlagenen Altemativen Alnasir/Elnasir wiiren

denkbar. Der letzte fragmentarisch erhaltene Buchstabe in der ersten Zeile des Av. ist ein
Alpha, ob davor tatsiichlich ein N steht oder nur so aussieht, muss ich offen lassen, die
Stelle ist zudem beschiidigt. Vielleicht sind es Reste von zwei Buchstaben. Artaser (?) ist
eine weitere Hypothese." She continues to date the seal at the tum ofthe eighth to the ninth
century or to the first half of the ninth.
21 Only the Arabic article "al" before his name (according to the editors we should read
"al-Nasir" or "el-Nasir") could be perhaps a problem for a Persian Khurramite, but only
if we consider that the Khurramites broke completely with the surrounding Arab culture
of their native lands. The opposite is apparently the case, for they are told to parley in
Arabic with the Muslims on the eve ofthe defeat at Anzes, see Th. Cont. 111.32 ( 128.13-14).
However, other renderings are possible, as we have only traces of a /\ or an A at the
beginııiııg ofthe first !ine.
 Naşr ıhe Khıırra111ite 151

it is in tlıis context tlıat we can ınake some sense oflıow the post oftourmarclıes
of tlıe phoideratoi could have been granted to a Persian immigrant like Naşr. His
appointment continued tlıe policies followed by tlıe empire with tlıe previous
nominees for commanding these elite frontier troops. But perhaps in his case an
iınportant clıange took place, for Naşr entered the Byzantine Empire accompanied
by a significant nuınber of troops. It is now worth considering whether this might
explain the development ofthe tourma ofthe phoideratoi as reflected in the sources
ofthe ninth century: I mean specifically the identity ofthis tourma with the famous
Persian detachments created by Theophilos.
Ifwe admit that the Persian Naşr ofthe literary sources is the Nasir tourmarches
of the phoideratoi who appears on a lead seal from the begiııning of the ııintlı
ceııtury, we should theıı also suppose that the number ofthe phoideratoi increased
noticeably with the aITival of the Persian troops of the Khurraınites led by Naşr
c. 834. The Continuator and Genesios say that the Klıurramite Babak had 7,000
men at his disposal when he entered Byzantine territory ancl went as far as Sinope
to subınit his people to the eınperor.12 But perhaps the nurnbers provided by this
information reflect the actual strength of the Khurramite forces at tlıe end stage of
tlıeir fight against tlıe caliph. How ıııany men arrived in Byzantium is difficult to
ascertain froın this passage.
The Continuator and Genesios teli us too tlıat tlıe Persian troops numbered
30,000 men when they rebellecl against Tlıeophilos.23 These numbers have
generally been regarded with ımıch scepticism,2'1 for they are considered too high
for the standards of the age. However, the sources reflect the fact that a large
number of Persians enlisted themselves as soldiers in the Byzantine Empire during
Theophilos' reign. They were probably included in the units of the phoideratoi as
separate units with their own coinmanders. The Persian detachments could perhaps
by then have constituted the most significant contingent of the phoideratoi. That
the Persian Naşr was appointed their commander is representative of the new
situation. If this reasoning is sound, then we can understand how a few thousand
Persian immigrants expanded to form a unit of 30,000 men, as the Greelc sources
teli us, this !ast nuınber being the total approximate sum of the contingents of the
phoideratoi.
The rebellion of the Persians against Theophilos in about 838, of which we
simli speak in Chapter 12, surely put an end to this large army of outsiders and
immigrants. The Continuator and Genesios say that the 30,000 Persians were
distributed among the contingents of the thematic a1111ies and speak of a ratio of
2,000 soldiei:s to each one. Wan-en Treadgold made an accurate reconstruction of
this procedure, taking for granted the existence of 15 themes at the time, but also

11 Th. Cont. III.21 ( 112.8-13) and Gen. III.3 (38.49-56). We will suggest in Chapter
11 some interpretations oftlıis episode.
13 Tlı. Cont.111.29 (125.4-6) and Gen. 11!.6 (41 5. 1-52).
1➔ See lıowever Treadgold (1988) 299-300 and314-15.
152 Tlıe E11ıperor Tlıeoplıi/os a11d tlıe East, 819-842

supposing that not eveıy theme received the same contingents.25 Although this
reckoning may seem too precise, İl appears reasonable to suppose that the mighty
phoideratoi, charged with defending most of the eastern frontier, were divided
into several contingents with their own toumıarchai. This would explain, as we
saw in Chapter 2. 1, the linking ofthe tourmarches ofthe phoideratoi with the new
tourmarches of the Lycaonians and Pisidians that appears in Skylitzes and in the
taktika. it is only a possibility, but a likely one, that these new toumıarchai ofthe
southem districts ofthe Anatolikon were initially a constituent part ofthe army of
the phoideratoi defending Byzantine territoıy from Muslim inroads coming from
Cilicia. lf we take into account the fact that the main invasions of Byzantium
during the reigıı of Theophilos set off from Cilicia, this points to the importance
of Byzantine troops watching this part of the empire's long border. it comes as no
suıprise that Naşr died while fighting a Muslim attack from Cilicia.
As we see, these sources coınplement each other in drawing a coherent picture
ofthe figure ofthe Khunaınite Naşr. It is now time to consider whether this picture
is compatible with the infoıınation the Byzantine sources provide about the Persian
Theophobos, who was to be married to Theophilos' own sister.

'5 Treadgolcl ( 1988) 314-15. -

 Chapter 11
Theophobos and his Father

The figure ofTheophobos is given much importance in tlıe narratives of the

Byzantine chronicles about the reign ofTheophilos. lndeed, Theophobos seems
to play a key position in the policies ofTheophilos and to lıave been one of the
people he trusted most. Accordingly, we have at our disposal sufficient details
about his life to draw a rough profile ofhis career, .although tlıey are occasionally
contraclictoıy on nıinor points.

1 U Rirfü and Courtly Upbringiııg ofa Noble JPersiaıı Youth

The two versions of Theoplıobos' first years recorclecl by Genesios ancl the
Continuator agree that he was born in Constantinople of a Persian noblenıan. 1
They cliffer, however, on the circuınstances that leci Theophobos' föther to
Constantinople. The first version speaks only of tlıe father as being a Persian
ambassador in the Byzantine capital ancl having conceivecl the child who was to
be named Theophobos out of an illicit relationship with an uımamed woman (�ı�
eıc VOµt�l(J)V ya�l(J)V Gen.; Ol>lC eıc VO�lt�lOU OUVC.UpE{aç, KpU(J)lOU of:: JCai ıı.a0pa[aç
Th. Cont.). According to the Continuator, the father left the city after that
(e�mrnofı�ıııcrnv). Later, when the Persians were looking for a leader of noble
descent in their fight against the Muslims, the man directed their attention to his
own son in Constantinople.2 Genesios' account says nothing about the father after
Theophobos was bom, but it seems to imply that he had already died, for it is a
servant of the noble ambassador who puts the Persians onto Theophobos' trail.3
This point makes more sense at first sight, for if the father were alive, he should ·
have been electecl leader ofthe Persians instead of his lost chilcl. However, it seems
that the Continuator's account is to be followed here, as the father ofTheophobos
appears later, in this first version from Genesios, meeting the Persian Ieader Babak

1
Genesios is to be preferred in this case to the account ofthe Continuator, who tried
partially to combine the two versions ofhis sources into one single narrative. However, some
interesting details of the original sources are preserved in the Continuator, who deserves
attention too. For details about the constnıctioıı ofthe naıTative see Sign.es Codofier ( 1995)
471-5 and 484-7.
2 Th. Cont. IIl.19 (1 l 0.7-17).
3 Gen. III.3 (37.29-32). The eıııbassy is depicted as being occasioııal in tlıe
Coııtiııuator (Eiç ırpwpEiav ... ırotE) but Geııesios states tlıat tlıe aıııbassador was "ıııaııy
tiınes" (ıı:oUaxcııç) in Coııstaııtinople.
154 T/ıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos cıııd ı/ıe Ecısı. 829-842

in Sinope,4 as we simi! see subsequently in section 11.2. So the theory can be

sustaincd that the father ofTheophobos was still alive in this version of events,
however illogical the story may appear. Maybe this contradiction reveals some
imperfect reworking ofthe real events? Before coming to any conclusion, !et us
see the second version ofthe origins ofTheophobos.
The second version, preserved by Genesios and the Continuator,5 states that
the father was no ambassador at al!, but a Persian ofroyal descent (if not a king)
who caıne to Constantinople as a refugee when the war obliged him to leave his
country. The Persian, who lived as a beggar, worked for some time for a barmaid
in the capital before falling in love with her. She was to give birth to Theophobos.
When the father diecır• the royal descent ofTheophobos was made known to the
Persian nobleınen through the magical arts they used to profess.
This second version seems to be a more palatable rendering of the events
insofar as it makes the birth of Theophobos legitinıate. This is clearly stressed
by tlıe Continuator, who speaks of legal union (vogi�tq) cruvacpEiÇL) between the
Persian and the barmaid. 7 Genesios says too that Theophobos was bom ıca-rcı.
auÇuy[a.v, that is to say, inside marri�ge. 8 Moreover, the abject poverty of the
Persian we do not find in the first version seems to have been concocted only in
order to give credibility to a respectable relationship between the two partners. We
ınust not forget that barmaids usually suffered a bad reputation, being connected
with prostitution. Finally, that ınagic revealed the existence of Theop,hobos
to the Persians after his father had died is obviously a fantasy. As the father of
Theophobos was made to die in the second version, an expedient was needed in
order to make known to the Persians the identity of his forgotten son, so what
could be ınore appropriate than magic? As Genesios and the Continuator remark,
perhaps following a justification they found in their common source, "the magic
arts were stili blossoming among the Persians". Therefore I consider it very likely
that the writer ofthis version wanted to get rid ofthe figure ofthe father and made
lüın die just after the birth ofTheophobos. ln fact, the father remains active aınong
the Persian noblemen in the first version. He could have been a significant person
among his countrymen and was perhapiı also well lmown to the Byzantines. Could
this figure have compromised the eülogy of Theophobos that the author of this
second version was intending to write? If so, this was a reason for getting him out
ofthe narrative. There could have been, however, other reasons for doing that.
But maybe this second version was intended to be more than a panegyric to
Theophobos. The finding ofthe Persian baby by the Persian noblemen guided by
signs in the sky closely resembles in Genesios' wording the finding of Jesus by

4
Gen. III.3 (38.52-54).
Gen. III.4 (38.62--40.14) and Th. Coııt. 111.20 (111.10-112.21 ).
" Gen. III.4 (39.88): 1CpOTETEAEU'IT\KEVm; Th. Cont. IIl.20 (111.19-20): 6 �lEV el;
c'ı.v0pumwv eyavsto.
7
Th. Coııt. Hl.20 (1 l 1.19).
' Gen. [11.4 (39.89).
 Tlıeoplıobos and !ıis Fatlıer 155

the Persian ınagi in the New Testament: 9 both even perforıned proskynesis before
the newborn! The sınell ofa hagiographical reworking ofthe stoı}' is here clearly
appreciable. This is easily explainable if we take into account that Theophobos
founded a rnonastery in Constantinople, as we shall see below. That a Ltfe of
Theophobos was written to whitewash some conıproınising details of his biography
is an old conjecture, already advanced by Henri Gregoire. 10 But Gregoire went a
step förther and concluded that the pious ınonks of his monastery forged ali the
above details about the biıih ofTheophobos, because he thought that Theophobos
was the sarne person as Naşr who was evidently not born in Constantinople. We
will see that.his hypothesis is untenable for several reasons. For the moment it
will suffice to say that the two versions are not equally untrustworthy, as Gregoire
assumed. Genesios was aware ofthe difference between the two, as he introduced
his narrative with the following words:

ne; M Tl\lEÇ, ıcui Ütı.tı.CtlÇ ı:a ıcuı:a 0ı::6<poBov liı'icrı:6pııı:m, il ı:föv tı.ııx0evrnıv ı:Etı.OÜCTl
ımp6poıu, rmup<'ıtı.tı.uıcm 8e OUÖUflCllÇ, ıcuı:a ı:o 8tfopopov ı:(ı)V müm ÖlE�lQ\11:(1)\1
ı:�c; ı:E uürnııı[ac; ıcui ı:ııc; ırpoc; aı:spouc; EV Öll]Yl]CTEI flEı:üX8TEUCjf:UJÇ11

Kaldellis renders the passage as follows:

Soıne lıave related the story of Theophobos differeııtly, in siınilar nıaııııer to

our previous ııaıı-ative, although in no way ideııtically. Any differences between
the various accounts of tlıese events can be attributed to the differeııce between
being an eyewitness and obtaining inforınation at second-hand. 12

Genesios does not say which version is closer to the events and which was
based on second-hand infonnation. But if we take into account the inferences we
have already made, it seems to me that the second version could have been a later
hagiographic reworking. Accordingly, it could be argued that this second version
(!et us cali it Version B from now on) was inspired in the first one (Version A), for
both look like folktales. However, Version B also contains some details that may
reflect the truth and are not found in Version A.
In fact, Version A makes less sense than Version B when recounting how the
Persians made known to the emperor the identity of Theophobos. According to
the account by Genesios, Theophobos was living in the district of Oxeia with his
mother, after his father the Persian ambassador abandoned her. His identity was
established first by "some Persians who irifiltrated the City under orders to secretly
locate this youth" (ö0Ev 7W.pBlüÖVVWJV aıhfi ı:&v ırnpi ı:ouı:ou otaı:sı:antevwv ıcpvrpa
ıcaı:acrı:oxa.cmcr0m, ıcai avayvwpwa.vı:wv ı:ov veaviav). They indeed found and

9
Signes Codofier ( 1995) 484, note 2.
111Gregoire (1934).
11 Gen. 111.4 (38.62-39.65).
" Kaideli is ( 1998) 52.
156 Tlıı: E111peror Tlıeuplıilos aııd ı/ıe Eası, 829-842

recognized Theophobos as the son oftheir former ambassador, but "as knowledge
of this youth hadsoon reached even the imperial ears, the Persians in the City agreed
that, for that reason, it was necessary for the Persian nation to send ambassadors
lo the Romans, and they came to arrange a final treaty of peaceful subjection to
them". 13 In the rendering of this episode in the Continuator the Persian envoys are
also secret/y (Kpucpa) sent to Constantinople to find Theophobos, but when they
identify him living with his mother at the Oxeia, they reveal their mission to the
emperor without further detay and without being apparently compelled to do so
by any circumstance. They then promise Theophilos to sign a treaty and declare
their allegiance to the empire if only Theophobos is given to them. 14 it is nowhere
explained why the enıperor should have taken notice of the mission being carried
out by secret agents of the Persians in the capital or even why they should have
said anything to him.
Genesios' Version B is on this point more coherent, for we are told that the
Persian envoys caıne to Constantinople to fulfil their mission with the approval of
the enıperor, who was infornıed ofthe Persians' purpose from the very beginning,
as was to be expected. Genesios gives many details of how the Persian envoys
looked for Theophobos, side by side with the imperial men." The Continuator is
not clear about this point, for he seems to prefer Version A and makes a drastic
summary of the naıwtive of Yersion 8. 16 Actually, Version B in the rendering
by Genesios is to be given more credit than Version A, considering that if any
nıission by the Persians to seek a royal heir in Constantinople ever took place, a
previous understanding with the emperor was needed. How could secret Persian
agents expect not to be noticed at ali when roaming around Constantinople and
questioning the people about the son ofa Persian nobleman?
But this minor detail is certainly not the only point in the whole story that
should be approached with caution. Is it really conceivable that Persian envoys
would take so much trouble to find a youth, however noble his father might have
been? What could have made any noble Persian youth so important to them that
they even promised to submit to the empire in exchange for him? That Theophobos'
father was a descendant of the Great Cyrus, as was perhaps maintained in the
original report of the Version B preserved in Genesios, 17 is such nonsense that
the Continuator suppressed this point in his rendering of the passage. The whole
story seems so unlikely and absurd at first sight that Henri Gregoire rejected it at
once as the fancy product of an imaginative monk ofthe ınonastery founded by
Theophobos in his !ast years.
However, there is an interesting aspect to the story that seems to have escaped
the notice ofscholars and probably explains the changes made by the Continuator

ıı Gen. III.3 (37.32-38.48)

1< Th. Cont. III.19 (110.17-111.6).
ı; Gen. III.4 (39.70-40.1)
1" Tlı. Cont. 111.20(111.21-112.3)
17 Gen. 11!.4 (39.92-94).
 Tlıeoplıobos and lıis Fat/ıer 157

in the rendering of the two versions of Theophobos' origins. I re1er to the fact
that Version B by Genesios says that Theophobos was 12 years old when he was
found by the Persian envoys. 18 The Continuator suppressed this detail in his short
summary ofVersion B. It deserves our attention here, firstly because it appears in
connection with the official embassy by the Persians to the emperor that we have
already considered more likely than the clandestine mission outlined in Version A.
Moreover, Genesios says in his second version that Theophilos took charge ofthe
education ofthe child. According to the editor, the passage is as follows:

6 aırroıcpfrrwp ... ı:/:ıv �tav 0c:6cpopov ev ı:otç pacrıı..d0tç ecrıciJvcocrEv avaı:pocp�ç

ı:e npocrrııcoucnıç ıcai ı:�ç ıcaı:cc fta0qı:c:iav ııl;iou naıoc:ucrc:wı:;· 6 öe cpucrc:wç
c:uıcı..ııpiçı, oux i'iı:ı:ov öe ıcal �tc:yaı..onpc:ndçı cruvötatı:ciı�tc:voı:;, (Eiı:; üıcpov rııcc:v
eUoyi�lOU naıÖeUüeCıJÇ, ciıç evı:c:ü0c:v napa ı:cp pacrtAel 7ı:A.Eicrı:a crı:epyo�leVOÇ
c:u�wıp�craı naı:ptKt6ı:ııı:a, oopucpopiaı:; ı:c: ıcal crı::pacr�n6ı:ııı:oı:; m:pıö61;cov, aı..M
�u)v ıcai ı:�ç ıcaı:a 0Epaneiav 7ı:OA.Ul:EA.01JÇ Kal iıcavwı:a.ı:ııç *** ecpa.ıııacr0aı. OLU
ı:ot ı:ouı:o 6 µev pacrıA.EUÇ ı:ouı:; TTepcraç EIC ı:oı'.ıı:ou ciıç VW\/lKOUÇ EV 7ı:OA.E�lOlÇ
ıml �tEyaıı.6cppovaç emcrı:a.�ıı,voı:; ı:oiı:; crrpaı:wınıcoiı:; avaypa.cpEı:at ıcciıöıl;ıv,
ıcai ı:ouı:otı:; TTepüll(O\/ CTUA.A.Oyov eyıcaı:foı:quEV, KUi rıuı:ouc; ı:aic; "Poı�ta"iıcaiç
üTpUı:ü7ı:eOUPXlatÇ üUVllpl0�l�ü0at 7ı:p0üETaÇEV. l'I

ln the translation by Kaldellis:

The emperor installed Tlıeoplıobos in the palace and aırnnged that he be provided
for and educated in a fitting manner. Because of his natura! advantages, and no less
due to the magnificence of his new environment, Tlıeoplıobos reached the heights
of eloquence and leaming. Consequently the emperor, who became quite fond of
him, bestowed upon him the dignity ofa patrikios, along with a large retinue and
illustrious honours, and also a luxurious and rnost adequate life style. Hence the
emperor realized by observing Theophobos that the Persians were vigorous and
high-rninded wan-iors, and had them enrolled in the militaıy lists, fonning from
thern a Persian corps, which he incorporated into the Roman armies.20

The sequence of events adopted in this passage is completely different from

that adopted in Genesios' Version A, where Theophilos appoints Theophobos
patrikios and enrols the Persians in the Roman army after the Persian envoys ask
for Theophobos from the eınperor. In VersionA ofGenesios there is no mention at
ali ofTheophobos being educated in the palace. Neither is the age ofTheophobos
mentioned here, although the fact that Genesios describes him twice as vwviaç
and depicts him living with his mother makes one suspect that Theophobos was

18 Gen. III.4 (39.90).

19 Gen. III.4 (40.4-14). There is a comıption in the text I try to solve wlıen
reconsidering tlıe passage in Clıapter 12.3.
1° Kaldellis ( 1998) 53.
158 Tlıe Eıııııeror Tlıeoplıilos cı11d ı/ıe Eası, 829-841

ınore a child than a youth. There is in fact no contradiction between the two
versioııs in Geııesios, provided that we consider that Version B has only given
us more details about tlıe pronıotion and career of Theophobos since he entered
the imperial palace as a child, whereas the first has summed up the process by
mentioning only his appointment as patrikios.
This could be precisely tlıe reason for the amendments made by the Continuator
in the rendering ofthe two accounts tlıat he tried to combine into a single narrative,
as I lıave tried to denıonstrate elsewhere. 21 The Continuator followed Versioıı A
wlıeıı he described the fiııding ofTheopohobos by the Persians on a secret missioıı,
but theıı did not proceed to ınention the coıning ofthe Persian troops to tlıe eınpire
aııcl Llıe appointınent ofTheophobos as patrikios, events that ınake up the remainder
of Version A in Genesios' narrative. He prefe:n-ed instead to mention briefly the
facl lhat Theophobos was raised in the palace and educated in Greek culture:

ıiyı;yı)0et youv -roiç üıroaxı;0datv 6 Betcrtı,eı'.ıç, ıceti ıiıreiırep oütcııç axoucretv

ı;üptcrıce rııv aıı.�0eıav, ev Bncrtı.eioıç rnü-rov etuıı.iÇw0m ıceti Kettacrıcrıvouv ırotei,
�ıet0ıhtetai te Keti ırmcieiçı. f.ITl�tetı.oı'.ı�tEvov. 22

Tlıe emperor rejoiced at tlıese promises; and because he found this to be tlıe
trutlı, he caused lıim to live aııd dwell in the palace and took care oflıis lessons
aııd education.

The Continuator took these details borrowed from Version B, as he thought

that the education of Theoplıobos in the palace must necessarily have preceded
his appointınent as patrikios. However, his account tums out to be ınisleading
because he does not theıı proceed to naırnte the coming ofthe Persian troops and
the appointment ofTheophobos as patrikios according to Version A, but includes
in a soıi of parenthesis the altemative account of Version B about the finding
of Theophobos by the official embassy ofthe Persians, and this in an extremely
abbreviated fashion, as we have said. Only after that does the Continuator resume
Version A and give us accurate details about the coming of the Persians to the
eınpire and the titles and position Theophobos held by this time. We can describe
his procedure more accurately as follows (note that many transitions in the use of
the sources are marked in the Continuator by the use ofyoüv):

Version A (Th. Cont. 110.7-111.6 = Gen. 37.16-38.45): Theophobos is bom

in Constantinople of a Persian nobleman and an unnamed woman. After that,
the father leaves the city. But his Persian countrymen are looking for a leader
of noble descent and Theoplıobos' father directs their searclı to his own son in
Constantinople. They secretly enter tlıe city and find there tlıe woman with the

11
Signes Codofier ( 1995) 461-89.
-- Th. Cont. 111.19 (111.6-9).
 Tlıeoplıobos aııd his Faı!ıer 159

youth in the district of Oxeia. Tlıey reveal their purpose to thc emperor aııd
promise to become his subjects if he deliversTlıeophobos to thenı.

Version B (Tlı. Cont. 111.6-111.9 = Gen. 40.3-6): Theoplıilos rejoices at their

promises and takes care ofTheoplıobos, wlıo is educated at tlıe imperial palace.

Version B (Tlı. Cont. l l l.10-112.3 = Gen. 38.62-39.75): The Continuator

wams us about the existence of anotlıer version of events tlıat is soıııewhat
different. According to this versioıı, a ııoble Persian flecl his country aııcl canıe to
Constaııtiııople where he worked for a barmiıid for sonıe time. After he nıarried
her, she conceived a clıild, who was nanıedTlıeophobos. After the fatlıer died,
the existeııce of the child was revealed to the Persiaııs by signs in the sky. As
sooıı as tlıey hearcl of it, they weııt to tlıe city.Tlıeophobos becanıe known to the
enıperor after they founcl him.

Versioıı A (Coııt. 112.3-1 12.21 = Gen. 38.45-61 ): When notice of tlıe events
taking place in Coııstantinople reaclıed Persia, the iıılıabitants cleciclecl to break
tlıeir allegiance to the caliph ancl subıııit to tlıe enıpire. Babak tiıe·ıeacler of tlıe
Persians had alreacly rebelled against tlıe Arabs five years before aııd now weııt
to Sinope to ıııeet Tlıeoplıobos (Theoplıobos' fatlıer, according to Genesios),
subnıitting hiıııself and all his people to tlıe enıperor. Tlıeoplıilos appointed
Tlıeophobos patrikios aııd marriecl hinı to his sisler.Theophilos also maıTied the
Persians to Byzantine women and enrolled them in the imperial army.

As we see, the Continuator tried to rationalize and combine his sources into
a single narrative by considering that Theophobos would have been raised at the
palace (Version B) before he was appointed patrikios and was respected both by
the emperor and the Persian troops (Version A). This means that the Continuator
also thought that Theophobos was a child when.the Persian envoys found him in
Oxeia living with his mother. Accordingly, Theophobos must have been a child if
Theophilos raised hiın in the palace and his education must have taken place some
time before he was named patrikios. Ifthis is the case, perhaps we can suppose that
the embassy ofthe Persians took place not when Theophobos was a child, but after
he had been effectively taught the Byzantine cuITiculum and was highly regarded
in the eyes ofTheophilos. His achieved eloquence, surely in Greek, could not have
been gained otherwise.
In fact, it is certain that there were embassies from the Persian Khuırnmites
to Constantinople during their uprising against the caliphate, as we have already
seen when considering the biography of Naşr. Contacts may even have started
long before the uprising had begun, as backing from the empire was indeed crucial
for long-term success of the rebellion. Neither should the possibility of contact
taking place during the war between Thomas and Michael be ruled out. Thomas
had indeed gained strong support from the Arabs (see Chapter 13.2) and many
peoples of tlıe Caucasus and easterıı Anatolia (see Chapter 2.3 ), so that every
160 Tlıe E111perur Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 829-842

possible alliance witlı the peoples of this area, including the Persians, would have
bcen cxtremely welcome to Michael ofAmorion, who retained control only ofthe
west. Alternatively, contact with the Persians may have started in the afterınath
of the civil war, when Michael was trying to assert his authority in the east. it is
even probable that the Persians who visited the court promised to submit to the
eınpire if only Theophilos would help thenı in their fight against the caliph. The
Roman court, following a long tradition, must have then taken hostages from these
aınbassadors in order to assure their loyalty.
This policy was already practiced by the Romans in the time of the Republic
when ınany Greek intellectuals (the ınost famous being Polybios) were thus won
over to the cause of Rome, but it becanıe custonıaıy in the iınperial period.23 The
usual procedure was to keep the hostages, normally proıninent persons ofroyal or
noble blood or their relatives, at the court. it was not even unusual to take care of
the children ofthese people and allow them to be educated in the Roman culture.
it was hoped that these ''Ronıanized" children, after they grew up, would always
promote the cause of Rome in their respective countries. 24 The practice continued
in Byzantium, especially with the peoples of the Balkans (the most notorious
examples are Theodoric the Great and Syıneon of Bulgaria) and in the Caucasian
principalities, whose borders with the empire remained unstable.25
I find it clarifies the picture to connect the stoıy of Theophobos with this
Roman policy and consider him a hostage ofthe eınpire. lt does not really matter if
Theophobos was born in Constantinople ofa proıninent Persian or was given to the
emperor as a child to guarantee an alliance between the Persians and Byzantines.
What really matters is the fact that he was given to the emperor to ensure that
the mutual alliance between the Persians and Byzantines should reınain. That he

23 Lee (1991) 366 describes this policy ofthe Romans in the following terms: "Hostage­
taking gave the Romans the opportunity to expose potential future leaders ofa neighbouring
people to Roman cultural influence over a significant and formative period of time, in the
expectation that at some time after their retum home, these yotıng men were likely to hold
positions ofpower and would be inclined to favour Roman interests." Certainly, the author
emphasizes the fact that the Roman Empire apparently did not follow this practice with
Persian Sassanids in the fourth-sixth centuries, but only exchanged hostages as guarantees
for short periods of time. However, he explains this anomaly as a consequence ofsome kind
of recognition of equality between the two main powers, a circumstance that does not apply
in atır case. Moreover, there are clear instances ofpolitical refugees coming from Sassanid
Persia and being instrumental to Roman strategy, like the famous Hormisdas, son of the
Persian king Hor_misdas II, who fled to the empire, was awarded with many honours by the
emperor Constantine I and ended in Roman ranks fighting the Sassanids (PLRE vol. 1, s.v.
"Hormisdas l "). See for that Vallejo Girves (2004), with further bibliography.
24 The same goes occasionally far the Arabs, who protected Byzantine dissidents in
their ten-itory and used them against Constantinople, as the case ofthe "renegade" Thomas
tlıe Slav will show in Chapter 13.1.
,; For tlıe integratioıı ofArmeniaıı princely houses in tlıe Byzantine aristocracy during
tlıe ııiııtlı century see Brousselle (1996) and in general Clıapters 3-7.
 Tlıeoplıobos and his Faılıer 161

was educated in the Roman traditions aııd giveıı in marriage to a menıber of the
imperial family was tlıe logical corollary ofthis policy. 21'

11.2 The Identity ofTheophobos' Father

We must accordingly suımise that the father ofTheoplıobos was a very prominent
Persiaıı acting as an agent oftlıeir people at the iınperial court, otherwise the Iıanding
over of his son to the emperor could not have had any relevance. Unfortunately
tlıe Byzantine sources do not give us his name. This is easily explained as the
Greek sources focused naturally on the "Ronıaııized" child Tlıeophobos. The
identity of his father, however iınportant he could have been in his own country,
was secondary for a Greek reader a century after the events. it could alsa be that
the Lives ofTlıeophobos played down the figure ofthe father, as his bad reputation
could comproınise the eulogy of the son. However, if the father was to play a
significant role in tlıe alliance between Byzantines and Khurraınites, we should
perhaps expect to find some nıentioıı of him in tlıe oriental sources.
As I conjectured years ago, Naşr the Khuıı-amite is a good canclidate to fili
this post.27 He was a close confidant of Babak, the Persian leader, and set off
for Byzantium before the same Babak tried to do so. He could have beeıı seııt to
Constantinople in earlier eınbassies during the first years ofthe reign of Theophilos,
or even under Michael il (when Theophilos was co-emperor) ancl have Ieft his
son there as hostage of the Byzantiııes. His later position as tourınarches of the
phoideratoi at the head of the Persian troops is alsa relevant, as he could not have
held this high command without enjoying the close confidence of the emperor.
Previous nominees for this post did indeed become emperors afterwards, like Leo
V and perhaps Michael II. It would have been quite strange for Theophilos to
appoint a Persian emigrant touımarches of the phoideratoi imrriediately after he
entered Byzantine territory, probably in 834. Confidence comes with time, but
Naşr was probably holding this post when the Persian troops campaigned for the
first time in Armenian lands in 834, as we shall see in Chapter 16. If we suppose
that the son ofNaşr was already maıı-ied to a sisler of Theophilos when his father
settled in Byzantiunı, then we have the link we are looking for. Finally, whereas
the Greek sources mentioned a father of Theophobos, we have already seen in

26 Marriages ofprincely scions of foreign dynasties to the imperial family were not
infrequent in Byzantium. The clearest precedent in time was the maITiage of Constantine
V with the daughter ofthe Chagan ofthe Khazars in 732 (see Theoph. 409-10), a fact that
contributed to the alliance between the Byzantines and Khazars, which we deal witlı in
Chapters 19-20 for the reign ofTheophilos. This policy was condemned by Constantine
VII in the famous chapter 13 ofDe adnıiııistraııdo iıııperio after Roınanos I Lakapenos had
maITied tlıe daughter ofhis son Christoplıer to the Bulgariaıı Tzar in 927.
27 Signes Codofier ( 1995) 461-5. Brubaker aııd Hal don (2011) 408, note 160 refer to
my lıypothesis witlıout quoting nıy study.
 162 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeuplıi/os aııd ıhe Eası, 8]9-842

Chapter 10.1 that M ichael the Syrian mentioned a son ofNaşr who was important
enough for the caliplı to demand tlıat he be handed over to the enıperor.That this
son could have been Theophobos is nıore than a probability.
it is iııteresting to note that wheıı Babak aıı-ived in Sinope to subnıit his people
to the eınperor, the Continuator says that he came to Byzantium "out of longiııg for
Theophobos" (n:60cp LC[l n:poç ı-ov 0ı:6cpo�ov), whereas Genesios mentions that he
was iııstead looking for his father (cı.vı:pı:uv&v ı-ov 0ı:ocp6�ou n:aı-epa.)."8This later
precisioıı may be underslood now in the sense that it was Naşr whom Babak was
looking for, that is to say, the general who probably left him for the west in 834
when the situation was getting worse for the Khurramites in Azerbaijan. However,
since we know that Babak was captured by the caliph in 837 and subsequently
put to death in Samarra, it is generally assunıed that he never canıe to Byzantiunı.
1 would not conıpletely rule out the possibility that such a meeting took place,
perhaps in 835, before Theoplıilos' campaign in western Armenia (see Chapter
16.4). But perhaps it was not Babak hiınself who caıne to Sinope, but some of
his envoys ,vho submitted to the enıperor on behalf of their leader. Naşr could
have even been the person who came to Sinope with his men, this evenl thus
taking place in 834. Greek sources nıight have easily confused the leader with the
1ieutenant.
Be this as it may, the current idea, advanced first by Gregoire"9 and accepted
until now by ali scholars,30 that theTheophobos of the Greeks and the Naşr of the
oriental sources were one and the same person must be discarded. Whoever wrote
the eulogy or hagiography ofTheophobos could not have changed so blatantly the
events and have nıade of an aged Khurramite leader in Azerbaijan (he had a son
according to Michael the Syrian) a young son bom in Constantinople and educated
in the imperial palace. üne could perhaps argue, again following Gregoire, that
the hagiographers also nıade Manuel the Annenian live well into the regency of
Theodora despite being already dead in 838, and that in so doing they heavily
distoıted the truth. But even if this supposition holds true,31 there was at least a
reason to do that, since the hagiographers might have wanted to whitewash the
iconoclast past of their hero by giving him a crucial role in the restoration of
icon worship. No satisfactory reason can be found, however, for making an aged
Khuıı-amite general likeNaşr to be bom in Constantinople, and this even in two
different versions of his Lffe. SinceNaşr was ccinverted to Christianity, according to
some sources, there were many ways of highlighting his piety without completely
changing his identity. Unless, of course, we consider that Byzantine authors were
just rhetorical fools who wanted to play with facts just for fun.
Moreover, as we have seen in Chapter 10.1, Naşr's severed head was sent to
the caliph after he died in a pitched battle at the eastern frontier. Theophobos for

28 Th. Cont. III.21 (112.10-11) and Gen. III.3 (38.52-53).

20 Gregoire (1934).
-'" See PınbZ #8237 and and PBE s.v. "Theoplıobos 1 ".
-'1 Which appears now to be Lhe ense, see Signes Codofier (20 I 3a).
 Tlıeoplıohos and lıis Faılıer 163

his part was executed by Theophilos in Constantinople, as we shall see below in

Chapter 12, because the emperor suspected him ofconspiring to gain the throne.
These are indeed two completely clifferent reports, impossible to nıatclı in the
biography ofa single person. On the contraıy, these reports wholly agree with
what we inclependently know about the lives of Naşr and Theophobos, for the
experienced Khurraınite general died on the battlefielcl, whereas Theophobos clid
so in the palace, according to the nıore syınbolic role as leader ofthe Persians he
is given by the sources. in the different versions of the battle ofAnzes preserved
by Byzantine historians, Theophobos never appears as a military leader, as we
have already seen in Chapter 8.2, where we noticed the sharp contrast witlı the
figure of Manuel, who fights next to the eınperor sword in hand at the most critical
moments. Even in the version most favourable towards Theophobos, as preserved
by the Continuator, he only couıısels the enıperor to joiıı the ranks and to set
upon the enerny by night together with the Persian infantry. When the ·battle is
over, Theophilos rewarded "with thanks and especially witlı honours the nıen of
Theophobos" (:x:6.ptcn 8s ıcai n�taıç 8tacpcp6vrcoç wiıç nEpi rov 0c6<popov), but not
Theophobos hinıself.3"
Furthermore, we know tlıat when Theophobos was executed, he was buried in
the monastery he had founded in the capital. Since Naşr's salted head according to
Michael the Syrian was sent to the caliph after his death at the frontier,33 Gregoire
conjectured that the monks ofthis nıonastery forgecl the story ofhis cleath in the
capital oııly in order to claim that his body be buried in their church. This again
makes no sense, for the moııks would have thus substituted execution as a traitor
in the palace for a valiant death as a fighter at the frontier! Perhaps they wanted
to stress that Theophobos opposed Theophilos, but otır sources say no worcl about
Theophobos' iconophilia. Ifthe monks really needed the remains ofthe founder
in their monastery, they could have easily concocted another story about their
(miraculous?) transfer from the frontier. The fact that Theophilos ordered the
beheading ofTheophobos remains therefore the only link between the death of
Theophobos and Naşr that Gregoire was able to find.
Finally, it is certainly possible that a Khtmamite rebel !ilce Naşr and many
of his men chose outward conversion to Christianity when their situation was
increasingly desperate in Azerbaijan and the emperor offered them his help. But I
do not think that they could have done more than pay !ip service to the emperor,
as we argued in Chapter 9. Nor is it conceivable that Naşr founded a monastery.
Therefore it may be assumed without any doubt that Naşr and Theophobos
were two different persons. It appears to me that there is a strong possibility that
Naşr was Theophobos' father, although it cannot be completely ruled out that the
latter was another Khuırnmite leader not named in the sources.

·" Tlı. Coııt. 111.22 ( İ 13.5-8 aııd 114. 10-12).

.ı.ı Miclı. Syr. 537, trans. Clıabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 96.
 164 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeophilos mıd ıhe Eası. 829-841

11.3 Theophobos Patrician and Kaisar and his Marriage to Theophilos' Family

Tlıe Continuator says that as a consequence of the submission of Babak's men

to the empire, "Theophilos enrolled Theoplıobos in the ranks of the patricians
and gave hinı his own sister in marriage" (r6v re 0ı::6ıpopov 6 0ı::6ıpı1ı.oı; n�ıft
rft rrarpudwv svapı0�ıei, Kai rft Eaurou a.8ı::1ı.ıpft rrpoı; ya�ıov sK8i8wcn). 34 When
introducing the different reports on Theophobos, the Continuator had already
stated that he would teli "how, being of Persian descent, he became known to the
emperor and took his sister to wife" (rııv a.8ı::1ı.ıpı'Jv aürou ı::iı; ya�wv �pµ6craro). 35
Geııesios, for his part, in a first version about the origins ofTheophobos, telis
us that '"lhe emperor Theophilos raised the noble youthTheophobos to the rank of
a patrikios aııd gave hiın his own sister in marriage" (6 8e pacrı1ı.ı::iıı; 0ı::6ıpttı.oı; rov
�ıi;v ı::üyı::vıı vwvir1v 0ı::6ıpopov ıcarayı::paipı::ı narpuı:ı6rıırı ıcai rı'Jv fourou a.8ı::1ı.ıpı'Jv
rourcp npoı; ya�ıov Eıc8i8wcnv). 36 This is presented again as a consequence of the
Persians having become Roman subjects. in a second version, however, Genesios
mentions that the emperor educated Theophobos at the palace and "consequently
the eınperor, who became quite fond of him, bestowed upon him the dignity
of a patrikios, so that he could also partake, along with the illustrious of both
relinue and honours, of a luxurious life style most adequate to his attendance"
( ciı,; ivreu0ı::v napa TQ) pacrıtı.ei ntı.eicrra crrı::py6�ıı::voı; ı::ü�ıotpııcraı narpucı6rrıra,
8opuıpopiaı; re ıcai crı::Pacr�n6-ı:rıroı; nı::pı861;wv, a.Ua µı'Jv ı<:ai <8tai>-ı:ııı; ıcara
0ı::panelav no1ı.ure1ı.ouı; ıcai iıcavwrcmıı; sıpıhvacr0m).37

Figure 2 Seal ofTheophobos as patrikios. Nr. 4 in the Dunn catalogue (1983).

Courtesy of the Barber Institute ofFine Arts, Birmingham.

34 Th. Cont. 111.21 (1 12. 13- 15).

ı; Th. Coııt. IIl. 19 ( 110.5-7).
'" Gen. lll.3 (38.57-58).
·
17
Gen. 111.4 (40.7-10). The text is problematic, for a substantive ıs lacking for
rrohrrEA.ofü; Kal iı,ct.vt,ırarqı;. 1 follow tlıe coııjecture of Kumaııiecki.
 Tlıeoplıobos emel lıis Fatlıer 165

A seal of tlıe Barber lnstitute of Bim1inglıam (Figure 2), dated to tlıe ninth
century, confirms tlıat Tlıeophobos was appointed patrikios.38 This appointment
probably had something to do with the aITival oftlıe Persian Khurramites, although
Theophilos could have discovered the importance ofthe Persian youtlı well before
the Khurramites accepted Roman rule. Tlıe education ofTheophobos at the palace
could therefore have been part of a strategy that aimed at the recognition of his
rights by the Persian rebels.
it is more problematic to assess Theophobos' marriage. To begin with, the
Logothete says that Theophobos maITied a sister of Theodora. 39 This indication,
which could perhaps be explained as an error of the Logothete, certainly stands
alone against the joint statement ofthe Continuator and Genesios that the wife was
a sister ofTheophilos. Nevertheless, as these two historians use a common source
as their base, we are not able to decide in favour of one or other possibility just
by considering which is the more frequent testimony. Modern scholars are also
divided on this point..ıo
We cannot further explore the option of the marriage of Theophobos with
a sister of Theophilos, for no record of the existence of such a sister has been
preserved. About Theodora 's sisters we are betler informed, but nowhere is it
stated tlıat one of them ever maıı-iecl Theophobos. I n a ımıch-clebatecl passage, the
Continuator says that the empress had three sisters but he only mentions two of
them, Kalomaria and Sophia. in the only manuscript of the work, Vat gr. 167, a
blank space follows their names. The Continuator further speci:fies that Sophia was
married to Constantine Baboutzikos and Kaloınaria to Arsaber, who is presented as
the brother of Eirene, the mother ofthe füture patriarch Photios..ıı Skylitzes, based
on this text, mentions Eirene as the third sister and says that Sophia was married
to Constantine Baboutzikos and Kalomaria to Arsaber, but he also adds that the
third sister Eirene ınarried Sergios, brother of Photios.42 it is dif:ficult to know
whether Skylitzes improved the text of the Continuator based on other sources,
had access to a better manuscript of this work than the Vat gr. 167, or simply
freely misrepresented the facts.43 But if we suppose that the name of Theodora's
third daughter was soınehow erased from the source of the Continuator, as a kind

38 Dunn (1983) 4. Archie Dunn, who is preparing an edition ofthe seals at the Barber
lnstitute, has confirmed this dating to me.
39
Log. (A) Theophilos [130] 8 (218.43-44): uuı:ov 8e ı:ov 0s6qıopov slç etöeA<p�v
0woropuç uu.youaı:ııç yaµppov. sicrsnoıfıcraı:o.
40 Treadgold (1988) note 386 and PBE s.v. "Anonyma 4" consider that Theophobos
married a sister ofTheodora, whereas PınbZ #2547 maintains that the wife ofTheophobos
was rather a sisler ofTheoplıilos.
41
Th. Cont. IV.22 (174.23-175.11).
4"
Skyl., Michael ili 11 (98.69-77).
43 For a discussion about the problem ofTheodora 's sisters see Bury (1890), Ahrweiler
( 1965), Mango ( 1977), Settipani (2006) 169-72 and 340-42, Varona Codeso(2009a) 343-8
and(2009b) 125-8.
166 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıilos emel ıhe Ecısı. 819-841

ofdamnatio memoriae,44 the possibility remains that this third (unnaıned) sister
did in fa.et nıarı)' Theophobos: her name \Vould have been erased froın tlıe official
records after her husband was executed by Theophilos:ı; This is undoubtedly a
highly conjectural hypothesis, which does not explain wlıence Skylitzes got
the name of Eirene or why he made her marry Sergios. If we do not accept this
suggestion, then we will have no other alternative than to suppose that Theophobos
married a sister ofTlıeophilos.
We ımıst also consider the age ofTheophobos. If, according to Genesios, he
was aged 12 when Theophilos brought him to the palace,46 he could only have
ınarried two years later, when he reached the canonical age of 14. This would
nıake 831 the first possible year for a ınarriage of Theophobos to the imperial
family. Nevertheless, as Theophilos had been co-ernperor since 821, it is not to
be excluclecl that Theoplıobos entered the palace before, as we suggested above
in section 11.1. This point has soıne relevance. Since Theophilos could not have
been born later than 805/806,47 a younger sister ofhis born from 5 to 1 O years later,
c. 810-815, could lıave reached the canonical age for marriage (12 for woınen)
in 822-827. A ınarriage between her and Theophobos is therefore conceivable,
although she could have been a bit older than the groonı. The same can be said of
Theodora's sisters.
it was otherwise with the children of the imperial couple. Theodora and
Theophilos marriecl in 821, as we established in Chapter 4, so that their chilclren
were very sınai! or even babies when Theophilos came to the throne in 829. As
we argued in Chapter 7, Alexios Mousele could not have been betrothed to the
youngest ofTheophilos' daughters before 837-838. This excludes him from being
the kaisar ofthe triumph of831, as we have seen. While waiting for their children
to grow older, Theophilos probably planned marriages ofhis and his wife's sisters
to significant families. Marriage policy has always been a coınınon means of
obtaining allies to boost power, and Theophilos, as a young ruler, needed this
support to consolidate his rule and, ınost iınportant, to ensure dynastic continuity.
in any case, as Theophobos is said to have had children in 838, when he took
flight to Amastris, it is reasonable to date his marriage as early as possible under
Theophilos.48
It is against this background that we must consider Theophilos' appointment of
a kaisar at the beginning ofhis reign, for he is already ınentioned in the protocol
ofhis triumph in 831 (see Chapter 15.2). The appointment ofa kaisar would have
been urgent in 831, for the only son of Theophilos, the co-emperor Constantine,

44 in Th. Cont. III.38 (136.2-3) Theophobos appears to be followed by his wife (the
text, lıowever, uses the plural: �u,ı:a ... yuvuııc&ıv) when he took flight to Arnastris, where
tlıe Persians proclaimed him emperor.
4; Signes Codofier (1995) 483.
4<, Gen. III.4 (39.90).
47 PmbZ #8167 (p. 629).
4
' Tlı. Cont. l 11.38 ( 136.2-3 ).
 Tlıeoplıohos cmd his Fatlıer 167

may have already died in this year (see Clıapter 7.2). Tlıe emperor urgeııtly needed
to preseııt an alternative to the succession, especially as he was canıpaigning on
the distaııt eastern frontier. The appoiııtment ofa kaisar from among the members
ofthe imperial family was undoubtedly the ıiıost conveııient option, far the elected
kaisar, without being made lıeir to the throne, could eventually take the reins of
power if the emperor suddenly died witlıout offspring. If Theophilos did not
appoint a kaisar before departing for the east in the spring of831, he certainly was
obliged to make a decision before enteriııg the city in triumph upon his return. The
protocol of83 I pays especial and detailed attention to the garments ofthe emperor
and the kaisar when batlı entered the city tlırough the Golden Gate riding on two
wlıite horses,49 whereas it nıakes only marginal comments about the klibania worn
by the otlıer dignitaries taking part in the triumplıant procession. it could be that
Tlıeophilos appointed the new kaisar only for tlıe occasion ofhis triumphal return.
According to the protocol, Tlıeoplıilos waited seven days in Hiereia and three
more days in Saint Mamas before entering the city in triumph,50 probably because
he was waiting for the arrival of the prisoners of war who were to be paraded
througlı the streets during the procession. Could he have appointed the ııew kaisar
in the meantime? Tlıe protocol does not say whetlıer tlıe kaisar campaigned with
Tlıeophilos or not; he just appears on horseback at his side when both are to enter
the city through the Golden Gate.
Who was the appointed kaisar?51 Since Theophilos' daughters were too young
to be married (or even betrothed!) and the emperor apparently lacked a brother,
the only possible choice was to appoint as kaisar one of Theoplıilos' brothers­
in-law. Theophobos was certainly the most likely candidate. That no sclıolar has
thought of hiın for the post is easily explained because of the lıitherto prevailing
identification ofTheoplıobos with the Khurramite general Naşr. The appointment
as kaisar ofa Persian emigrant with probably no knowledge of Greelc culture and
Byzantine traditions would certainly have appeared not just highly unpalatable to
the Constantinopolitan elites or the Byzantine population in general, but would
have represented political suicide for a young emperor claiming to assert his
power. Furthemıore, as we saw in Chapter 10.1, Naşr did not come to the empire
before 834.
But these considerations do not apply to the figure of Theophobos. We have
quoted the sources where his highly sophisticated education at the palace is
mentioned. According to Genesios, he "reached the heights of eloquence and
learning". 52 He was accordingly more Roman than barbarian and, in any case,
more Romail than the rude Armenian soldier, Leo V, or the ignorant Phrygian,
Michael ofAmorion. Both the Continuator and Genesios explain the predilection

49
Constantine VII, Tlıree treatises 148.837-844.
;o Constantine VII, Tlıree treatises 146.825-826.
51
1 sincerely thank Otto J<.resten for some suggestioııs aııd comınents made on tlıis
particular questioıı, fronı \Vlıiclı tlıe followiııg discussioıı has lıiglıly benefited.
;" Gen.111.4 (40.7). See also Tlı . Coııt.111.19 (1 1 1.9).
168 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos cıııd rlıe East, 829-842

Theophilos felt for the youth as a consequence of his being raised in the palace.
Whcıı Theophilos appointed him patrikios aııd rnaıTied him to his (if not
Theodora's) sisteı� he was surely conceiving for him a promising future, exactly
as wheıı some years later he maıTiecl his youngest claughter to Alexios Mousele
ancl appointecl him patrikios.
Obviously the main objection for supposing that Theophobos was the kaisar of
8.31 is the fact that no single source rnakes mention ofhim being appointecl as such.
However, it is only by coinciclence that we have the very funclamental info1111ation
thatAlexios Mousele was appointecl kaisar by Theophilos. The Continuator is the
only historian to mention this highly significant detail because he probably read the
whole cursus honorı.ım ofAlexios from an inscription written on his tomb.53 That
Alexios was appointecl kaisar is however coınpletely ignorecl by the Logothete,
who clevotes a lengthy chapter to him and his sı.ıpposecl conspiracy against the
emperor. 5• This silence may appear strange, for ifAlexios ever pretendecl to the
throne, it was not only becaı.ıse he was the son-in-law of the ernperor, but also
becaı.ıse of his role of kaisar ancl maıı-in-reserve in case of Theophilos' cleath.
Nevertheless, his appointment as patrikios ancl nıagistros as well as his being sent
to Italy on campaign was apparently nıore inıportant to the Logothete. The same
coulcl have been the case with Theophobos.
The fail into clisgrace ofTheophobos (executed by the eınperor for high treason),
was more dramatic than that ofAlexios Mousele (retirecl to a monastery but
apparently reconciled with Theophilos), and this may explain a ceıtain damnatio
rnemoriae, perhaps extenclecl to the name of his wife, as we have suggested above.
Finally, unlikeAlexios, Theophobos may have quickly exchanged the title of kaisar
for one ofeven higher importance, which makes his former status ofkaisar iıTelevant
for later historians. We will consider this point in the next section.

11.4 Theophobos Exousiastes of the Persians

An interesting lead seal with the name of Theophobos has been preserved in the
Dumbarton Oaks collection with the number 58.106.3767 (Figure 3). Its !ast
editors55 cotTectly read in its reverse -rq'ı crq> ooı'.ı1ı.qı 0eocp6�qı eç,ouma.crıfi ı:(&v)
[TT]epcr&v (four lines), "[Lord (or Mother ofGod) help] your servant Theophobos,
exousiastes of the Persians". They datecl it to the 830s, against the false reading
Xepcr&voç of Zacos and Veglery,56 already cotTected by Werner Seibt.57

53 As we saw in Chapter 7.2, Th. Cont. III.18 (109.12-13) says that Alexios' "tomb
and the inscribed image ofhim above it" (ı:6v ı:6.ıpov Kcıi -r�v cııhoi:i iivoı8Ev aıı:ıyı;ypcı�ıµevııv
EiK6vcı) bear witness ofwhat the historian has recounted üt6.prupcı ... ı:füv 1ı.ayo�ıevoıv).
54
Log. (A) Theophi/os [130] ll-14(219.66-220.103).
55 McGeer, Nesbitt and Oikonomides (2005) 11° 108.1, p. 146.
56
Zacos and Veglery ( 1972-1985) n" 2526, p. 1367.
57
Seibt ( 1975) 212.
 Tlıeoplıobos aııd his Faıher 169

Figure 3 Seal of Theophobos as ıi/;oucnaarııç; ı:föv flf;pacov from McGeer,

Nesbitt and Oikonomides (2005)

Since Seibt's correction it has been generally assumed that this seal belonged
to Tlıeophobos, thus confirming that he was the conımander of the Persian troops
under Theophilos. But leaving aside the fact that the post of tourmarches of the
phoideratoi held by Naşr does not matcl1 with this title (see Chapter l 0.2), the term
exoıısiastes (ıi/;oumaaıııç;) could hardly have been used for a military commander
serving the empire, as we shall now see.
We tinci in De ceriınoniis Il.46 that exoıısiastes is one of the titles by which
foreign rulers are addressed by the Byzantine emperor (olç; <'ıcpı::iıı.ı::t 6 pamıı.ı::uç;
6v6�tam nµ�v ı:oiç �tı::yıaı:a.at ıcai nproı:otç ı:&v ıi0v&v). Indeed, among the many
titles and names listed in this chapter, the term exoıısiastes occupies the third place.
But which rulers are envisaged here? We have the answer some pages below, in De
ceriınoniis II.48, where we find an "exoıısiastes ofAlania" (ıi/;oumaaıııç; A.ıı.aviaç;),
a "renowned exoıısiastes of Abasgia" (nı::pı<pav�ç; ıi/;ouataaıııç; Apaayia.ç; ) and
an "most respected and noble exoıısiastes of the Muslims" (ıivoo/;6ra.ı:oç; ıcai
ı::uyı::vforaı:oç; ıil;ouma.a�ç; ı:&v Mouaouıı.ııµıı:&v).58 In De adıninistrando iıııperio
the address "exoıısiastes ofAbasgia" (ıil;ouaıao�ç; A.pa.ayiaç;) is found six times.59
Nicholas I Mystikos uses the expression "exoıısiastes of Abasgia" ([m,pioo/;oç]
el;ouaıa.aı:ııç; A.pa.ayia.ç;) three times in the letters addressed to this ruler.60
Skylitzes speaks also of "Pankratios the exoıısiastes of Abasgia" (ITa.yıcpa.ı:iou
oe ı:ou ıil;ouaıaoı:ou A.paayiaç}.61 Anna Komnene addresses the emir of Baghdad
as "exoıısiastes of Babylon" (e/;ouaıa.a�ç; Ba.puıı.&voç;). 62 Some more examples

58
De cerimoııiis [1.48 (688.6, 9-10 and 689.17-18).
59
De administraııdo iınperio 45-46.
60 Nicholas Mystikos, letters ıır. 46, 51 aııd 162.
61 Skyl., Michcıe/ iV Pcıplılcıgoıı 14 (402.6).
1'2 Aııııa Koııınene, Alexicıs Xl.7.
170 T/ıe E111ııemr Tlıeoplıilos aııd r/ıe Easr. 829-84]

could perhaps be found, but nowhere is the ternı exozısiastes used for a Byzantine
commander or officer. it is only exceptionally given to the emperor wlıen
describing the nature of his power, for exanıple by the granımarian Choeroboskos
in his Epiınerisıııoi ıo the Psalıııs ( 168): 63 Bacnı.Eiıç �tev ecrnv 6 si;oucrıacrı:�ç Kai
Kaı:a v6µouç ö.pxmv ı:ci:ıv cı.pxo�tevmv ("the emperor is the exousiastes and he who
rules over the subjects according to the laws"). This !ast use proves that the ternı
was employed without exception for sovereign rulers, nıainly of the Caucasus
area, and also incidentally for the ruler of Baghdad or the emperor himself.
What then could the terın s�oucnacrı:�ç ı:ci:ıv Tiepcrci:ıv mean when viewed in
this context? I think tlıat the only likely explanation is that Theophilos intended
Theophobos not to command over the Persian troops serving Byzantium, but to
nıle over the Persians in their own country, probably meaning Azerbaijan and
Kurdistan. The education provided to Theophobos at the imperial court aimed to
make of him a pro-Roman ruler and prepared him for a foture takeover of power.
The Byzantine chancellery followecl this policy with many other Caucasian rulers,
who owned their owıı diploınatic houses in Constantinople. Theophilos' aim
might today seeın unrealistic, but if we consicler the troubles the caliplıate had in
assessiııg liis power in the Caucasus area, the possibility of establishing a Persian
principality allied to Byzantium could tlıen have seemed feasible, at least before
the Khurramites were utterly defeated by the caliplı in 837.
lfwe now tum our attention to the Greek literary sources, we can find in them
more evidence confirrning mır supposition. Genesios says that after Theophobos
helped Theophilos in a pitched battle, the ernperor wanted him to "rule among the
Persians" (�yı;�wvı;ı'.ıı;tv Ev ITepcrmç -ı:ov 0ı;6cpo�ov npo-ı:ı;0uµrıı:o). This means at
least that Theophobos was not appointed commander of the Persian troops from
the very beginning. But what could have been meant by "among the Persians" (Ev
Tiepcrmç)? Genesios uses the verb �yı;µovı;uro a second time to refer to a command
of troops.64 But there are no more samples of this use of�yqwveı'.ım in Genesios,
and even in this second case we have a .genitive rection. The same expression
occurs in the Continuator, again with a genitive rection: "the emperor wished that
Theophobos should rule them" (oto ıccti 6 �a.crıAEuç �yı;�wveı'.ıeıv a.u-ı:&v ıl�ou1ı.ı;-ı:o
ı:ov 0ı;6cpo�ov).65 This is the only instance of�ye�tovı;uro in the first five books of
the Continuator, who uses another verb to refer to a military command. The verb
ı,rı;µovı;uro no doubt appeared in the common source both writers used for their
narratives.
I suspect that the original wording ofthe phrase was similar to that ofGenesios,
with a Iocative EV Tiepcrmç instead of a genitive ı:&v Tispcr&v. The locative EV
Tiepcrmç is indeed a very twisted form ofreferring to a military command, even for
such a baroque writer as Genesios. On the contrary, Genesios, by using a phrase
like �yqtovı;ı'.ıı::tv EV Tiepcrmç, nicely expressed the idea that Theophilos thought of

6
, Ed. Gaisford (1842).
"➔
Gen. [V.15 ( 68.3-4 ): ü.UTOV aıı:acrııı; T�Ç crrpano.ç ııyqtOVEUElV ıı:pocrfaaE,ııv.
15
• Th. C'ont. ll 1.22 { l l 4. l 6 ).
 Tlıeoplınbos emel lıis Faılıer 171

Theophobos as future ruler of the Persians (nıeaning tlıe Khurranıite Persians of

Azerbaijan). Tlıe verb ıırı::�toVEUO) renders quite well tlıe idea ofa sovereign nıler
that was precisely tlıe sense e�oumacrrıiç had in the contemporary sources, as we
lıave already seen.
Immediately after this passage Genesios tells us how Theophilos was forced
to huıı:y back to Constantinople for some serious matter, probably wlıen he was
campaigning in Anatolia.66 Theophilos then "handed over to Theophobos the
military command to dispose of the Persian troops, but ordered him to return
-ca
afterwards to the imperial city" (np 8e 0ı::ocp6pq) -cföv TTE:pcrföv eyı<EXetptıc6roç
8ıa0fo0aı uTpa-cııyuccoç TCJ. u-cpm:EU�tam, dm ırpoç n)v pam?ı.(8a TOUTOV eıravısvaı
KeAEUuavroc;). The action is not dated in the text, but this last appointment of
Theophobos carried with it the end of his brilliant career, as the Persian troops
proclaimed him enıperor and he lost the conficlence of Theophilos. We will turn
again to this episode in Chapter 12. For the moment it is enough to say that
according to the text the militaıy command Theophobos was given by the enıperor
was not only episodic but alsa short-livecl. This conımand seems not to be exactly
what Theophilos had in nıiııd wlıen some lines before he was saicl to have appointed
Tlıeophobos ruler of the Persians. Moreover, in tlıe wording of tlıe Continuator it
is not expressly said that Theophilos gave any militaıy command to Theophobos,
but only that he "orclered him to dispose ofthe matters ofthe Persians ancl to return
then to 1ıim at all speecl" (ı:q) 0ı::ocp6pqı -ca ı:cov flEpuG:ıv ev8ıa0fo0aı ırpoı:pmııa�tı::voç
ıcai a-00ıç 8ıa ı:axsrov eırava8pa�lEtV ırpoç auı:6v). 67 We canı10t specify what kinci
of mission was entrıısted to Theophobos by reading this passage, as the context
ofTheophilos' campaign is unknown to us. It could be that Theophobos received
a military command over tlıe Persians (again a temporary one, as he was ordered
to return "at all speed" to Constantinople), but it is alsa possible that Theophobos
was ordered to use his prestige to organize (ev8ta0fo0aı) the Persian troops. They
could have been in disarray following a defeat of the imperial armies and their
commanders were perhaps becoming restless. Theophobos was ordered to cope
with this situation, but he did not succeed, as the troops openly rebelled afterwards
and proclaimed him emperor.
To sum up, there is nothing in the Greelc sources that points to a perınanent
military command of Theophobos over the Persian troops. Theophobos is always
depicted as a trustworthy confidant ofTheophilos, who keeps him at his side in his
militaıy campaigns. He could encourage the emperor to attack the eneıny with an
inspiring speech, but he never, appears to be involved in close fighting, as Manuel
does, perhaps ·because he was too young and was used mainly as a symbolic figure.
When the Persian troops are in action, Theophobos does not lead them. This
evidence perhaps fits in with the idea that Theophilos reserved a more important
role for Theophobos. The emperor probably wanted to appoint him ruler ofa Persian
principality to the south ofthe Caucasus, that is to say, e�oumam:rıc; ı:G:ıv ITı::puG:ıv.

'''' Gen. 111.5 (40.20-24).

''7 Th. Coııt. lll.29 (124.14-17).
172 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos cmd ılıe Eası, 829-842

We do not know when this appointment was made, but it was perhaps in
connection with the arrival of the Khurramite Naşr, the lieutenant of Babak, to
Byzantium in 834 (see Chapter 1 O. 1 ). The caınpaigns the Khurramites conducted
in western Annenia between 834 and 837 (see Chapters 16-17) were probably
under the guidance of their ııew leader Theophobos in his position ofei;oucnacrr�s
rcôv ITEpmov and under the military commaııd of (his father) Naşr. These new
circumstances probably made it inconvenient for Theophobos to continue to be
addressed as kaisar, for his role at the court had completely changed. He was
no lenger a possible successor to the emperor, but a key player in Theophilos'
foreign policy in the Caucasus. Again, we do not know whether Theophobos was
deprived ofthe title ofkaisar or ifit simply became obsolete. But it appears certain
that Alexios Mousele began his accession in 837-838, as a coıısequence of his
marriage to a daughter ofTheophilos. Alexios could have already been the kaisar
who took part in the triumph of 837, as we suggested in Chapter 7.2.
 Chapter 12
A Persian Basileus?

12.1 Dating the Uprising of the Persians

The final stage of Theophobos' life begins with the defeat of tlıe imperial troops
in the battle of Aıızes in 838. We will deal at some length in Chapter 18.2 witlı
the circumstances leadiııg to this defeat, kııowıı mainly through Arabic sources.
Here we will merely review the imınediate consequences of the battle for the
Byzaııtiııes, especially the ensuing uprising of the Persians against the emperor. 1
Geııesios, who knew two versions of the life ofTheophobos, gives accordingly
two different accouııts of the rebellioıı of the Persians under his lead agaiııst the
emperor Theophilos. In the first one tlıe lıistorian says the following:

[Theophilos] was inclined to appoint Theoplıobos to nıle over tlıe Persians.

Wlıen, however, for sonıe serious reason (ıcaTa nva ırp6ıpacnv öu,crn:ouöaıcuiav)
the enıperor was forced to hasten back to the lnıperial capital, entnısting
Theophobos with putting the Persian contingents in order with the authority ofa
general (Tqi oe 0EO<p6pq:ı TU ı:ô'ıv Ilepcrô'ıv fyıcexeıpuc6wç ota0fo0m crTparııyucô'ıç
Ta crTpmcı'ı�mm) and ordering him to retum to the City after that, the Persians,
encouraged by a rebellious disposition (eıc crmm6ıppovoç oıa0foeoıç), conınıitted
a foolish deed where they were on the littoral of Paphlagonia ... and seized the
city ofSinope, or according to others, ofAmastris. They sun-otınded Theophobos
and proclaimed him King (Pacrı1ı.fo ıcrıpı'.m:oucrıv), quite against his will, hoping
thus to revive the past customs ofPersia.2

Geııesios' secoııd versioıı of eveııts is more detailed about the causes of the
rebellioıı. It is said that "on one occasion" (ıcaı:a nva nspm:sı-sıav), whenTheophilos
was worsted (8ucrı-uxfıcmvı:oç;) in a military encounter, Theophobos advised him
to attack the enemy by night with the Persiaıı troops in order to prevail over the
enemy. However, many envious men in the army calumniated him regardiııg his
motives, accusing him of pretending to the throııe, so thatTheophilos became very
angry. Accordingly,

1
See Signes Codofier ( 1995) 550-52 and 553-7 far a discussion on the dating of
the revolt of Theophobos, with a nıore detailed comparison between the accouııts of the
Continuator and Genesios. See also Treadgold (1979b) 183-4.
' Gen. 111.5 (40.20-29), trans. in Kaldellis ( 1998) 54.
 174 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi!os aııd ılıe Eası, 819-841

Theophobos becarne very worried. Taking with him a select group of his
followers, he fled to the city ofArnastris and awaited the outcome of events there.
The emperor seııt the fleet against him to seize both the city and Theophobos.
The latter, beiııg a pious maıı, in a God-feariııg manner hesitated piously to
initiate hostilities that would lead to the spilling of Christian blood.3

Both versions are embedded in the narrative ofTheophobos' life and provide
no details about when exactly these events took place, for the main concern
of Genesios' sources about Theophobos was to build a coherent sequence of
episocles around the biograplıy of his hero, not to write soıne kind of annals about
Theophilos' reign. Therefore the sources macle it clear that Theophobos rebelled
when Theophilos faced sonıe problems either in the capital or after a nıilitary
clefeat, but were not more specific about the circumstances ancl did not provide any
clating at ali, nor dicl Genesios try to integrate these two versions into his narrative
ofTheophilos' reign.
There are many nıotives to link the events mentionecl here with the battle of
Anzes of838.To begin with, the second version of events is what we in Chapter8.2
labelled as Version C of the Continuator for the battle of Anzes. in this version of
the Continuator Manuel the Armenian appears at the side ofTheophobos and details
are given that unmistakably refer to the well-known defeat of838.4The Continuator
provides some further cletails not preserved by Genesios (for example about l brahim
and Abuzachar as the rulers of the Arabs opposingTheophilos), but they are of no
help in dating the battle. -ın any case, the battle is not connected with any previous
historical event, but is just a fürther episode ofTheophobos' biography.
On the other hand, Michael the Syrian telis us that when Theophilcis was
surrounded by AfshTn in838 (atAnzes, although no name place is given), some of the
Roman soldiers took flight to Constantinople, thinking that the emperor had already
clied. WhenTheophilos finally succeeded in escaping the enemies who surrounded
him, he went hastily to Amorion. But then alarming news came from the capital:

An envoy from his motlıer5 came to lıim saying tlıat: "Tlıe Romans wlıo arrived
here have spread a rumour tlıat you had been killed and the nobles want to

3 Gen. III.8 (43.87-92).

4
Th. Cont. IIl.22 (112.22-114.16).
5 Theophilos' mother Thekla had died before the second marriage of Michael II
with Euphrosyne (see Chapter 6.1) and could not have sent any message to her son in
838. Accordingly, onlyTheophilos' stepmother Euphrosyne, who is sometimes taken as
Theophilos' mother, could be meant here: see PınbZ #7259 and and PBE s.v. "Thekla 2".
However, Euphrosyne had been banished from the palace at the beginning ofTheophilos'
reign (see Chapter 6.2), so that it appears strange at first sight that she could have played
an active role in the events as late as 838. Perhaps Theodora was refeITed to in Michael's
source, not as the emperor's wife, but as tlıe mother of Miclıael III. This could be an
argunıent for datiııg the source during Theodora's regeııcy.
 A Persimı Basi/eııs:' 175

appoint another emperor. Huny!'' Tlıen Theophilos harangued the troops

gatherecl at Anıorion ancl orclerecl the city gates to be closecl. He left Amorion on
a knife eclge, lanıentiııg for his chilclreıı. When he arrivecl al Coııstantiııople he
put to cleath tlıe nobles who wantecl to appoint aııotlıer eınperor. 6

We easily recognize in this account the "serious reason" (alluded to in the first
version of Genesios) that forced the eınperor to hasten bade to the capital. This
enables us again to connect the rebellion of Theophobos with tlıe aftermath of
Anzes.
Finally, tlıe fact that the rebellion took place in Paphlagonia again links the
rebellion witlı the defeat at Anzes. We are inforıned through the Continuator and
Genesios that after being defeated at Anzes tlıe imperial troops withdrew to the
Chiliokomon plain between the Halys and iris rivers, to the south ofPaphlagonia.
They were met there by the emperor, wlıo rebuked them for tlıeir failure and tried
to persuade them to resume the fight against the Muslims. 7 Since it is not a long
way from the Chiliokomon plain to Sinope, the Khurranıite Persians could have
taken refuge there when the political and military situation further deteriorated. As
we slıall see below in section 12.2, tlıey coulcl even have been made responsible
for the defeat at Anzes.
Therefore it does not fit at ali with this picture that, in a second version oftlıe
events, the Continuator connects the rebellion ofthe Persians not with Anzes, but
with the expeclition against Sozopetra conducted by Theophilos in 837.8 It seems
that the Continuator, who already had access to several versions of the battle of
Anzes, tried to make some sense of the parallel accounts he had at hand, and
combined them into a single chronological narrative. We have insisted more than
once on the unreliability ofthis chronological atTangement, which appears to have
been a simple collation of very heterogeneous sources made by the Continuator.
The best proof ofthis in the present case is provided by Genesios himself, whose
parallel account ofthe expedition against Sozopetra, based on the same source as
that used by the Continuator, is detached from the account ofTheophobos' revolt. 9
We can safely conclude that the rebellion ofthe Khurramites took place after the
summer of838, certainly after the invading Abbasid aımy left Anatolia. Treadgold
conjectured that the uprising ofthe Persians actually happened in or lasted until
839, ıo and this is by no means impossible, for the events that led to the rebellion

6
Mich. Syr. 535-6, trans. Chabot (1889-1905) vol. 3, 95.
7
Th. Cont. III.32 (128.21-129.7) ancl Gen. III.14 (48.60-49.66). See also Chapter 18.2.
8
Th. Cont. III.29 (124.6-125.15).
9
Gen. III.I 1 (44.42-45.51). A seconcl mention ofthe campaign of Sozopetra in Gen.
III.13 ( 46.1-47.5) has no con-esponclence in the Continuator.
ıu Treaclgolcl (1988) note 434, basecl on the fact that the Log. (A) Tlıeoplıilos [130]
29-30 (225.194-204) ınentions the birth of Michael HI (bom in 840) after the rebellion of
the Persians in Sinope. However, tlıis provicles only a termimıs cmte qııem, as ııo otlıer clatecl
event is recorcled tlıat can be locatecl between the canıpaign of838 aııcl the birth ofMichael.
176 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeuplıi/os emel ılıe Ecısı. 819-8./2

were connected with a conspiracy against the emperor that had previously been
suppressecl by Theoplıilos, as we shall now see. However, the sources do not allow
any firın conclusion on this point.

12.2 Whose Usurpation Came First?

Although scholars have noted that after Anzes the emperor hurriecl to tlıe capital
to suppress an attempted usurpation, they have not connected it witlı the Persians'
revolt after Anzes and have treated both events as independent consequences of
the deteat of the emperor. 11 However, we have already suggested in Chapter 8.2
that the name of Alexios Mousele could have been advanced by traditionalists
in the capital as a convenient substitute for Theophilos when news of the defeat
at Anzes (and of the emperor's death) reached Constantinople in tlıe summer of
838. But whether or not Alexios Mousele was involved in this conspiracy, the
possibility that the events taking place at Constantinople determined the Persians'
revolt at Sinope is worth considering.
We have alreacly seen in Chapter 5.6 that Theophobos took no active role as
a rnilitary leader in the battle of Anzes. We know now (see Chapter 10.7) that
this role belongecl rather to his father Naşr, toun11arches of the phoicleratoi and
commander of the Persian troops. Accordingly, if the Persians, being suıTOunded
by the Muslims at Anzes, were effectively inclined to betray the emperor and
come back to the caliph, as is stated in one version ofthe events referred to by the
Continuator and Genesios,12 the blame for conspiracy should have fallen on Naşr
rather than on Theophobos. But if the latter was indeed his son, this distinction
is irrelevant. There are in any case reasons for suspecting the authenticity of this
report, for Mas'üdı presents Naşr as the rescuer of Theophilos at Anzes.13 The
hagiographer who wanted to present Manuel in a favourable light against his
detractors (see Chapter 8.2) found it advisable to accuse the Persians oftreachery,
an option highly palatable to the ears ofthe "Roman" traditionalists. It is significant
that in the aforementioned version of our two Byzantine historians, Manuel, after
hearing during a watch that the Persians were secretly parleying in Arabic with the
Muslims surrounding them, "informed the emperor of this secretly, and thought
fit that he should save himself with the elite officers (µcı:u ıı.oya.owv) and not wait
till moming". 14 Manuel effectively crosses the enemy lines with Theophilos and

Moreover, the caınpaign of Amorion is recorded ibid. 32-3 (226.225-227.248) after the
birth of Michael along with a mımber of anecdotes whose dating was surely unknown
to the Logothete, despite the attempt of Treadgold (1988) 305-12 to fit them ali into a
chronological sequence.
11 See for example Treadgold (1988) 300-301 .
11 Th. Cont. Ill.32 (128.14-16) and Gen. lll.14 (48.50-54).
ı.1 Mas'üdT, The Meadows of Gole/ 136, trans. Vasiliev (1935) 332.
1• Th. Cont. 111.32 (1 28.16-1 8).
 A Penian Bcısi/eııs? 177

some officers and saves tlıenı ali. Manuel appears thus to be taking sides with the
Romans ancl leaving the "treacherous" Persians behincl, a very convenient version
for the Constantinopolitan monastery where he was buriecl.
But if the Persians were left alone in front of tlıe Arabs aııd they were in fact
inclined to change sides, why did Lhey then nıove to Sinope after ali? it is quite
doubtful that the Persians conceived any hopes ofnıaking an arrangement with the
Arabs, wlıo had captured Babak the year before and had put him to a gruesome
deatli in Samarra. Naşr, leader of the Klıurramites at Anzes and Babak's lieutenant,
could not have expected better treatnıent fronı the Muslims, especially if we
consider that he is presented as a Christiaıı coııvert by Mas'üdT.
it coulcl therefore be that the Persians renıained ııear the Clıiliokomon plain
after Aıızes and tlıat they only revolted when news about an usurpation came
from Constantinople. We can only speculate about tlıe reasons that moved them
to revolt. They might have felt insecure about their own privileged position
uııder Theophilos. The emperor could perhaps have been obliged to sacrifice tlıe
Persiaıı contingents in order to assuage the "Roman" traclitionalists, who surely
made them responsible for the defeat, as we lıave seen in some of the versions of
tlıe battle of A'nzes. The dismantling of the Persian tourma and the distribution
of its contingents among the clifferent themata, put in practice after Anzes, were
perhaps the cause of the Persian revolt and not the consequence of it. Facing a
dangerous conspiracy in the capital, details of which we are not informed about,
the emperor could lıave tried to assuage opposition aııd gain allies by suppressing
the "barbariaıı" contiııgent of the Khuırnmites. Iııevitably, this decision led the
Persians to open revol t against the emperor.
in the version of events preserved by the Logothete it is only after the Persians
rebel against the emperor that Theophilos expresses his fears that they might
eventually join the Arabs. 15 Again this possibility appears unlikely considering
the long confrontation of the KhuıTamites with the Abbasids. That Naşr continued
fighting the Arabs after the rebellion was suppressed is the best proof that the
Persians never intended to defect to the Abbasids.
The role played by Theophobos in this revolt of the Persians may shed some
light on events. Again, our historians have presented two different versions. In
the first one, if we follow Genesios, Theophilos came back to the capital after
Anzes, "entrusting Theophobos with putting the Persian contingents in order
with the authority of a general (ı:qı 8e 0eocp6pcp 1:a. 1:Gıv ITepcrGıv syıcexeıpuc6rnc;
8ıa0fo0aı cr-ı:panıyııc&c; ı:a. crı:paı:eı'.ıµaı:a) and ordering him to retum to the City
after that" (eha npoc; nıv pacrıAiöa ı;ouı;ov enavıtvaı ıceıı,eucravrnc;). 16 The wording
of the Continuator is very similar, although he makes Theophilos return to the
capital after the campaign of 837, as we saw above. In any case, according to
the Continuator, Theophilos retumed to the capital "urging Theophobos to put

IS Log. (A) Tlıeop/ıilos [ 130] 28 (225.198): efü,o[ın yap, µııırwç ırpocrpuii'ım TOlÇ
't\.paıııt.
"' Gen. 111.5 (40.20-29).
178 Tlıe Eıııpemr Tlıerıplıilos and ı!ıe Easr. 8]9-841

Persian affa irs in good order with the authority ofa general and to return to him
again in good time" (Tiµ 0wcp6�cp -ra -r&v TTapcr&v aı'i 8ıa0fo0aı Ka.i cr-rpa-rrıyıK&ç
rrpo-rpa�ıaw:vo.; Kai m'i0ıç 8ıa rnxewv Errava8pa�ıdv rrpo,; au-r6v).17
Scholars have usually understood that Theophilos left Theophobos behind in
Asia Minor while he returned to the capital, but this is not expressly stated by
either text.18 As both historians seem to follow the wording of their source closely,
this lack of concretion appears not to be casual but a result of their wish not to
suppose anytlıing beyond the claims of the original text. Accordingly, if we read
the passages literally, it is not to be excluded that Theophilos charged Theophobos
with his mission after both had arrived in the capital.
This supposition is apparently confinned by the second version of events
presented by mır two historians. According to Genesios, after the defeat at
Anzes, Theophobos was calumniated for pretencling to the throne. The Persian
became worried and "taking with him a select group of his followers he fled
(a.rro8ı8pacrıctL) to the city of Arnastris".19 From where he took flight is not stated
in the text, altlıouglı it could appear that Theophobos was by tlıe emperor's side at
Constantinople when his position weakenecl as a result ofcontinuous accusations
launclıed against hiın before the emperor. lf Tlıeoplıobos had rernained with the
Persian troops in Asia Minor, he would not have taken fliglıt at ali, as is stated in
tlıe passage, but just moved to Amastris.
The Continuator also mentions tlıat the continuous calumnies against
Tlıeoplıobos made people approach him with fear and hate üumı-rov EipyaÇov-ro
-rov iiv8pa ıcai cpopı:;p6v). As he was not able to oppose his critics, he then took
flight to Amastris "with clıildren, women and some chosen men" üıe-rô. -reıcvrov
6�wü ... ,E ıcai ywmıc&v ıcai nvrov aıcıcphrov a.v8p&v). Again, it appears that he
fled from Constantinople, where we suppose that his family used to !ive, and not
from somewhere in Asia Minor.20
If we consider then that, after Anzes, Theoplıobos accompanied tlıe emperor
back to Constantinople and was then sent baclc to Asia Minor to the Persian
contingent, tlıings begin to make better sense. It appears likely that although
Theophilos suppressed the conspiracy in tlıe capital, he considered it convenient to
send Theophobos away bade to Asia Minor. Perhaps Theophobos was unwelcome

17
Th. Cont. III.29 (124.14-16).
18
The aorist participles ayıcexEtpııc6ı:oç; and ıceı..eı'.ıcravı:oç; in Genesios and
ıcpoı:peıııa�ıevoç; in the Continuator may indicate anteriority according to the uses of
Classical Greek grammar, but they are put after the main action expressed by the return of
Theophilos to Constantinople.
19
Gen. III.8 (43.87-89).
20 The account provided by the Log. (A) Tlıeoplıilos [130] 29 (225.194-203) is

closely related to this second version of Geııesios and the Continuator, but its wording is
less conclusive, as it is only said that "immediately" (eu0ı'.ıç;) after Anzes, when Theoplıobos
knew tlıat he was being accused of pretending to tlıe tlırone, "taking the Persians he
clescencled lo Sinope" (ı:ouç nspcraç c'ı.vaA.a�tİ)V Kü.T1ı),0ev ifoıç .'Eıvtimııç;).
 A Persiaıı Basileııs:' 17 9

in sonıe influential circles in the capital tlıat Tlıeoplıilos now triecl to assuage after
the failecl coııspiracy. But it is also possible that it was not he, but tlıe Persians, wlıo
becanıe increasingly unpalatable to "Roman" aristocrats. in any case, Theoplıilos
apparently gave Tlıeophobos some specific orclers about the Persians we are not
able to grasp from the ambiguous worcling of Genesios ancl tlıe Continuator. The
conıınon source saicl that Theophobos was chargecl "to put in orcler the Persian
affairs with the authority of a general", for tlıe worcls ,a ,G:ıv ITı,paG:ıv 8ıa0fo0cı.ı
mpanwucG:ıç appear in our two historians' accounts. 21 it is not implausible to
suppose tlıat Theoplıobos was appointecl general with the orcler of putting an enci
to the Persian tourma, because Naşr, as tourmarches of tlıe plıoicleratoi, was not
expectecl to do so. Theophobos, who noticecl the new balance of power, retirecl
with his relatives to Amastris, where the Persians rebellecl as soon as they were
informecl by him of the new plans conceming their future.
In the first version of the rebellion of Theophobos given by Genesios and tlıe
Continuator, it is saicl that the Persians proclairnecl lıirn emperor.22 The Logothete
only says tlıat he hele! Sinope tyrannically (rnpr1wucG:ıç) uncler his sway. Being
alreacly kaisar ancl exousiastes of the Persiaııs, haviııg been raisecl in the irnpeı:ial
palace and married into the imperial family, Theophobos was certaiııly not unfit
for the iınperial throne. But it is cloubtful that the Persians actually proclaimed lıim
enıperor, for he coulcl not rely on any significant support. Again, we suspect that
tlıe Byzantine sources wantecl to accuse the Persiaııs of conspiracy, thus cliverting
attention from the responsibility of the previous usurpation against Theoplıilos in
Constantinople. In fact, the seconcl version of the rebellion cloes not mention any
proclamation of Theophobos as emperor. Therefore Theophobos could have only
been proclaimed king (not emperor) by the Persians, a title that enhancecl the value
of his nıle over them as exoıısiastes.
Be that.as it may, according to this second version, Theophilos dispatched the
droungarios of the watch Ooryphas with the fleet and easily captured Theophobos,
who was carried back to Constantinople and put in jail.23 This could have happened
later in 838 or earlier in 839. The first version, where it is said that Theophobos
remained in favour with the emperor even after the Persians' revolt, provides us
instead with the details of the dismantling of the Persian contingent, numbering
30,000 men, among the tounnarchai of the themata.24 I think this version of the
events, where Theophobos continued to enjoy the support of the emperor after
838, is more likely, for otherwise we would not tinci Theophobos' father fighting
the Arabs on behalf of the Byzantines at the Cilician frontier in 839 (see Chapters

21
It appears that Genesios understood that ra rôiv TTı:pcrôiv refeıı-ed to rayµu.ra. But
the meaning does not chaııge very much eveıı ifwe accept tlıat ranmm was in the commoıı
source.
22 Th. Coııt. Tll.29 ( 124. 17-18) aııd Gen. III. 5 (40.28-29).

,J Tlı. Cont. 111.38 (136.3-12). Geııesios does not meııtioıı the inıprisöıımeııt of
Tlıeoplıobos.
24
Tlı. Coııt. 111.29 (125.5-15) aııd Gen. 111.6 (41.5 1-58).
180 T/ıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 829-842

10.2 and 19.3). Perhaps his incarceration reflects only the diminishing influence
the former kaisar ancl ı:çoucrıac;r�ç had at court. Theophilos could have retained
Theophobos hidden in the palace, avoiding any further contact with him and the
Persians, but contimıing to use him as a symbol in front of his people. It was only
when the emperor was approaching death that he took the decision to execute
Theophobos, as we are expressly told by the Continuator and Genesios in their
second version oftlıe events. 25
On balance, we may conclude that the influence of the Persian tagma had
probably already encled in 839. With Theophobos disgraced and Naşr killed at the
Cilician frontier, the Persians ceased to play aııy further role in the eastern policy
ofByzantiunı. The complete reorganization ofthe tlıemata that Treadgold dates to
the year 839 and connects with the end ofthe Persian contingent is, unfortunately,
to a great extent conjectural. 26 Nevertheless it appears likely that the emperor
took advantage of the disappearance of the Persian unit to introdllce changes and
create new themata. He could have been obliged to do so by tlıe saıne sectors that
opposed his "philobarbarian" policy.

15 Th. Cont. 111.38 (136.12-23) and Gen. 111.8 (43.94-3).

,,. Treadgold(l988)312- 19.
 SECTION IV
Warfare Against the Arabs

During most of his reign Theophilos facecl successive Arab invasions into
Byzantine tetTitory and this with a frequency unprecedentecl since the campaigns
of caliph Harün al-Rashid. in fact, after the death of RashTcl in 809, tlıe caliphate
had plunged into an internal crisis, first as a result of the internecine war between
RashTd's soııs AmTn and Ma'mün (809-813), ancl then because of the period of
instability that followecl, marked by the abseııce of the victorious Ma'müıı from
Baghclad. The crisis enclecl only in 819 wlıen Ma'mün eııtered as caliph iııto his
capital ancl put an enci to tlıe usurpatioıı of lbrahTnı ibn al-MahclT. Ten more years
passecl before Ma'müıı iııvaclecl Byzantine territoıy ·for the first time (Chapter
14.1). it was 830 ancl Theophilos had come to power only montlıs earlier. in the
next tlıree years, Byzantine ancl Muslim forces regularly confrontecl each other
in Anatolia (Chapter 14.2-7). After the sudclen death of Ma'mün in 833, internal
problems initially preventecl Ma'mün's brother aııd successor Mu'taşim from
taking tlıe field again ancl marching against Byzantium, so tlıat between 834 and
837 it was Theophilos who leci victorious campaigns on the eastern frontier of
the empire (Clıapters 15-17). A massive expedition agaiııst Ankyra ancl Amorion
leci by Mu'taşim in 838 put a provisory enci to Byzantine victories and dealt a
severe blow to the empire (Chapter 17), wlıich lıowever dicl not remain inactive
cluring the ]ast years of Theophilos' reign, even taking the initiative by sending
embassies to western powers or undertaking some minor actions on the eastern
froııtier (Chapter 18).
Tlıis section will deal extensively with all these ınilitary campaigns, focusing
especially on aspects that have not been adequately considered until now. The
assessınent, despite the capture ofAınorion in 838, is not so negative for Theophilos
as is usually assuıned. But before considering the wars wagecl by Byzantines and
Musliıns in eastern Anatolia during Theophilos' reign, it may be convenient to
trace the precedents for theın and consider the involvement ofthe caliph Ma'ınün
in the so-called Byzantine civil war as well as the period iınmediately following
it (Chapter 13). This is necessary because, as we shall try to prove, the Arabs
took part in this conflict to a greater extent than hitherto presumed. It is not a
coincidence that Ma'mün's arrival in Baghdad in 819 occımed simultaneously
with the outbreak of civil war. And it is perhaps no coinciclence either that the
failure ofthe usurpation ofThomas the Slav, backed by Arab forces in 824, put a
provisory enci to military actions oftlıe Muslims against Byzantiuın.
 Chapter 13
Invasion or Civil War? Thoınas the Slav
and the Arabs

13.l Thomas' Stay in the Caliplıate and the Two Tlıomases

We have seen in Chapter 2.2 that the rebellion ofThonıas the Slav lıad already
started in the reign ofLeo V, c. 819-820, as stated in the Latin version ofthe letter
Michael II of Aınorion wrote to the western enıperor Louis after the end of the
war. Contrary to fornıer studies, we concluded tlıat in this respect the infornıation
provided by the letter is to be trusted as it is corroborated by other contenıporary
sources. Now, there is another controversial point in the Letter ta Lozıis that needs
to be considered here as it is of crucial inıportance in understanding the outbreak
oftlıe war: the statement tlıat Thonıas was a Christian renegade who lived aınong
the Arabs after he fled froın Byzantium during the reign of tlıe enıpress Eirene
(797-802) until the very beginning ofhis usurpation.
The Letter ta Lozıis says that Thomas was the servant of a high patrician
("cuidam ex maximis patriciis subiectus") under Eirene's reign ("tenıpore
quo Herena imperium tenuit"). When his adultery with his master's wife was
discovered, he was forced to flee to the Persians in order to avoid punishınent
("profugit in Persas, timens legaleın subire sententiam"). He stayed among them
from Eirene's time until the reign ofLeo the Armenian ("cum illic moras fecisset
a diebus praefatae Herenae usque ad dictum Leone"), apostatizing from the
Christian faith ("fidem Christi abnegans"). He could then convince the Saracens
and other peoples that he was indeed the emperor Constantine himself, the son of
Eirene ("quod ipse esset Constantinus, filius saepe dictae Herenae imperatricis"),
and that another had been blinded at his post, so that he had been able to escape
unharmed, his eyes being unhurt ("quod alter pro eo esset oculis privatus et ipse
inlesis oculis sanus evasisset"). 1
The same version ofevents appears in what we in Chapter 2.2 called Version
A ofthe Continuator and Genesios on the origins ofThomas, the version to which
both authors gave more credence. The report ofthe Continuator says the following:

According to the first and only report, which I trust, in as much as we have
assurance froın certain written sources, this Thomas (ı:ouı:ov ... ı:ov Elwµüv) was
bom ofhumble and poor parentıı who, moreover, were descended from the Slavs
who are often intenningled in the East. Faced, then, with a life of poverty, he

1
leııertolouis476.9-17.
18..J. Tlıı.: Emperor T/ıeop/ıilos and ılıe Ecısı. 819-84]

veııturcd his luck aııd. ruııııiııg off from his country. introduced hiıııself into this
great city. Aııd altachiııg hiııısdf as servant and assistaııt to a certain pcrsoıı of
consular raıık. he hastened through his inteıııperance to dishoııour aııd insult his
ınastcr's bcd aııd marriage. Being caught in the act and unable to bear the great
shamc aııd scourging on this account, he fled to the descendants of Hagar and,
giving them sutlicient assurance though his successive deeds over many years -
lor it was about the twenty-fifth year he passed - and the fact that he renounced
Christ our God, he bccame leader ofa certain military division and took up arıııs
against tlıc Christians, promisiııg with the greatest force to bring the eınpire of
the Romans uııder their coııtrol. Aııcl lest anyone should staııd in his way wheıı
he caınc to thc laııd of the Romans, but ınight all join and bear the brunt of battle
for him, he claiıııed and declarcd himself to be Constantine, the son of eirene,
whoın ınadness aııd cmelty of custonı had earlier deprived of his eyes as well as
the iınperial power, wlıereafter he also departed from this life."

Genesios' account is very similar. I follow Kaldellis' translation:

Tlıe lbllowing accounl ofTlıonıas' career is saicl to be more correct.This rebel

came fronı a huıııble country aııd a lowly station, and travelled to the lınperial
City of Constantiııe for the sake of securiııg the necessities of life. There he
attachecl himself to oııe of the patriciaııs (this was the Bardaııes we mentioned
earlier). He was seized by this man for the erime of adultery, which Nikephoros,
the eıııperor reigning at the time, had enjoined him to comıııit, as he was envious
of Bardanes's nobility and soul. Fleeing his trial for adultery, which he had not
actual\y coınmitted but only attempted, he escaped to Syria. The first thing that
he did was to renounce his Christian faith, and then he dwelt there for a long
time. After twenty-five years had passed, he spread a false rumour about himself.
He claimed to be Constantine, the son of Leo and Eirene. This Constantine, on
account of his malicious character, lost his throne as well as his sight, and died
shortly afteıwards. His body was placed in a tomb on some consecrated ground
in the Imperial City. But this murderous man, who lived among the Saracens,
persuaded them with brilliant promises that he would subject the Empire of
the Romans to them, if they gave him eno.ugh money and a good army for this
purpose.3

As we see, both the Continuator and Genesios record a version of events very
close to that of the Letter to Loııis, although they provide additional details, as
for example the Slav origins ofThomas (the Continuator), the twenty-five years
ofThomas' stay among the Arabs (the Continuator and Genesios) or the fact that
Thomas served a Constantinopo\itan patrician (Genesios). Since these details are

Tlı. Cont. 11.10 (50.18-51.12).

Gen. 11.4 (25.50-26.69).
 !11vasio11 ar Cil'il War: Tlıomas ılıe Sim• emel ılıe Arah.ı· 185

not given in the Letter to Loııis, it nıust be concluded that both historians followecl
a version close to tlıe official one, but not the text of the Letter itself.
Genesios gives a further important detail not mentioned by the Continuator,
that the patrician was in fact Barclanes tlıe Turk. The iclentification ofthe patrician
as Bardanes, wlıo revoltecl against tlıe enıperor Nikephoros in 803, probably forced
Genesios to clate the exile ofThomas to Nikephoros' reign, insteacl ofto Eirene's,
as stated by the Continuator. This identification was possible because both authors'
sources omitted the reign of Eirene, unlike the Letter to Loııis, which referred to
her reign tlıree times. But dating the exile to the reign ofNikephoros goes against
tlıe clıronology, for if the revolt started in 819 and Nikephoros began his reign
in 802, Thomas coulcl have passed no more than 17 years among the Arabs, and
ceıiainly not 25. it may simply be that 25 is a round figure, but this number fits
more with the sole reign of Eirene, which had begun in 797, althouglı she had
been regent and co-emperor since 780. Therefore, as the reference to Bardanes is
lacking in the version of the Continuator (and in the Letter ta Loııis), 1 consider
that this was a personal inference by Genesios.
in fact, Genesios probably triecl to reconcile this version of events with the
service ofThonıas the Armenian under Bardanes tlıe Turk. in the book devoted to
Leo the Armenian Genesios mentioned tlıat a ınonk living in Philonıelion predictecl
to Barclanes the Turk tlıat ofthe three men under his service, two ofthenı, Leo ancl
Michael, woulcl be emperors, whereas the thircl, Thomas, would be proclaimed
as such but fail at the enci to gain effective power.4 Genesios reasoned that if the
Thoınas serving Bardanes was Thomas the Slav, the patrician served by Thomas
the Slav must have been Bardanes. These inferences do not take into account
the fact that Bardanes was a strategos in Anatolia and not a siınple patrician in
Constantinople. The Continuator for his part did not coıne to this conclusion and
avoided identifying Bardanes as the anonyınous patrician naıned in his source.5
For the Continuator the Thomas serving Bardanes was rather the other Thomas
whose origins he recorded in what we called Version B. This is his account:

According to the other report, which differs in no wise concerning his name,
this was the Thomas ('rou-cov civaı ı:ov 0ro�ıav) who had been formerly with
Bardanios and was awarded a dignity by Leo when he became ruler. Thomas was
then holding office as leader of the foederatoi, residing in the Anatolic theına;
and no sooner had the news reached his ears that Michael had slain Leo, than
he set about avenging him and satisfying his own anger - for he had long, since
youth, been somehow at variance with Michael - and also fearing the prophecies

4
Gen. I.6 (6.2-7.36).
5
See also Signes Codofier ( 1995) 230-33 for a discussioıı of tlıe problem, altlıouglı
1 caıııe tlıere to tlıe coııclusioıı tlıat it ıvas tlıe Coııtiııuator wlıo suppressed tlıe reference to
Bardaııes froııı tlıis versioıı of Llıe eveııts.
 186 Tlıe Eıııpemr Tlıeuplıilos and tlıe East, 819-842

conceming him," he set up an opposiııg force, and this no small or weak force,
but a mighty and nıanly and valiaııt one, haviııg with hiın men of all ages who
could wield the spear. For it happened that Michael was hated by ali in aııy case
because he parlicipated, as has been said, in the evi! heresy of the Athinganoi
aııd because, with his defectivc speech, he was renowned for cowardice and
weakness; moreover, because his soul was no less defective than his speech, he
was detested and considered a burden by many. But Thoınas, though lame of
leg and barbarian of race, was nevertheless venerable with his white hair and
ali the ınore beloved for the affability aııd wit, esteemed aınoııgst the military,
which was somehow innate in him froın childhood, and he seeıned second to
none ofthose ofnoble body. He won over to his side those who collected public
tııxes and, slriving to subject the ınııny to his will through generous gifts, from
a person of little iınportance he became renowned, and from one with the least
means, one great. He prevailed with persuasion and a certain amiability upon
tl10se who had desire for a new state of affairs and their own enriclıment, but
with force and against the will ofthose who had already had bad experience of
civil revolts. 7

The parallel report by Genesios, ınore succinct, avoids ınentioning Bardanes.

in Kaldellis' translation:

it is said that when Thoınas (ô Elw�ıflç) heard of Michael's elevation to the throne
he quickly contrived to revolt against him with a large arıny. For the two men
had always been opposed to each other, and Michael was lıated by the entire
army of the Anatolians, and was equally unpopular on account of his native
town, in which as it seems, a great number of Athinganoi dwelt, because of the
defect of his speech, and because he was not considered by some to be a brave
enough man. Thoınas, on the other hand, was loved by ali for his courage, and
no less for his cheerful disposition and affability. He rivalled Leo in ali noble
qualities, even though he had Scythian ancestry, and was in addition an old ınan,
and had a lame leg. He now seized ali the tax-collectors, laid claim in writing
to the regular exactions, and by distributing them to the people he assembled a
large force to use against Miclıael.8

In this Version B Genesios does not expressly identify Thomas with the Thomas
serving under Bardanes' command, as the Continuator does. Significantly, he
refers to the "Scythian ancestry" ofThomas, which undoubtedly recalls the Slav

6 The text of the Continuator says only "the predictions conceming him" (ı:a.ç recpi
auı:oi:i ırpoppiJcreıç), but the editors (Combefis and Bekker) changed the text into ı:ı'jv m:pi
auı:oi:i ı:oi:i ev ı:0 <Mı.o�ırıı..iqı �wvax,ou ırp6pprıcrıv following Slcyltizes, Michael /ıo Traıılos
5 (80.59-60).
7
Tlı. Cont. 11.1 1 (52.8-53.13).
" Gen. 11.2 (23.80-93 ), trans. Kalclellis ( 1998) 28.
 /ııı,asioıı or Ciı,i/ H'ı:ır: T!ıoıııas ıhe Slav and ı!ıe ılrabs 187

origins mentionecl by the Continuator in Version A9 ancl is not compatible witlı tlıe
Amıenian origins Genesios attributecl to the Thomas serving uncler Bardanes. 10
However, Genesios introduced his first account aboutThonıas in the book devoted
to Michael il without any special presentation of the nıan, as if he were already
known to the reader, although the only previous nıentions of hinı, as follower
of Bardanes and later tournıarches of tlıe phoideratoi under Leo, appear in the
previous book devoted to Leo tlıe Arnıenian.
The Continuator, who did not mentioıı tlıe Arnıenian origiııs of the Thomas
serving under Bardanes, had no problem İn ideııtifying hinı with theThonıas of his
Version B, just callingThonıas "barbarian of race" (rq:ı yevı::t �ap�apoç). lııstead,
he meııtioned the Slav origins ofTlıonıas in his Version A, as we have seen. Bul
for Version B, the Continuator expressly recapitulated ali the informatioıı he had
previously provided aboutThomas in orcler to infoıın his readers about who this
Thomas really was: the comnıander uııder Bardanes 11 and later tourmarches of
tlıe phoicleratoi under Leo, 12 a man fearful of tlıe prophecies about him, meaning
undoubteclly those of the ıııonk of Philomelion who preclictecl his usurpation when
he was stili serving under BardanesY
it appears thus that our two historians had at tlıeir clisposal two coıııpletely
clifferent versions of tlıe person of Thonıas. They cloubtecl whether the two
versions referrecl to the same person ancl were not even sure about which of the
two accounts of the rebelThomas was to be reconciled with theThomas serving
under Barclanes and Iater appointed tournıarches of the phoideratoi.This explains
why the Continuator and Genesios ıııacle different additions to the two alternative
versions." Doubts about the identity of the person are more clearly expressed by
the Continuator at the beginning of Version B, where he states that "according
to the other report, wlıich cliffers in no wise concerning his name, this was the
Thomas (roihov eivm rov 0ro�uxv) who had been formerly with Bardanes and was
awarded a dignity by Leo when he became ruler".This statement presupposes that
theThomas of the previous Version A reported by the Continuator was, according
to lıim, not the sameThonıas who served under Bardanes.This Version A was the
one the Continuator preferred. His choice was a nıeditated one, for he even wrote
some lines introducing the two contradictory reports about Thomas. These are
worth quoting here:

At tlıis time a civil war broke out in tlıe East and filled tlıe world witlı ali manner
of evils, reducing from many to few the mımber of men: fatlıers took up arıns
against tlıeir sons, brotlıers against tl10se born of the same womb, and finally

9
See Köpstein (1983) 65-6 for the usual meaning of "Scythe" at the time.
ıo
Gen. I.6 (7.14-15): ti; A.p�tı::vimv rô ytvoç ıcarayovm. See Chapter 2.1 for furtlıer
discussion on this point.
11
Tlı. Cont. 1.1 (7.2-5)
12
Th. Coııt. 1.12 (24.1-2).
'-' Tlı. Coııt. l.2 (7.19-8.12).
188 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos ı:ı11d tlıe East. 829-842

friends against those who loved them tlıe mosl. Their leader was Tlıomas, about
whom diverse reports circulated. Now. on account ofthe !apse of so muclı time,
we, beiııg men. have received tlıe details of this history through heariııg, not
seeing; and in order that we may in ali cases preserve the truth, it is necessary
tlıat we should record events lıanded down not only in one manner but in a
different oııe as well, in as muclı as our preseııtation is in 110 wise compromised
by such ambivaleııce aııcl variatioıı, but ratlıer, thus inspires more confidence in
tlıose who forever conteııd tlıat something is not so but otherwise. For it woulcl
be best ifTruth was naked aııd we men had kııowledge ofall things without any
curtain. But since tlıe long time tlıat has gone past renclers our knowledge more
feeble, as if coverecl by a veil, we must rely on common report aııd rumour in
orcler somehow to present the föcts, rather thaıı abancloniııg them altogether to
Letlıe 's stream. 14

When I studied the problem some time ago, I came to the conclusion that there
was no reason for accepting that two Thoınases ınight have been confounded in
the sources of mır authors. 15 Now, 1 think that this was exactly what happened.
in fact, the two \iersions about the origins ofThonıas the Slav are irreconcilable.
lf Thomas remained exiled aınong the Arabs for 25 years, he could not have
nıade any career under Leo and been pronıoted to the post of tourınarches of the
phoideratoi, as we saw in Chapter 2. I. Moreover, if Thomas the Slav, the rebel,
pretended to be Constantine VI, blinded by his mother Eirene in 802, he could
not have been the tourmarches ofthe phoideratoi or had any other official post in
the empire at the time of his rebellion, for in that case the fraud would have been
obvious �nd absurd. 16 To supplant Constantine VI, Thomas needed to have been
"out ofcirculation" for some time. Again, how could Thomas have convinced the
Arabs (not to speak of the Byzantines!) of his false identity if he had just come
from the empire as a rebel official?
Modern historians came to the conclusion that as both histories could not
be true at the same time, one of them should be discarded as false, and that
it should be Version A, which made Thomas an exile among the Arabs for 25
years. They considered that the concrete details in Version B about Bardanes
and the appointment of Thomas as commander of the phoideratoi spoke for its
authenticity and therefore they rejected altogether Version A as pure fantasy
or even as a product of Michael's propaganda. 17 However, we have already
established in Chapter 2.2 that the Letter to Loııis is actually right when it states

14 Tlı. Cont. I.9 (49.20-50.17).

15
Signes Codofier (1995) 241-3.
16
Lemerle (1965) 284 rejects as "legendaire" the supplantation of Constantine VI by
Thonıas. For her part, Köpsteiıı (1983) 73-4 and note 81 thinks that Tlıomas could have
adopted the name Coııstantine wheıı he was proclaimed emperor, althouglı she also rules
out the possibility that he supplanted Coııstantine VI.
17
Leınerle ( 1965) 258-9, 283-4 aııd l(öpsteiıı ( 1983) 69-72.
 !nııcısion ar Civi! Wcır'.J Tlıomas ılıe S!cıF and tlıe Arahs 189

that Thomas rebelled against Leo and not against Miclıael. Wlıy should we
discard other details provided by tlıis text, however close it was to the official
version? We argued tlıat Michael could not lıave altered facts so blatantly in
front of Louis the Pious. In fact, Thomas controlled the Balkans for alınost a
year and could have sent emissaries to ltaly while Michael remained besieged
in Constantinople. The detailed account of Thomas' revolt preserved in the
Letter to Loııis is rather exceptional and was perhaps intended to counterbalance
previous reports of the war coming to Louis. Moreover, there is nothing in tlıe
events the Letter refers to that cannot be historically true.
There are, for example, many precedents for tlıe supplanting of a dead
emperor's personality. Turning our eyes to Roıne, we know tlıat tlıere were at least
tlıree persons who supplanted Nero after his suicide in 68. Tacitus informs us of
the first, who appeared in 69, during the reign ofVitellius. This is the beginning
ofTacitus' account:

About this time Achaia and Asia Minor were tetTified by a fa ise report tlıat Nero
was at lıand. Various nımours were curreııt about his cleatlı; and so tlıere were
ıııany wlıo pretended and believed tlıat he was stil! alive. Tlıe adventures and
enterprises ofthe otlıer pretenders I slıall relate in the regular cotırse ofıııy work.
The pretender in this case was a slave f roın Pontus, or, according to some accounts,
a freedman from Italy, a skilful harp-player and singer, accomplishments, which,
added to a reseınblance in the face, gave a veıy deceptive plausibility to his
pretensions. After attaclıing to hiınselfsome deseıiers, needy vagrants whom he
bri bed with great offers, he put to sea.

He then arrived at the island ofKythnos, close to tlıe Attica and arrned a body
ofslaves but .his adventure ended in accidental death. 18
Some time later, during the reign ofTitus (79-81), another impostor made his
appearance. According to Cassius Dio:

In his reign also the False Nero appeared, who was an Asiatic named Terentius
Maxiınus. He reseınbled Nero both in appearance and in voice (for he too sang
to the accoınpaniment ofthe lyre). He gained a few followers in Asia, and in his
advance to the Euphrates attached a far greater number, and finally sought refuge
with Artabanos, the Parthian leader, who, because ofhis anger against Titus, both
received him and set about making preparations to restore him to Rome.19

Twenty years after Nero's death, under Domitian (81-96), according to the
testimony of Suetonius, who declared himself witness of the events, a tlıird
pretender appeared who became popular among the Parthians and received their

ıs Tacitus, Hislories 11.8.

1" Cassius Dio, Ronıcııı Hi.ı·ıoıJ' LXVI.19.
190 Tlıe Eıııpernr Tlıenp/ıi/os emel ıhe Eası, 819-842

support. so that only with difficulty could they be persuaded to give hinı up.20
Tacitus confirms this account and adds that the supplanting ofNero almost tumed
into a war between the two major powers: "the armies of Parthia were ali but set
in ınotion by the cheat of a counterfeit Nero" ('"mota prope etiam Parthorum amrn
falsi Neronis ludibrio'V'
Such was apparently tlıe Jonging for tlıe dead Nero tlıat a veritable "Nero
redivivus legend" developed, whose earliest written version is found in the
Sih_ı·lline Oracles, where it is claiıııed that Nero did not actually die, but found
refı.ıge in Partlıia, from where he would return to Rome leading a large army
to clestroy it.22 Augustine of Hippo said that the Jegend was stili popular at the
beginning of the fıftlı centuıy.23
There are further interesting parallels of tlıe supplanting of dead emperors
ımıch closer in time to Thomas' uprising. For instance, during t!ıe reign of Phokas
the Sassanicl king Chosroes alleged that he had with him a deceasecl son of tlıe
eınperor Maurice, called Tlıeodosios, and even made "provision that he should take
possession of the empire of the Romans".24 The practice continued well into the
eighth century: Michael the Syrian and the C!ıronic!e of 1234 refer that a Christian
renegacle, called Beslıer, pretended to be Tiberios, the deceased son ofthe emperor
Constantine (nıeaning Constantine iV Pogonatos) or altematively .lustinian (meaning
.lustinian il, who had in fact a son named Tiberios). He apparently convinced the
caliph of his false identity and got his support. Dressed as an emperor and backed
by the caliph, he visited some parts of Mesopotamia and Syıia (Edessa) and even
sent embassies to tlıe Romans.25 Although Michael does not teli us the enci of the
story, the C!ıronic/e of 1234 adds that when his imposture was detected, Besher
was impaled by the Muslims in Edessa. Were it not for this enci, the protagonist
could be identifıed with the Byzantine renegade BashTr/Beser who later crossed the
frontier baclc to Byzantiunı and is given a prominent role in iconophile sources in
convincing Leo III to adopt iconoclasm.26 In any case, the figure of the supplanter
is one ofan adventurer and not very dissimilar from the renegade BashTr/Beser who
had a sort ofmercenary living on each side ofthe culhıral border and reminds us of
the "akrites" Manuel (see Chapter 5.4).
As we see, there are common patterns in ali these events: slaves and ordinary
men supplant dead emperors or their sons, they find support in the eastern
provinces, and either Paıthian and Sassanid kings or the caliph grant ınilitary aid
to pretenders, if not invade Roman territoıy themselves. Obviously, legends and

20 Suetonius, Life ofNero 57.

21 Tacitus, Histories I.2.
" Sybilliııe Oracles, ed. Geffcken (1902), IY. 119-24, V.137--41, 361-96.
23 Augustine, City of God XX.19.3.
24 Theoph. 291 and 294.
2; Mich. Syr. 462, trans. Chabot ( 1889-1905) vol. 2, 503--4, and Clıroııicle of 1234,
vol. 1, 311-12, trans. Clıabot ( 1937) 242-3.
21•
See Gri lfüh ( 1990).
 lıımsioıı or Cil'il lfor:' Tlıoııws ılıe Slav aııd ı/ıe Arahs 191

ruınours distort the tnıth, for these are the conditio sine qua non for the supplanting
ofa dead emperor, as the pretender always takes advantage of the sinıplicity and
superstitions of his contemporaries. But we need not question tlıe autlıenticity of
the historical events (no modern lıistorian has done so for the tlıree - if not more
- false Neros), nor doubt that supplanting a dead emperor, wlıen the occasion
arose, could lıave been an expedient way for eastern rulers to meddle in the affairs
of the Roman Enıpire. Certainly, ali these parallels do not mean that we ımıst
imınediately trust Version A about Thonıas, but it lends it nıore credibility. It also
nıakes it more Iikely that such a supplanting ofthe person ofa dead emperor nıight
have taken place, especially ifhe was as popular as Constantine VI apparently was
for tlıe Byzantines.27 However, and before some classicist argues that Michael was
inspired by tlıe legend of Nero redivivus when he wrote his Leıter to Louis, the
testinıony of two further sources must be adduced here, for they support the long
stay ofthe rebel Thomas among the Arabs.
The first source is the chronicle of George the Monk, who wrote during the
reign ofMichael ili ofAmorion (842-867) and was a fervent defencler ofimages:

Under his reign (e<p· ou}, tlıe rebel Tlıonıas, wlıo had alreacly set off fronı tlıe
eastern regions (eıc rföv avaroıı.ııcföv pEpföv am'.ı.paç i1811) ancl gatlıerecl previously
(ıı:pocruUEl;uw:voç) a mixed arıny of vagabonds, lıastily proceeclecl against
Constantinople, lıaving wickeclly seizecl tlıe inıperial dignity ancl without lıonour
(ıı:ap' ul;iav), far parting fronı the Roman land as a low-born man (8ucryEvı)ç)
of no merit (acpav�ç) he came to the Syrian lands, changing his name to
Constantine, the son of the empress Eirene. After having cluped rnost of the
barbarians and Christians, and assembling a lıuge arıny from clifferent nations,
he ınarched against Constantinople with a nıultitude of men and a great fleet."8

This version ofevents tallies exactly with the one given by the Letter to Loııis.
Here we have again the reference to the usurping of Constantine's VI person and
the duping of the Arabs. We also have the confirmation that Thomas coulcl not
have been a tounnarches of the phoideratoi when he departed for Syria, for he
was öucryevı']c; -ı:e ıca.i acpa.v�c;, in sum, a man of no special merit who made his
fortune among the Arabs. Moreover, he seems to have left Byzantium without
ımıch honour (nap · al;[av), an allusion that could be connected with the accusation
of adultery with his master's wife, although the reference is too vague to allow
any sure conclusion. Finally, contraıy to what Lemerle thought, it is not said that
the rebellion of Thomas began under Michael, but just that he marched against
Constantinople during his reign, after previously assembling an anny. Note also
that Thomas is said to "part from the eastern regions" in his attack against the
capital, meaning the eastern border of the empire but also simply the east. An

17
For Constantine VI see Speck ( 1978).
"N Georg. Mon 793.7-16. See Leınerle (1965) 259-61, wlıo macle a partial summary
of tlıe passage aııcl onıitted some important eleınents of it.
192 Tlıı.! Eıııperor Tlıeuplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 829-842

uprising of the Anatolian themata would probably not have been expressed in
such a way. This coincidence between the chronicler and the Letter ta louis is
highly significant, first because of Lhe early date of the work (the author could
have even witnessed the events), and second because he did not have any reason
to support the official version of an iconoclast emperor tike Michael II ifthis did
not correspond to the truth.
Even nıore significant is the evidence provided by Michael the Syrian about
Thomas. it consists of two passages, apparently taken from different sources. In
the first one, Michael says the following:

At tlıis time a problem arose among the Romans because ofa man called Thonıas,
who, since the reign of Hiirün [al-Rashid], had claimed that he was the son of
Constantine and had demanded froın Harün an army to take the Empire. Although
Hiirün had avoided doing tl1at, he treated him with honour as the son of the
emperor. When Harün died, Ma'mün called him and sent lıim with an anny, either
to seize the Ernpire oftlıe Romans and render it to him, or to cause them trouble by
making ıvaı: This Thoımıs was a ınagician and pretended to have visions.2'1

A brief account of some lines of the development of the civil war that ended
with the execution of Thonıas, who is the said to be the "son of Mösmar",
follows. Lemerle considered this account as a "caricature de l'histoire"30 and it
has since then scarcely been considered in any analysis of the revolt ofThoınas.
However, the account of Michael complements very well the version provided
by the Letter ofLoııis and what we ca\led Version A ofthe Byzantine historians.
This is remarkable, for Michael the Syrian could not have based his report on the
official version of events, not only because he relied upon loca! sources, but also
because he provides many details absent from Greek accounts. Moreover, Michael
is a reliable source, as will be seen again and again in the next chapters of this
section when considering his testimony about the wars Theophilos fought against
the Arabs. He certainly is a later author, but used very early sources, such as the
Jacobite patriarch Dionysios ofTell-Mahre (818-845), who was the main source
for this part ofthe work.31
Accordingly, it appears highly relevant that Michael presents the usurper
Thomas as being in the Abbasid court since the reign of Harün al-Rashtd, for
the reign of this caliph of 786-809 tallies perfectly with the reign of Eirene of
797-802, at which time the Letter ta Loııis said that Thomas fled to the Arabs.
Moreover, Thomas seems to have remained in Muslim lands since his arrival, for
it is there that Ma'mün finds him when he enters the capital in August 819, after
many years of intemal strife and conflict for control of the caliphate. That this

"9
Mich. Syr. 501, trans. Chabot (1889-1905) vol. 3, 37.
30
Lemerle ( 1965) 282-3 .
.ıı Weltecke(l997).
 lııvasioıı or Cil'i! War: Tlıoıııa.ı· ılıc Sim· aıu/ tlıe Arab.ı· 193

Thomas could have served the inıperial arnıy under Leo V in tlıe ıneantime is not
reconcilable witlı the version of events provided by Michael.
Also interesting is the reınark that it was really Ma'mün who "sent hinı with
an arıny" against the Byzantine Empire. This is a very important point, for it not
only confirıns, as we already saw in Chapter 2.2, that the civil war.began before
Leo V's death c. 819-820, but also tlıat it started not as a civil war, but as an
outright invasion ofthe empire backed by the Abbasid caliphate. We will consider
compleınentary evidence supporting this conclusion below in section 13.2. For
the moment, it suffices to say that the infomıation provided appears again to be
historically sound.
Furthernıore, Thonıas is also said to pretend to be "the son of Constantine".
This is slightly clifferent to previous accounts, for Thoınas cloes not iclentify
himself with emperor Constantine VI, but only with a supposed son of his.
However, whether we trust Michael the Syrian or the Byzantine sources, this
cloes not change much about the fraucl concocted by Thomas. On the contrary,
it confirnıs that he attemptecl to supplant some member of the Isaurian dynasty
to gaiıı the support of the caliphs. This cloes not fit well with an official career as
commaııcler of the armies, let alone as touııııarches of the phbicleratoi. it fits ımıch
better with the person of an "outsider", as we suggestecl above. That Michael the
Syrian clepicts him as a magician is in accordance with what was to be expected in
this case. it also explains what the Letter to Loııis intencled to say when it labelled
Thomas as "disciple of the ole! devi! ancl ready to accomplish his deeds" (antiqui
diaboli discipulus et eius operuın proınptus perpetrator): as a ınagician, Thomas
was expected to be a servant ofthe devil. The fact that Michael II, "performing first
the ceremony which seemed fitting to emperors of ole! and has become custom",
carried out a calcatio colli ("trampling the neci<") on the defeated Thomas the
Slav and immediately "mutilated him, lopping off his feet and hands"32 woulcl
have perhaps been inappropriate ifthe rebel had been a Roman and not considered
a "barbarian renegade". The calcatio colli applies in fact in De Cereınoniis to a
defeated Arab ruler,33 and was usually applied to barbarian captives in Roman
times.34 Had the rebel been the Armenian Thomas, serving for years in the imperial
army, he would probably have met a less harsh punishment, or even been confined
in a monastery like the deposed Michael I.
Unfortunately, the very valuable indication that Thomas was "son ofMösmar"
cannot be interpreted in the light offurther evidence.
The second passage in which Michael the Syrian refers to Thomas has already
been quoted in Chapter 1.3. There it is said that an anonymous Roman approached
the caliph pretending to be ofimperial stock. Ma'mün welcomed the impostor and

32 Th. Cont. II.19(69.12-14)

33 De ceı: 11.19(610.15-20)
ı.ı For the ca/calio colli as a sigıı of domiııatioıı over the eııemy aııd a tokeıı of
bnıtality, see Maloııe (2009).
194 Tlıe Empemr Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ıhe Eası, 819-,N2

ordered the patriarch Job to consecrate him as eınperor.35 Thomas is not named in
this second version that is evidently misplaced in the chronicle of Michael,36 for
it is told in coıınection with the first campaign of l\ıia"mün against Theophilos,
therefore in 830. Nonetheless, this inforınation is also iınportaııt, for it proves that
Michael the Syrian used two different sources for the rebellion of Thomas. And
in both of thenı the caliph appears as the actual mastermind behind the rebellion.
On balance. it appears that we have no reason to doubt what the different
sources tel1 us about the origins of Thomas the Slav: that he was a Byzantine
exile who fled fronı Byzantium during the reign of Eirene at the end of the eighth
century, probably escaping a punishment; that he was welcomed by the Abbasid
caliplıs because he pretended to be either the eınperor Constantine lıimself or his
son; that it was only upon the arrival of Ma'mün in Baghdad in August 819 that
he was finally given tlıe nıilitary aid he needed to invade Byzantine territory and
marclı against the capital. If the version of Michael in his Letter ta Louis is to be
mistrusted, it is just for his presentation of the man as a renegade, for he could not
have pretended to be an enıperor having apostatized from the Christian faith. This
was surely part of Michael's propaganda against the rebel, but on the whole, the
version of the Letter to Loııis appears to render a more or less accurate accouııt of
the events.
As a coıısequence, Thonıas the Slav appears as the Muslim equivalent of
the Christian Tlıeophobos: whereas the "renegade" Thomas was supported by
the Arabs as a usurper against Constantinople because of his supposed identity
with Constantine VI, in his easterıı campaigns the emperor Theophilos used
Theophobos as a pretender to the Persian "throne" because of his supposed
princely blood. Could it be that Thomas' usurpation provided a pattem for the
Byzantine promotion ofTheophobos as el;oucrtacrrı'jç ı:föv flepcrföv we considered
in Chapter 11.4?
But what about the Thomas who served under Bardanes, remained faithful to
the general when he fell into disgrace and was later appointed tourmarches ofthe
phoideratoi? If he cannot be identified with the rebel Thomas the Slav, he must
have been another person, as the Continuator and Genesios already suspected.
He must have been an Annenian, as Genesios reınarked, which made of hiın a
trustee of Leo the Armenian, who is depicted as his playınate. This explains his
later appointment as tounnarches ofthe phoideratoi when Leo came to power. But
what prompted the identification ofThoınas theArınenian with Thomas the Slav?
The cause of the error is to be sought in the character of the common source
that Genesios and the Continuator used for their Version B. Unlike Version A,
which both rightly preferred and which in fact tallies with the reports provided by
such disparate sources as the Letter to Louis, George the Monk and Michael the
Syrian, this Version B identified Thoınas the Slav with Thomas theArınenian. Or

J; Mich. Syr. 524, trans. Chabot ( 1889-1905) vol. 3, 75 .

.ıı,For ınisplaced doublets in tlıe chronicle of Michael the Syriaıı see fı.ırtlıer examples
in Chapter 15.1.
 lnl'asioıı or Ciı·il War:' T!ıoıııas ılıe Slal' wıd t/ıe Arahs 195

perhaps we nıust formulate it inversely, for it appears tbat this source ideııtifiecl
Tlıoıııas tlıe Arnıeııiaıı witlı his ııanıesake rebel. Jncleecl, in Versioıı B Thonıas
tlıe Arnıeniaıı appeared as tbe protagonist, probably not alone, but along witb his
conıpanioııs Leo tbeArınenian and Miclıael ofAınorioıı. All tlıree were preseııtecl
as close friencls serving uncler Bardaııes, for wlıom one clay a monk living in
Plıilonıelion proplıesiecl a brilliant career. Tlıis proplıecy was in fact fulfillecl
for Leo and Michael, who becanıe enıperors, but not forTlıoınas the Arıııenian,
who did not. However, proplıecies ofteıı come in threes, so that Tlıonıas, tlıe
thircl man serving under Barclanes, was also said by the monk ınerely to attain
acclanıation as emperor, but not real power ancl to die wretchedly. 37
Thus the career ofTlıonıas the Armeııian was identified with tlıat ofThoınas
tlıe Slav, his conteınporary. We do not know whether the confusioıı was
clefiberate, but in any case it fitted well with the autlıor's intentions to write a
prophetic text explaining the events during tlıe period of tlıe second iconoclasnı.
This text, wlıich revolvecl arouncl the propbecy of tlıe nıonk of Plıilomelion,
must bave beeıı very popular at tlıe time tlıe Contiııuator aııd Geııesios wrote,
perlıaps because it offerecl a connectecl sequence of events ancl provicled tlıem
with many lıistorical details tlıey were eagerly lookiııg for. in fact, tlıe account of
botlı autlıors about tlıe rebellion of Barclanes tlıeTurk, inserted at the beginniııg
of tlıeir works, is takeıı fronı tlıis source. it may also be tbat tlıe story about tlıe
monk of Plıilomelion was written in verses and typically usecl obscure worcls,
tlıus favouring the confusion of iclentities.Tlıe Continuator refers indeed to works
written in "ınetric coınposition" (ot's�ı�ıerpou rcot�crscoç) when mentioning sonıe
prophecies ınacle to Leo V on the issue of icon worship. 38
Accordingly, to give a ınore clramatic effect to the prophecy of the moıık of
Philoınelion, Thomas the Arınenian was turneci into the rebel Thomas the Slav
in a later source dating perhaps to the beginning of the tenth centuıy. This may
explain why in Version B, based on the stoıy of the three companions serving
under Bardanes, the rebel is presented as rising in arms against Michael only when
he hears that Leo has been slain; thatThomas is fürther said to have been always
at variance with Michael; and that he is finally represented as esteenıed amongst
the militaıy. These features stili belong toThomas the Annenian, the companion
of Leo and touımarches of the phoideratoi, but immediately after he has already
appeared as a rebel, assuming the role ofThomas the Slav.
We do not know how Thomas the Armenian reacted, faced by the invasion
of Thomas the Slav. If Michael of Amorion was tourmarches of the phoideratoi
at the enci of Leo's reign, as we conjectured in Chapter 2.1, thenThomas might
have already been dead or promoted to a post as strategos. He qıight lıave been
dispatched by Michael of Amorion to face Thomas the Slav's troops when these
first entered Byzantine territory, as stated by Michael in the Letter to Loııis (Chapter
2.2). Nor should we rule out the possibility thatThomas the Annenian joined the

.17 Th. Conl. l.2 (7.5-8.11) aııd Gen. 1.6 (6.2-7.36).

3� Tlı.Coııt.l.16(28.15).
196 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıi/os cınd tlıe Ecıst. 829-841

anny of Thoınas the Slav when the latter launched his massive attack against
Constantinople in 821. Ali this reınains pure conjecture. But what really matters
is that Thoınas the Arınenian disappears from histoıy because of his identification
with Thomas the Slav. The Continuator and Genesios are not to blame for that, for
they did their best in trying to disentangle the contradictions in their sources. The
Continuator wrote, indeed, as we saw, an excursus to justify his iınpotence when
tıying to seek out the distant truth from behind contradictory reports.
Neither Genesios nor the Continuator could detect the forgery of the prophetic
text froın which they boırnwed the infonnation about Bardanes the Turk and his
three trusted men. Our historians did not notice the final purpose ofthis text, perhaps
because they _consulted it only through excerpts.39 in any case, there are plenty of
cases of such confı.ısions in otır period, for example the confüsion between Leo the
Arınenian ancl Leo Skleros revealed by David Turner some time ago.-ıo

13.2 Arab Troops in Thomas' Army

ünce we have established that Thomas the Slav was directly supported by the
caliph in his attempt to seize the capital of the ernpire, we are in a condition to
understand better the pieces of infonnation preserved in our sources that rnention
the presence of significant contingents of Arab troops arnong the soldiers of
Thornas' army. That Arab troops cooperated with a Byzantine rebel against the
reigning emperor is by no .means unprecedentecl. Suffice it here to riıention the case
ofthe rebel Saborios/Shapohr in the year 666-667, who, according to Theophanes,
made an agreement with the caliph Mu'awiya through his envoy Sergios against
Konstans II. Accordingly, Sergios "took along the Arab general Phadalas as an ally
to fight with barbarian auxiliaries on the side of Saborios" (rcapt1capı:; <I>afoAiiv,
crı:panıyov Apcxpwv, �tı::ı:a. Porı0ı::[aç pappapucfiç ouµµax,dv ı:qı ı:apwpiqı).-1 1
Were Arab troops fighting with Thomas? At the very beginning of their list of
nations supporting Thomas (see Chapter 2.3) both the Continuator and Genesios
record a group ofpeoples living inside the frontiers ofthe caliphate. Significantly,
the names appear in the two authors in a similar order, so that they were present
in their common soı.ırce. The Continuator speaks thus of Hagarenes, Egyptians,
Indians, Persians and Assyrians (Ayaprıv&v Aiyurcı:ı'.rov, 'Iv8&v, Tiı::pcr&v,
Acroupiwv), whereas Genesios just substitutes Medes for Persians, as corresponds
with his antiquarian taste, and inverts the position of the couples Egyptians­
Indians and Persians-Assyrians, probably as a result ofcopying from a written list
(Ayaprıv&v 'Iv8ô'ıv Aiyurcı:irov Acroupiwv Mrı8wv).
The inclusion ofthese names in the Iist makes sense only ifThomas gained the
support of the caliphate for his undertaking against Constantinople. Lemerle and

39 Signes Codofier ( 1995) 648-61.

<0 Turner ( 1990) 178-87.
41 Theoph. 350.9-1O {AM 6159). On this episode see recently MonteITer Sala (2012b).
 lıımsiuıı or Ciı·il T-Viır: Tlıoıııcı.ı· ılıe Sim· c111d ılıe Arab.ı· 197

Köpstein, who rejected the version ofthe Letter to Loııis and the Arab participation
in the rebellioıı, accordiııgly deııied any historical value to tlıe mention of these
peoples..ı2 Now, as we lıave seen in sectioıı 13.1, it was witlı tlıe personal support
of the caliplı tlıat Tlıomas gatlıered his army. Tlıe fact that tlıe peoples of the
caliphate are naıned first in tlıe list of the Continuator and Genesios apparently
confirms tlıat they fomıed, at least initially, the ınost inıportant contingent of his
troops. Köpstein speculates that the presence ofsuch contingents in Thoınas' arnıy
surely would have undermiııed his popularity among the population ofAnatolia..ı3
in fact, although we know almost nothing about Thomas' invasioıı, it does not
appear to lıave been particularly welcome by the inhabitants of Anatolia, as we
slıall now see.
It may initially appear that the reference to the Indians should not to be taken
literally because they lived too far away in the east to be actively involved in a
campaign in Anatolia. However, it is possible that some involveınent ofthe Indian
Zutt could explain this ınention. These people, ınentioned in contenıporary Arabic
and Syrian sources, caıne from the Siııdh and settled in the region of Basora in
early lslaınic tinıes, but nıany oftlıem were transterred to Syria and Cilicia in the
seventh century, The Byzantines are saicl to have taken prisoner nıany ZuH in 855,
when they plundered Cilicia . .ı.ı To connect these ZuH with the Athinganoi appearing
in Byzantine sources at the time is, however, unwarranted by the sources. 45
As regards the Egyptians, it ımıst be stressed that the land of the Nile was
independent from the Abbasids until Ma 'mün recovered the territoty in 825-827,
so that no regular troops would have come from there. However, we must not
think that the caliph made a levy for supporting Thomas, like the one made by
Ma'mün in 833 when he prepared the invasion of Byzantium. Then the caliph
gathered troops coming from the five districts ofSyria (Daınascus, Emesa, Jordan,
Palestine, Qinnasrin [with Aleppo]), Jazıra and Egypt.46 It seems more likely that
the Arab support for Thomas came through the presence of soldiers of fortune
coming from ali parts ofMuslim teITitoıy, even from teITitories out ofthe control
ofthe caliphate, as we will see when dealing with the invasion ofCrete in section
13.3. However, before we proceed further, it is perhaps advisable to look for
complementaıy evidence in the Byzantine sources about the presence of Arab
troops in Thomas' army.
Genesios telis us that Thomas' adopted son, named Konstantios, whom he
qualifies as "some half-barbarous paltty fellow" (av0pcıımov n �nı;opappapov),
was appointed commander, of a division of the Saracen army (arc6µoıpav ...
IapaK17v&v-arpmı,uµa-mç).47 It could be that by "Saracen army" Genesios qualifies

42 Lemerle (1965) 265 note 36, 27 1 note 65 and 287; Köpstein ( 1983) 78.
43 Köpsten (1983) 78-80.
44 Ditten ( I993) 20 I, note 582.
45 See in any case Speck ( 1997).
4" TabarT 111. 1 1 12, trans. Boswortlı ( 1987) 199.
47
Gen 11.4 (26.70-74).
198 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeuplıi/os aııd ılıe Eası, 829-842

in a coııtemptuous maııııer the whole army of Thomas, but it is also possible that
real Arab contiııgeııts are meant here.
There is more evidence for that. Theodore Stoudites was a direct witness of
the miseries of the war and although he never mentions Thoınas by name, he
describes the harsh consequences of the conflict and labels it as "civil war"
(i�ı<puAıoç n:6Ae�ıoç) in a letter dated by Fatouros to 823. 48 in another letter ofthe
same year Theodore describes his flight before "the raid ofthe Arabs" in Bithynia
(iı rciıv Apapcnv füpo8oç) and how he took refuge first on the island of Prinkipo and
then in Chalkedon.49 This passage has been generally understood as a reference
to the Arab troops fighting with Thoınas in the civil war, and particularly to the
contingent lead by Konstantios, Thonıas' adopted son.50 In a further letter, also
dated by Fatouros to 823, Theodore coınforts his addressee, the abbot Sergios,
who was prevented from visiting him due to the "continuous civil war" (frıı:o ı:fiç
crnvoxııç rfüv twpuAicov ıroAe�w)V) and "the outrages of the way" (Kal ı:fiç Kaı:a
rııv ööov bcıweiaç). Theodore wishes that God would sO011 dissipate ali these
evi Is and reintroduce peace, freeing the subjects frorn the "raid ofthe Hagarenes"
(<'.maUa.nüıv rııç ı:(i:ıv Ayapııv&v bn8po�niç).51 The letter is also connected by
Fatouros with Thomas' rebellion. 5"
There are also three serrnons conıposed by Theodore during the civil war that
allude to Arab raids. 53 According to Roman Cholij, who studied them, they were
written c. 823, when Theodore and his monks, after taking refuge for a while in
the capital, returned to Crescens. Forced by this Arab raid, the Stoudites moved
again elsewhere and sailed to the island of Prinkipo, where other refugees had
gathered.54 Serman 43 admonishes the brothers who took flight out of fear of
the Hagarenes (8eeı ı:ô'ıv Ayapııv&v iıcırecpeuy6ı:aç iJ�ıö.ç), not to forget that God
provided them with help and assistance. in sermon 99 Theodore says that although
the brothers were rightfully frightened by the expedition of the Saracens (fü;oooç
ı:ö'ıv A.yapııv&v) as they feared to "fail into the murderous hands of the atheists"
(oıavoou�ıevoı �ı� iµırecrdv eiç ı:aç cpoviaç xel'paç ı:ô'ıv a.0erov), they should not
forget the attacks of the invisible demons. Finally, sermon 124 compares the
attacks of the Hagarenes, which made the monks wander hither and thither (eıc
ı:ou ci)oe ıca.ıcei:cre ırepıcpepecr0aı tjj ı:ö'ıv A.yapııv&v tmopo�rfj), with the invisible
temptations of the demons. In this sermon Theodore mentions a furious storın

48 Theod. Stoud., Letters, Nr. 478; see Fatouros (1992) 438*, note 862.
49 Theod. Stoud., Lefters, Nr. 475. Part of the manuscript tradition reads however ıı
1:&v pappapwv füpoooç, but the reference to the Arabs is to be preferred here as it is Iess
commonplace, whereas the reading pappapcov, clearly a lectio facilior, could easily have
arisen from a misreading.
5° Fatouros (1992) 435, note 857 and Pratsclı (1998) 272-6.
51 Theod. Stoud., Letıers, Nr. 512.
5" Fatouros ( 1992) 460*.
53 Theod. Stoud., ParFcı ccıtechesis, nr. 43, 99 and 124.
;, Clıolij (2002) 62-3 aııd note 371.
 /11\'Clsio11 or Civil IVi:ır? Tlıomas ılıe Sim· aml ılıe Arah.ı· 199

at sea for three days that apparently caused ınany shipwrecks. This could even
be an allusion to the stornı tlıat destroyed the fleet ofThomas during the siege of
Constantinople.; 5
There are sonıe passages in tlıe L(fe ofSaiıır Peter ofAtroa that also deserve
attention. This L(fe was written sometime after 843 by tlıe monk Sabas of the
St. Zacharias monastery at the foot of Mt. Olynıpos. Tlıe author describes
nıany nıiracles of his lıero, Peter of Atroa, which took place during the reign
of Michael fl.56 Sabas was a direct witness to some of them and even the main
protagonist, so his testimony deserves to be given sorne attention. As the civil
war is the franıe for many of his stories, Sabas refers explicitly to it on several
occasions.57 fn §34 he mentions for the first time the civil war taking place at
the time (iwpuıı.iou noM�t0u övroç ıcaı:' iıcdvo ıcmpou), and Tlıomas, whorn he
qualifies as usurper (rou rupcı.vvou 8wµii) and lıated by God (rou 0ı::ocrruyouç
8o)�tii). Tlıe sanıe terms recur in §39, wlıen he rnentions a notary who took part
in the war at Thomas' side (npoç rov E�t<pı'ıtı.ıov EKEivov n61ı.cpov ı:ou -rnpcı.vvou
8ro�tii anü0cbv). Further on in the sarne chapter, an officer "is taken captive with
sorne other men by the Hagarenes in a fighting" ( ev �nçl notı.E�LOu napqt001ı.11
�tcı:a ıcai /iU(t)v nv&v ı'.mo ı:&v Ayapııvfov nıacr0clç). The next episode, stili in
the sarne chapter, refers only vaguely to the defeat ofa seııator in a fight (ev
napqıpo1ı.fi noM�wu ıinci)�tcvoç) and his ensuing flight pursued by the enemy.
That the civil war is always referred to is made clear in §41 where the author
writes: "an army ofthe enemies fell upon them in the days ofconfusion, civil war
and plundering" (ev ıı�tEpatç crurxucrcroç, e�upu1ı.iou no1ı.E�t0u re ıca.i oıa.pna.yfjç
infoı:ıı a.uroTç tı.a.oç ı:&v evavı:irov). Some chapters on, in §48, Sabas in person
telis us that one day the monks commented in the refectoıy: "a multitude of
lsmaelites has decidecl to march against the Roman land and enslave it" (roç
7Itı.fj0oç 'Icrµarıtı.ıı:ô'ıv ıcaı:a ı:fjç pro�ta.ııcfjç PcPoutı.wrm EÇctı.0dv xcopa.ç ıcai ı:auı:rıv
a.ix�w1ı.roı:icrm). Sabas was terrified by this eventuality and even thought of
fleeing to Constantinople. Finally, in §62 a peasant mentions that the army of
the impious has been ravaging his land for three years (ı:pıcı:ııç xp6voç foı:iv, ön
ntı.fj0oç ı:ô'ıv �mcra.pô'ıv 1ı.uµaivcı:aı ı:�v xo:ıpa.v ı:a.uı:ııv). As ali ofthese events took
place in the northwest part of Asia Minor during the reign of Michael II, it is
clear that Sabas is always referring to the civil war ofThomas, for there was no
other invasion ofthe territory in these years. The Arabs, alluded to as Hagarenes
or Ismaelites in Sabas' narrative, were accordingly almost certainly involved in
Thoınas' usurpation.
We have· no reason to reject this evidence of Arab participation in Thomas'
attacks as the result of some kinci of propaganda against the rebels, for there
was in fact no motive for Theodore Stoudites or Sabas to follow the iconoclastic
emperor Michael II on this point. Thus it seems that the existence of Arabs

55 Th. Cont. 11.14 (60.I 1-13) and Gen. lI.5 (28.56-57).

56
For an assessment and a lisl of Peter's nıiracles see Eftlıynıiadis (2006).
57
Sabas, L(f'e cıfPeter ofAtıva (1), §§34, 39, 41, 48 ::ıııd 62.
100 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/os emel t/ıe East, 829-842

alongside the eastern troops at Thomas' side could have been one of the main
reasons far the manifest hostility towards Thoınas displayecl by al I the iconophile
sources. it is therefore not coincidence that the !ast partisans of Thomas again
took refuge in the caliphate when their defeat seemed inescapable. 58
üne can perhaps only be surprised by the routine ınention of these Arab
contingents in Thomas' uprising. Was not greater stress on this fact to be expected
in the sources? However, Arab inroads into Anatolia were not unusual at the
time. Moreover, a piece of information provided by Michael the Syrian confirms
that the Arabs might fight alongside the Byzantine troops if circumstances
required. Accorcling to the chronicler, Michael II freed the Arab prisoners who
were uncler his power and promised to clear their way to return home proviclecl
they would fight the rebels along with the imperial troops.59 Apparently the
prisoners accepted and with their help Michael defeated and captured Thomas.
it cloes not matter if this story is factually correct, only that it was held to be
credible at the time.
But we can go even further and consider whether the participation of Arabs
alongside Thomas' troops could have been related to other events of the time
in which Arabs took a proıninent role.' This leads us to consicler carefully the
circumstances of the invasion of Crete by the Arabs at the beginning of the
820s.

13.3 The Arab Conquest of Crete

The invasion of Crete, generally dated between 824 and 828, is attributed to
Andalusian eınigrants who had taken and ruled Alexandria in previous years and
were forced by Ma'mün to leave the city c. 825-827.60 As the civil war practically
ended in 823 with Thornas' death, scholars have considered the Arab invasion
of Crete to be a consequence of the conflict,61 which left the victorious Michael
without the military resources for coping with the new invaders coming from
Alexandria. However, as I think to have proved in a recent study, the occupation
of Crete by the Arabs began probably during the civil war and the Andalusian
emigrants were not the only force behind it:61 Let us review the evidence briefly.
According to our most detailed source, the History of the Patriarchs of
Alexandria, written in Arabic by Ibn Mufarrij at the end of the eleventh century

;s Th. Cont. II.20(71.21-73.4). See Signes Codofier(1995) 283-7.

59 Mich. Syr. 501, trans. Chabot(1899-1910) vol. 3, 37.
60 See the studies of Brooks(19 I 3) or Tsougarakis (1998) 39-41, who plead for 828,
whereas the most influential book of Christides(1984) considers that the island was already
occupied by the Andalusians in 824.
61
See for exaınple K.öpstein (1983) 86.
6'
For a detailed analysis ofthe sources, mainly in Arabic, that bear on the occupation
ofCrete by tlıe Andalusians and its dating to c. 820, see Signes Codofıer (2004a) 186-99.
 fı7l'cısioıı ar Cirit 1-Vi:ır: T/ıomas ılıe Sim• cınd tlıe Ara/ıs 201

(altlıouglı traditionally attributed to an earlier Coptic writer, Severus lbn Muqaffa,

known to be dead in 987), tlıe occupation of Alexandria by tlıe Andalusians had
already taken place in 814. 63 Tlıey were reinforced in the following years by new
incomers froın Andalusia, especially after tlıe uprising of Cordoba against tlıe
Andalusian emir in 8 I 8 that ended with the exile of nıany of tlıe participants in the
revolt, as is stated in many Arabic sources. in fact, al-Aııdalus was experiencing
a turbulent period at the begiııning of the ninth century with nıany regions in· the
Levante (tlıe eastern part of tlıe lberian peninsula) acting autonornously from
Cordoba and living on piracy. 6� Wlıat we see tlıerefore in tlıe second clecade
of the ninth century is a displacement of the Andalusian piracy to the eastern
Mediterranean accompanied by a plıenoınenon of mass migration of ınany
impoverislıed Andalusians dissatisfiecl with the government of Cordoba. These
groups ruled Alexanclria with the support oftlıe loca! population for many years, for
the Abbasids left a void of power in Egypt in tlıe ten years that followed the cleath
ofHarün al-RashTd in 809, wlıen tlıe caliphate plungecl iııto a civil war between his
heirs. in fact, the delta ancl the area of Fustat were practically inclependent under
tlıeir own leaclers (JarawT ancl Sarı) wlıen tlıe Anclalusians arrivecl in Alexandria.
The caliph Ma'nıün was only able to reinforce his authority in Alexanclria ancl also
Lower Egypt between 825 and 827.
The Anclalusiaııs were then forced to leave Alexanclria and, accorcling to tlıe
sources, establislıed themselves in Crete. But there is no inclication that tlıey
conqııered Crete by then, after being expelled from Alexanclria. If we read the
sources attentively, the expellecl Andalusians ofAlexandria established theınselves
in Crete after leaving the city ofthe delta. As they had been pillaging and plundering
many islands in the eastern Mediterranean in previous years, at least since 814, it
is likely that they had attacked the island before, if not conquered it. What the
caliph offered them in 825..,.827 was to retire to an island, namely Crete, which
was already under Muslim control. In the recently recovered ınanuscript ofthe lost
history oflbn ijayyan (988-1076), perhaps tlıe most influent Arabic historian ofal­
Andalus, we can read a passage ofthe history oflbn al-Qüçiyya (t977), the "Son of
the Goth woman", that is quite revealing in this context (italics are mine):

[The Andalusians] remained there [in Alexandria] until the governor of the
Abbasids in Egypt agreed with them a peaceful exit, as he offered theın the
possibility to choose any island for settling !here, with the necessary aid for that.
They cl10se Crete in the Mediteırnnean, tlıat the Greeks had abaııdoııed at the time,

63
Ibn Mufarrij, HistoıJ' oftlıe patriarclıs, part 4, 429-65. For a short rendering of its
content, see Signes Codofier (2004a) 183-4. For the doubts about the authorship ofSeverus
Ibn Muqaffa, see Heijer (1989) and Scott Meisami and Starkey (1998) s.v. "lbn Mufarrij".
64
For Andalusian piracy in the west Mediterranean at the beginning of tlıe nintlı
century, aııd especially tlıe Balearic islands. see Sigııes Codofier (2004a) 177-82 and (2005)
66-78.
202 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıi/ııs !llld tlıe East, 829-841

and they ali moved tlıere, habiting and cultivating the land ıı·itlı ı!ıe contribııtion o.f
people wlıo caıııe.from eı:eı)·ır!ıC'l'e. And thcy renıain thcre until nmv.";

Certainly lbn al-Qütiyya is a later author, but this does not mean that he is
unreliable, though we do not know the sources he used. As matter of fact, the
information provided by this passage makes sense, for the choice to settle in Crete
given by the Abbasid governor to the Andalusians would have been no real option
for them if the island had in fact continued to be ruled by the Byzantines. But
this was apparently not the case, for the Grceks, according to Ibn al-Qütiyya, had
already left the island. Obviously, the islancl was not bereft ofits Greek population
ancl lying deserted before the invaders. Crete had probably only been abandoned
by the Byzantine troops and officials and was occupied by new masters. We do not
know who they were, but the indication provided by the text that the Andalusians
occupied the island "with the contribution of people who came fronı everywhere"
refers undoubtedly to the other Arabs who settled there not only after, but ınore
likely before the arrival ofthe Andalusians. These Arabs could have been in part
Andalusian pirates, who were raiding the islancls of the eastern Mediterranean,
even before their settlenıent in Alexandria in 814. But they were alsa, as the·text
says, Arabs of other regions, coming from everywhere - just like Thomas' allies.
Just a coincidence? Perhaps not, as we will see.
When could these Arabs have taken the island before the definitive settlement
of the Andalusians there, c. 825-827? Theoretically, we can choose any year
between 814 and 825, for the sources provide us with no exact dating. But the
most likely possibility is that the take-over of the island was related to the war
between Thomas and Michael.
According to the Continuator, notice of the occupation of the island reached
Michael without much delay (xp6voı; ot tppuıı 1ı:o1ı.uı; ouoa�tô':ıı;), who sent
straight away the protospatharios Photeinos (<Drowıv6ı;), apparently with a small
contingent, with the task of "settling the whole matter in Crete" (ca. -rfjı; Kpfı'CTJÇ
iim:ı.vw omucdv). When Photeinos, who was by then strategos of the Anatolics,
came to Crete, he saw the difficulties and infonned Michael ofthem, requesting an
adequate force to face the Arabs. Michael then sent the protostrator Damianos, alsa
protospatharios, with a large contingent (µı::'Ct':ı. noUıiı; ouva�tı::roı; Kai n:apacrıcwfjı;).
However, both Byzantine commanders were defeated by the invaders and naırnwly
escaped death.66
Warren Treadgold rightly remarked: "the strategos of the Anatolics would
hardly have been sent if the strategoi of the Kibyrrhaiots, Peloponnesos, or
Kephalonia had been available, nor would the protostrator have led a fleet out
of Constantinople if the drungarios of the Imperial Fleet had not been absent".

65
lbn I:Iayyan, Jvlzıqtabis, f. 107r, trans. in Makki ancl Corriente (200 1) 65-66. For
this work see Chapter 18.2. The [ast sentence inclicates that tlıe author is writing before 963,
when Crete was fiııally re-conquered by the Byzantines.
"'' Tlı. Cont. 11.22 (76.7-77.3). This iııformation is lacking in Geııesios.
 fııl'(fsioıı or Ciı•i/ Hen-:' Tlıoınas ılıe Slav cıııd ıhe ılrcıhs 203

However, lıe interred fronı tlıis circumstance tlıat "Crete was invaded wlıen most
of the empire's ııavy was in Sicily".67 As the Arabs had invaded Sicily in support
of the usurper Euphenıios perhaps as early as 827, Treadgold considers that the
inıperial fleet was sent by 828 to help tlıe inıperial loyalists to face the invasion.
Accordingly, the expedition of Photeinos was also in 828.
However, this date is too !ate for the expedition of Photeinos and Damianos,
because the Arabs had seizedCrete before 825 and both comınanders seem to lıave
set offfor the island iınınediately after its invasion. in effect, that the strategos of
the Anatolics was first sent to inspect tlıe island without adequate forces reveals
that the emperor in Coııstantinople did not know exactly tlıe situation in Crete at
the time, probably because the invasion had just taken place.68 If we follow this
dating, it is clear that the imperial fleet was not in Sicily at the time of the invasion
ofCrete, for troubles dicl not begin in Sicily before 826.
.Moreover, according to the Continuator, Photeinos was sent to Sicily as
strategos after being clefeated in Crete. 69 No clating is unfortunately provided for
his new office. NuwayrT, a lale Arabic writer (i• 1332), nanıes "F-s-t-i-n, surnamed
the Suda" the strategos of Sicily killecl by the rebel Eupheınios c. 827, in a
first phase of the conflict, before Eupheınios·sought support for his usurpation
among the Arabs in Africa. 711 This strategos is generally namecl Constantiııe in the
other Arabic sources ancl this seenıs to be correct, for some leacl seals from tlıe
beginning of the ninth century have been preservecl of a protospatharios of this
name acting as strategos of Sicily. However, an iclentification of Photeinos with
Constaııtine has been atteınpted on various occasions, witlıout ınuch success. 71 If
Constantine was also iınperial protospatharios ancl archon of Crete, as suggested
by a further lead seal dating froın the beginning of the niııth century, this would
reinforce the iclentificatioıı, for it makes a very curious parallel between the careers
ofConstantine ancl Photeinos. 72 But only if Photeinos were a faınily name ancl not

67
Treadgold (1988) 253-4 and 429, note 353.
68
A dating ofthe expedition as !ate as 853, as Brooks (1913) argued, is accordingly
to be absolutely disregarded. More arguments for an early dating of the expedition of
Plıoteinos, also defended by Treadgold, are considered in Signes Codofier (1995) 299-311.
69
Th. Cont. II.22 (77.1-3): 6.U' oi'iı:oç �lEV ı::n:ı;:l oıa ı:ı�nıç fjyı;:ı;o n:apa TOÜ pacrO..foıç
aı::i, nıv T�Ç LlKEAlUÇ crTpanıy[oa au0ıç T�Ç Kp�Tl]Ç aUacrcrETal.
70
NuwayrI 427, trans. Vasiliev (1935) 379. For the varioııs spellings ofthe name of
the strategos (including Fstın), s�e Amari (1857) 427, note 2 and (1854) 3 74, note 1. For the
usıırpation ofEııphemios see Prigent (2006).
71
See for example my attempt in Signes Codofier (1995) 302-6 to explain the
common name ofConstantine in Arabic (Q-s-t-n-tin) as a comıption ofthe most unıısual
(F-s-tin) of the manuscript of NuwayrI. According to this supposition, the lead seals of
strategos Constaııtine belonged to an earlier strategos ofthat name active in 805 in Sicily.
in fact Coııstantine has always been a veıy common name and the office ofthe strategos of
Sicily seems to have flııctııated a great deal at the time. For an identification of Photeinos
with Constantine see also Vasiliev ( 1935) 67, note I aııd Bury ( 1912) 479.
72
See Kisliııger aııcl Seibt ( 1998) 21-3, esp. ııote 77.
104 Tlıe Eıııperor 71ı('oplıi/o:; c111d ılıe Ecısı. 829-842

a persoııal name would the ideııtification be easier, aııd the fact that Constantine
was surııanıed the Suda seenıs to nıle out this possibility. 73 On balance, we can say
lhat aııy ideııtificatioıı of Photeinos wİth the strategos who faced the rebellion of
Euphemios c. 826-827 will remain tentative far the moment. No sure evidence can
be obtaİned in this way for an exact dating of the Cretan expedition of Photeinos.
Nevertheless, and coming back to Treadgold's argument, it is clear that some
circumslance other than the Sicilian rebellion (which did not begin until 827) ımıst
have impeded Michael from sendİng the fleet of the K.İbyrrhaiotai and Greece,
or cven lhe imperial fleet, to face the Arab invasİon of Crete. This İs remarkable
insofar as the island ofCrete was easily approached from the ııeighbouring coast of
Asia Minor, where the thenıa of the Kibyrrhaiotai had its seat. Therefore Michael
nıust surely have been hindered from bringing aid to the Cretans by a serious aııd
grave crisis, precisely like the one caused by Thoınas' usurpation.
As is well known, the thematic fleet ofthe Kibyrrhaiotai fell intoThomas' hands
al the begiııning of the rebellion (rnu 0qtanıcou o-r61ı.ou yivı::tm syKpm�c;).74 Wİth
its aicl Thomas besieged Constantinople, defended by the iınperial fleet. However,
the initial successes ofThomas turned into failures in 822, as his army was defeated
before the walls ofConstaııtinople and tlıe fleet dispersed and deserted to Michael
before eııtering İnto combat with the imperİal trİremes ( oihw µsv oiiv ô.rcovıı-ri
öıe1ı.ı'ı811 to va.unıcov ıca.i -rswc; sxc:ı)pqaev eic; ouösv). 75 The Continuator also says
that Thoınas, after the destruction of this thematİc fleet by the imperial dromons,
orclerecl the Greek fleet to be brought swİftly to Constantinople (to rcpoaxopu'ı.Çov
Kata t�V 'Ena.oa. va.unıcov wxso:ıs KeAEUülV a.va.x0fivm)76 İn orcler to continue its
blockade. But these ships were destroyed by the İmperİal fleet. After the defeat of
Thomas by the Bulgarian khan Omurtag and the surrender of the rest of his fleet
{to ıca.ta.Aetcp0sv va.uttıcov) to the emperor,77 Thomas ended the sea blockade of
Coııstantinople İn the wİnter 822-823 and retired to Thrace.
lt is at this point, in the year 822, if not even before, when Thomas had set off
far Constantinople with the fleet, that the Arabs could have invaded the island of
Crete, which lay completely abandoned by the thematic fleet of the KibyıThaiotaİ,
and Greece, and could not be helped by the imperial fleet that remained at
Constantinople busy with the troops of Thomas, who was campaigning in
neighbouring Thrace. The surveillance of the coast was crncial for the emperor

73 Although Photeinos is known as a personal name, it is not unusual in Byzantium

to see personal names acting alsa as family nan�es. Family names are very rare in the
ninth century, but the case of'Photeinos is particular, for the Continuator says that he was
the great-grandfather of the empress Zoe, who married Leo VI. This is another reason for
supposing that the Continuator , wlıo wrote during the reign of Leo's son Constantine VII,
used a well-informed source for the expedition of Photeinos.
74 Th. Cont. Il.13 (55.19-20). See Signes Codofier (1995) 247-8.
75 Th.Cont.11.15(62.16-17).
76
Tlı.Cont.11.16(63.21-22).
Tlı. ConL 11.18 (66.1 l ).
 /11msioıı nr Ciı·il /Viw:> Tlıoıııcı.ı· ılıe Slcıı· cıııd ılıe Arahs 205

at this point, for he wanted to prevent reinforcements for Thomas coming from
Anatolia. It is also at this time that Michael could lıave begun to take coııtrol agaiıı
of the Anatolikoi tlıema and lıave sent its strategos Photeinos to Crete in order to
nıake a first urgent assessmeııt ofthe nature and exlent ofthe Arab iııvasion ofthe
island. This appointment is understandable, for the fleet ofthe Kibyrrhaiotai was
at the time ııon-existeııt, having been used by Tlıonıas to blockade Constantinople.
Tlıerefore, when Photeinos denıanded reinforcements to face the invaders, the
emperor sent soldiers (perhaps already in 823) and, logically, some ships from
the capital, but not under the conınıand of the drouııgarios of the fleet, for he
was to remain at his side in Constantinople to figlıt Tlıonıas' partisans at Thrace.
The contingent was in the end inappropriate to fight tlıe Arabs of Crete and was
accordingly defeated. Miclıael did not, however, lose tin�e, for he sent another
representative to bring in order the thema ofthe Kibyrrhaiotai.
We kııow of tlıis appointnıeııt tlırough the L[fe ofScıint Antoııios t/ıe Younger,
written at tlıe end ofthe ninth century by someone wlıo claimed to have been an
eyewitness of tlıe later life of the saint, wlıo died in 865. m There it is said that
when tlıe saint was living in Attaleia, tlıe capital ofthe thema ofthe Kibyrrhaiotai,
"tlıe fleet witlı its patrician arrived and ali the notables of the city came to nıeet
the commander witlı tlıe custoınary arrangement". 79 Tlıe new commander fixed
his eyes upon tlıe saint and recomınendecl hinı to tlıe emperor, who appointecl
lıinı EK npocrffinou (ekprosopou) oftlıe thema ofthe Kibyrrhaiotai. 80 Thereatler the
author clescribes how tlıe saint, namecl John at the time, carried out tlıe duties of
his office, prosecuting the people who had supported the usurper Thomas.81 This
indication gives us the terminus post quem for the appointment of John to the
office oftıcnpocrronou: the end ofthe civil war. But I think we can be more precise.
The arrival of the fleet, welcomed by the people according to custom, looks like
the return of the imperial authority in the area just after the defeat of Thomas. In
fact, the appointment ofJohn as EK npocrffinou among the loca! population speaks
for the will of the new authorities to set up a new administration· in the thema,
probably because the old one had completely collapsed. The cleansing ofThomas'
partisans was the immediate task ofthe new officers, including the EK npocrffinou
John, as we see in his L!fe. I would hypothetically date ali these events to the years
823-824, when Michael was regaining control ofwestern Asia Minor.
This dating is important, for the invasion of Crete must have taken place
earlier than that. In fact, a massive invasion of Crete by the Arabs, like the one

78
Malamut (1993) 249-251 and Brubaker and Haldan (2001) 207-8.
79
L/fe ofAııtoııios the Yoıınger § 1O: ı<aı:eıı.a�ı;v o o-ı:oıı.oı; �tı;ı:i:ı. ı:ou fou,ı'iıv naı:ptıc[ou,
ı:ii.ıv oi'iv EÇEXOV'tOJV Tfjı; 7COtı.Eroı; �lEı:a TllÇ aç ileouç ıcaı:acrı:acrEO)Ç dı; cı.nav,�v €A.Tjtı.U06mv
ı:oü iipxovroç,
80
Ibid. § 11: a.vacpepEt ı:qı pacrtıı.ET Mtxaıııı. nı,pi afrroü ıcal ıca0icrı:aı:m aıc npocrcimou ı,[ı;
,6 ı:ı'iıv KtPupmro,ii.ıv 0€:µa.
81
lbid. § 12: roiıı; yi:ı.p ıca,' aıcı,ıvo ımıpoü nT) cı.nocrrarn Kal tı.aonıı.avc!ı npocrcp0aptvrnı:;
0c,ı�tçl ıcai nö.crav nıv oiıwuµevııv, <.İıç EinETv, cı.vu.crr<.İıcravrnı:;
2 06 Tlıe E111pcror Theophilos c111d ılıe Ecıst. 8]9-84]

envisaged by the sources, was possible insofar as the imperial authority had
collapsed in the thema of the Kibyrrhaiotai, which usually had available a mighty
fleet strategically situated at the entrance of the Aegean Sea to prevent invaders
conıing fronı the east. The fleet was also situated quite near the island of Crete,
which could be easily reached from the southwest coast ofAsia Minor. I think,
accordingly, that the Arabs invaded Crete first c. 822, profiting froın the lack ofan
iınperial fleet in Greece and the thema of the K.ibyrrhaiotai, as the !ast ships there
had departed northwards in 822 to support Thomas' blockade of Constantinople.
As I also suspect that these Arabs were not only Andalusian pirates, but also allies
ofThomas involved in some way in his usurpation, they could have landed in the
island even before that date, taking advantage of their alliance with the usurper.
They seized the opportunity to plunder and invade the southern islands of the
Aegean Sea, departiııg perhaps from Cyprus. The reestablishment ofthe imperial
authority in the area c. 823-824 could have prevented such an invasion, so it must
have begun earlier. The imperial government tried to regain control ofthe island as
soon as troops were available in Constantinople, sending a hasty and ill-prepared
expedition unde;. the conımand of Photeinos and Danıianos, who could not rely
on the support of the thematic tleet at Attaleia. The second naval expeditioıı sent
by Michael to expel the Arabs from Crete was already led by the strategos ofthe
thema ofthe Kibyrrhaiotai, K.rateros, perhaps the same nıan who appointed John
sıc npocrcoıwu in the Life ofAntonios the Yoıınger.82
This close connection between the civil war and the invasion ofCrete seeıns not
only likely, but is indeed explicitly stated in the Byzantine sources, especially the
Continuator and Genesios. Both authors re fer to the invasion ofCrete iınmediately
after the civil war in their narratives. But they also establish a causal link between
the two events. Genesios says that the Arabs plundered Roman possessions with
iınpunity "while Thomas' rebellion was raging" (sni xp6vou ot sv qı a.nocrı:acria
npopı:::p�ıcı:::t � E>ro�tü). 83 He then mentions the invasion of Crete by the Arabs led
by Abü I:Iafş and how they conquered all the cities ofthe island, one after another.
After that, there comes a clear statement by Genesios about the responsibilities of
the war: "Thoınas was responsible for the invasion and capture ofthe cities" (rov
ıfjç smopoµfjç 6 0ü)�tüç ıcai (lA,(ü(JS(ı)Ç ahtoı;).84
The Continuator is even more precise. After surveying ali the calamities that
befell the empire during the civil war in a rhetorical Iist that includes killings, fires,
earthquakes, rapes and so on, he mentions last ofali the attacks on the islands (in
plural), which he considers a strike in the middle of the empire's defences. He
then begins the narration ofevents, stating that the attack ofthe Spaniards on the

81 For the expedition of Krateros see Th. Cont. il. 25 (79.13-81.5) and Gen. 11.12
(34.36-6 0). The expedition is dated by both clıroniclers to the reign of Miclıael II and
tlıere is no reason to question it.For a discussion on the dating and further bibliography see
Signes Codofier (1995) 323-8. For the l(fe ofAnto11ios tlıe You11ger see also the Epilogue.
x3 Gen. ll.l O (32.81).
"' Gen.1110(33.21).
 lı7l'asioıı or Ciı'il /Icır:' Tlıomas rlıe Sim· anıl rlıe Arab.ı· 207

islands began "wlıen the uprising ofThonıas had just begun" (apn öıc: rou Kara
rov 0co�ti'lv api;avroc; vecorepıv�toi3).�5 After describing at sonıe length the misery
and poverty of the Spaniards in their native countıy, theContinuator says that their
leader Abü l:-lafş began raiding the "Byzaııtiııe islands lying in tlıe east" (növ 1Cp6c;
rü ifrp Ket�ı{;voJV V�GO)V Kal ��lerepcov rurxavovrcov).86 And then he adds:

After he [Abü l;:lafş] approached many islands, as he found no force whatsoever

opposiııg him either with little or big slıips, because ali islaııds were devoid of
their help as they hadjust set sail with Tlıomas to help him at Constantiııople, he
finally arrived at the laııd ofthe Cretans, having taken and obtained muclı benefü
fr om ali tlıe islands where he had anclıored.87

The indicatioıı that the Byzantine ships had just (apn) departed for
Coııstantinople, leaving the southerıı islands of the Aegean without any effective
defence against the invaders, confirıns tlıe close connection between tlıe invasion
ofCrete and the siege ofConstantinople in 821-822/3. However, tlıere is no word
in theContinuator or Genesios of other Arabs taking part in tlıis conquest ofCrete,
so we cannot conclude fronı tlıeir texts tlıat the Andalusians were in foct reinforced
by Arabs coming fronı other regions and allied withThomas. Unfortunately we
do not have any other secure evidence about the Arab raids against the Aegean
islands at this time that is of any help in OLır quest. In the Life of Athcınasia of
Aegincı, written at tlıe earliest at the end of tlıe ninth century, but preserving
original information about the island of the saint,88 there is mention of "barbarian
Maurousioi" (Maupoı>Girov pappapwv) plundering Aegina at the beginning of
the ninth century.89The ternı "Maurousioi" refers undoubtedly to North African
Moors or Berbers (as most of the Andalusians were), but no exact dating of this
raid upon Aegina can be gained througlı the Life. Even an early date such as 807
is possible. Nevertheless, the term seems to point again to Andalusian pirates,
excluding Arabs from other areas.
We find a solution to the problem if we consider that the Spaniards coming
from Alexandria appeared first in the south Aegean as allies ofThomas. As we
saw above, Egyptians are named among Thomas' supporters during the civil
war. As Egypt was not controlled by the caliphate until 825-827, it could be

85
Th. Cont. II.20 (73.13-14.).
86 Th. Cont. II.20 (74.9-10)·.
87
Th. Cont. II.20 (74.13-18): erı:Eı yoüv ıı:oUaıc; TÖJV v�crrov ıı:1ı.rımaÇrov TOY
avnıı:apamTTO�leVOV µııcpip � µe')'UA.qı ıı:1ı.oiqı oux eÜptcrKEV, EXJ]pOÜVTO yap ıı:a.craı T�Ç UUTÖJV
Porı0eiac; iipn KaTa n'jc; Koıvcrmvnvouıı:61ı.EOJÇ eıcPorı0oucröıv TE ıcai ıı:1ı.e0ucröıv �lETa TOÜ
0rogq, �ıeyaıı.ac; 6s cİ.HpE1ı.Eiac; EK ıı:acrfüv, aic; ıcal ıı:pocrcop�uÇev, eıcaprcoüT6 TE Kal e1ı.a�ıpavev,
llKE Kal ıı:poc; ı:ouc; Kpıımıe1c;.
88
See Carras (1984) 199-211, Slıerry (1996) 137--41 and Brubaker and Haldon
(2001) 208.
"'' L(fe Ci/'Atlıaııcısia ufAı:giıw �3, trans. Slıerry ( 1996) 143.
208 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıilus mili tlıe East, 819-842

that many Arabs there, perhaps mainly the newcomers from al-Andalus, threw
in their lot with Thonıas' uprising. lf so, the list of nalions supporting Thonıas
provided by the Continuator and Genesios would prove to be right in this regard.
We can therefore conclude that Thomas' revolt must not be considered only as
a Byzantine interııal struggle. Contemporaries labelled the conflict a ''civil war",
as we saw above, but they did not exclude the presence of Arab contingents in
Thomas' amıy. There must have also been irregular fighters among them. This
supposition is reinforced if we assume the explicit connection made by Byzantine
sources between the war and the capture of Crete. Most important, the outbreak
of civil war cannot be disentangled from the arrival of Ma'mün in Baghdad in
819, after years of civil strife and interııal quarrels in the caliphate. This being
established, it is perhaps now time to consider the clegree of involvement of the
caliph in these events.

13.4 The Strategy of the Caliph

in Chapter 5.2 we quoted a passage fronıMiclıael the Syrian, where the chronicler
informs us about a failed alliance between tlıe Arab chieftain Naşr ibn Shabatlı,
who controlled the JazTra as an iriclependent ruler, and the Byzantine emperor.90 in
the account, Naşr ibn Shabath proposes an alliance with the emperor through the
agency of Manuel the Armenian at a very precise moment, when Ma'mün "was
about to coıne to Baghdad", therefore in 819. Leo the Armenian was reigning at
the time, but it was apparently only shortly after Thomas' uprising started that
the Byzantines decided to take this offer seriously. Michael the Syrian says that
Michael of Amorion then sent ambassadors to Naşr, perhaps at the very beginning
of his reign, early in 821. However, the alliance came to nothing, because the
followers of Naşr were furious with hirtı when they were told of the projected
alliance and accused him of being an apostate. Thus Naşr, probably to preserve his
ascendancy over his men, massacred the Byzantine envoys.
This story is highly significant for us for two reasons. First, it proves that
the coming ofMa'mün to Baghdad in 819 was considered by many autonomous
rulers inside the Abbasid caliphate as a direct challenge to their power. They
went so far as to consider an alliance with their natura! foes, the Byzantines. But
it also prevents us from considering that the autonomy of these loca! forces from
the central government at Baghdad could be interpreted as a sign of weakness of
the caliphate, for when the time arrived most of these local chieftains remained
faithful to Islam and could thus be eventually mobilized against Byzantium.
W hen Ma'mün returned to Baghdad in 819, after years of hesitation, he was
probably conscious of the situation of the caliphate and also of the ambivalent
fidel ity of some of the loca[ chieftains who had prospered as a result of internal

•m
Miclı. Syr. 500-501, trans. Chabot (1889-1905) vol. 3, 36-7. For the episode see
Treadgold (1988) ııote 311.
 lnmsion or CiFi! /Yar? Tlıoı11as ılıe Sim· and ılıe Arahs 209

conflict during tlıe previous decade. in fact, since tlıe deatlı oftlıe caliplı Harün al­
Raslııd in Jamıary of 809 tlıe caliphate had plunged into a series of civil wars aııcl
regional conflicts that tlıreateııecl the authority ofthe caliph at Baghclacl. Certainly,
the process had alreacly beguıı in the far west in the miclclle of the eighth centuıy
when the rest ofthe Umayyacls establishecl inclepeııclent power in al-Andalus. But
the first decacles of the ııinth century saw the rise of loca! powers who actecl on
their own behalf, allowing loca! teıısions to erupt into open warfare.
The first conflict arose because of the aıTangements Harün al-Rashıd macle for
his succession, for he appointecl his son Amın as caliph but also left his other son
Ma'nıün in charge ofKhurasan as far west as Hamaclhaıı. The latent conflict between
the two sons ofHarün soon resultecl in open war ancl enclecl only with the clefeat ancl
cleath ofAmTn after a long ancl clevastating siege of Baghclacl by Ma'mün 's army froın
August 812 to September 813. This "war between the brothers" not only encled in a
tragic way, but was a fatal blow to the unity ofthe caliplıate. Hugh Kennecly clescribes
thus the far-reaching consequences ofAmın's execution:

No ınember of the faıııily had been publicly killed or execrated since the
revolution. Now that iııviolability had gone. lf it could happeıı once, it could
happeıı again aııd the prestige of the caliplıs had been seriously damaged. But
nıore llıan the charisıııa of the sovereigıı had been iııjured. Tlıe state, so carefully
built up by Mansur and nurtured by his son and grandsons, had torıı itselfapart.
The ole! systenı had gone forever. 91

The rift openecl during the civil war between the clifferent factions of the
western "Arabs" ancl the eastern "Persians" clicl not clisappear after 813, but even
wiclenecl, for Ma'mün remainecl in clistant Khurasan, apparently unconcerrıecl by
the problems of the western provinces or, as some historians think, isolated by his
main adviser, Façll ibn Sahi, who did not infonn him about the events in Iraq and
Baghdad.92 There, cliscontent continuecl to grow and reached a peak when on 25
March 817 Ma'mün appointed 'Alı ibn Müsa ibn Ja'far, the 'Alici, called al-Riçla,
as his heir ancl successor to the caliphate.93 We will briefly consider in Chapter 22
the reasons behincl this clecision and the apocalyptic fears of the pious Ma'mün.
For now it suffices to remark that this support of a shiite heir for the caliphate

91
Kennedy (1981) 148.
n Sourdel (1959) vol. 1, 196-213 clearly slıows that wlıen Ma'nıün's alnıighty
vizier Façll ibn Sahi was killed in a bath by lıired assassins in February 818 (for tlıis see
TabarT III.I 027, trans. Boswortlı [ l 987] 80), the caliph, who had probably ordered his
assassination, decided from this moment on to concentrate ali tlıe power in his own hands
and not to rely further on viziers. in fact, seven more "viziers" served under Ma'mün from
818 until his death in 833, but none of theın appears to lıave had tlıe extensive powers of
their predecessor. Ma'nıün's return to Baglıdad in 819 is therefore a fuıther step in his plans
for restoring his effective power in tlıe caliplıate.
''·' Madelung ( 198 I ).
210 Tlıc Eıııpcrıır Tlıenplıilos emel ı/ıe Eası. 819-841

infuriated the Baghdadis, who proclaimed counter-caliph lbrahTnı ibn al-MahdT on

24 July 817. Civil war began anew, and although Façll ibn Sahi was executed in
February 818 and Riçla died suddenly (poisoned'?) some months later during the
summer, the conflict ended only when Ma'mün entered Baghdad in August 819,
putting an enci to the caliphate of lbrahTnı.
Ma'mün was now in Baghdad but he did not control nıany western teıTitories
ofthe caliphate. To begin with, in the far west Maghrib many new dynasties, such
as the ldrisids, Rustanıids aııd Aghlabids, had been established since the enci ofthe
eighth century and acted independently fronı Baghdad. Ceıtainly theAghlabids, for
instance, recognized Abbasid sovereignty, but they also faced internal rebellions
(one of thenı in the 820s) that ainıed at their overthrow and could only escape
from these dynaınics by launching a campaign against Sicily leci by a respected
religious scholar who had been critical of the Aghlabid ıı.ıle.9.ı The Byzantines,
who were masters of the whole of Sicily before the Aghlabid invasion and had
soıne influence over Sardinia95 (and through it perhaps even over the Balearics),96
nıade good use of the de facto independence of tlıese eınirates, for after Berber
pirates from Spaiıı plundered the west basin of the Mediterranean c. 813 we are
infornied ofalliaııces and diplomatic exchanges between Constantinople and these
powers regardless of Baghdad.'17
Egypt was also independent of the Abbasids. We have already seen above in
section 13.3 the case ofthe city ofAlexandria, from where the conquerors ofCrete
came. The rest of the countıy was divided between 'AiT al-JarawT in the north and
the 'Ubaydallah ibn al-Sarı in Fustat, amidst rebellions of the Coptic population.
It is only in 832, as we shall see in Chapter 14.3, that Ma'mun was able to recover
control ofthe territory.98
Most of Syria also challenged the authority of Baghdad over many years. As
early as September 811, Abü al-'Amaytar, an Umayyad ofthe Sufyanid branch of
the family, proclaimed himself caliph at Damascus against AmTn. The Sufyanid
caliph was defeated in 8 I 2/813 by the anny of the Qaysite Arab Ibn Bayhas on
behalfofMa'mün, but this did not hinder a further uprising in the following year
by another Umayyad in the lordan area.99As a matter offact, ali the region, where
the ancient capital of the Umayyads !ay, viewed with diffidence and mistrust
the government from Baghdad and there was practically everywhere a focus on

9.ı
For the Aghlabids see Talbi (1966); for the Rustamids see Zerouki (1987); for the
ldrisids the short overview in Abitbol (2009), esp. 40-54. For a documented overview of
the history ofali these imamates and emirates ofthe Maghrib and their ruling dynasties see
Manzano Moreno (201 I) 593-613.
95
Corrias and Cosentino (2002).
'J6
Signes Codofier (2005).
97
Talbi (1966) 396-403, Manzano Moreno (1998) 2 l 6-18 and Signes Codofier
(2004a) 180-82.
9'
See Kenııedy (1998) aııcl Brett (2011) for early Muslim Egypt.
"'' Macleluııg (2000).
 lımısioıı or Civil Wı:ır? Tlıoıııı:ıs ı/ıe S!ı:ıl' cıııd ı/ıe ılrcıbs 21 1

rebellion. The ınost inıportant oftlıenı was in the JazTra region, pillaged over many
years by the aforementioned Naşr ibn Shabath begiııniııg in 812. 100
The ııeighbouring Azerbaijaıı and more distant Tabaristan, to the south ofthe
Caspian sea, also lifted the banııer of rebellion agaiııst the caliphate, but ııow
for a different reasoıı. The region was weakly lslamized aııd maııy ofits Persian
inlıabitants sympathized with tlıe Khurramite movenıent, whiclı has been defined
as "a refornıed branclı of new Mazdakism adjusted to Islamic patterns" and
was in a certain sense a consequence of the conciliatory politics toward Slıia
and Zoroastrians adopted in Khurasan since the days of Abü Musliın, one of
the Ieaders of the Abbasid revolution. 101 The Ieader of tlıe Persian Khurramite in
Azerbaijan could assert the independence of the region of Badhdh between 816
and 838. There were also uprisings ofthe Klıurranıite in lşfalıan and Fars during
this period.
Finally, we must mention the focus of'Alid rebellioıı in south lraq and Yemen,
and even the election ofan anti-caliplı in Yemen and I;fijaz. ıo2
Tayeb El Hibri has recently suınınarized the situatioıı thus:

Wlıeıı al-Ma 'nıüıı begaıı tlıe ııew plıase of his nıle fronı Baglıdad, oııly tlıe eastern
provinces oftlıe eınpire were politically stable. Nearly ali tlıe otlıers had lapsed,
in varying degrees of autonomy, fronı 'Abbasid nıle. Egypt had broken up iııto
two districts ruled by competing commanders, 'UbaydAllah ibıı al-Sariyy in the
soutlı and 'AJT al-Jarawiyy in the north. Syria had fallen to loca! tribal rivalries in
whiclı a QaysT stroııgman, 'Abd Allah ibn Baylıas, emerged as a leader.AI-JazTra
had fallen under the sway ofanother ambitious Qaysi chief, Naşr ibn Shabath al­
'Uqaylr, while Yemen driftecl under various 'Alici rebellions, first led by IbrahTm
ibn Müsa ibn Ja'far al-Şadiq in 199 -202/814-8 l 7, and later resumed by another
'Alici rebel, 'Abd al-Rabman ibn Abmad, in 206/821 . Most dangerous of ali
was the heterodox movement of Babak al-Khurrami, who, starting in 201/81 6 ,
took control ofthe mountainous region ofAzerbaijan aııdArmenia and declared
an open war against Islam and Arab rule. Reuııifying these diverse provinces
demanded a kind of military force tlıat was not available to al-Ma'mün at
the time, so for the next decade he used a mix of diplomacy and incremented
conquest to restore his control ofthe empire.103

Thus the caliphate seeıns to have lost control over its western teITitories from
the beginning ofthe ninth centuıy. Ma'mün must have been aware ofthe danger
and also ofthe' deals the Byzantines could eventually make with loca! powers to
the detriment of the caliphate, as had already happened with the Aghlabids and

10° Cobb (200 I) aııd Humphreys (2011 ) �28-35.

ıoı For this defiııition see Amoretti (19 75) 503-19, esp. 503. See further Yarshater
(1983), Madelung (1986) and (1988)1 -1 2 . See also Clıapter9.
102 See a detailed account in TabarT 111.987-996, trans. Boswortlı (1987)28-39.
111.1 Hibri(20 l1 )286-7 .
212 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeoplıi/os cıııd ılıe Ecısı. 829-842

was even atteınpted with Naşr ibn Shabath. How dangerous the situation could
turn out to be for Bnghdad if these contacts continued is ınade evident by the
pact established between the Khurramites and the Byzantines during the reign of
Theophilos, as we saw in Chapters 9-11.
Accordingly, the caliph, whose main purpose was the unification ofthe caliphate
and recentralization ofthe po\ver, 10• may have decided to support the usurpation of
Thomas as a way to solve two problems at once. First, he kept the Byzantines busy
facing the invasion ofa usurper who had ınany supporters in Anatolia. Second, he
could diveıi the forces ofthe peripheral regions, resistant to the power ofBaghdad,
towards the traditional Christian foe: as always, and most prominently in the early
pimse oflslanı, ıos the process ofstate integration progressed thanks to the revenues
obtained from war spoils. This perhaps explains the presence ofso many Muslims
from ali over the em pire in Thomas' arıny (see above in section l 3.2). That this was
a conscious policy ofMa'nıün is nıade evident by the case ofthe capture ofCrete
by Andalusians and other Muslims who had been occupying Alexandria until then
and did not recognize Abbasid suzerainty: when the caliph's amıies took the city,
he sent nıost of them to Crete (see above in section 13.3 ). it is alsa significant that
Thonıas' rebellion, undoubtedly backed by the caliph, as we have seen, would not
have been possible without a siınultaneous understanding with the loca[ ruler Naşr
ibn Shabath. Only sonıe kind of agreement between the local rulers of Syria and
Ma'mün himself could have allowed Thomas to proceed against Constantinople.
in a ceıiain sense Ma'mün "delegated" paıiicipation in the military expedition
of Thomas to loca! forces. In fact, it was customary for him to "hire out" such
enterprises to private adventurers, discharging the central govemment of any
liability for them. This process has been appropriately described by Hugh Kennedy
when referring to the failed campaigns ofMa'mün against the rebellion ofBabak
at Azerbaijan and their causes. The !ast campaign took place in 828 and as it ended
again in failure, there were no more attempts to subdue Babak until Mu'taşim's
reign. In Kennedy's words:

The defeat and death ofMuhammad b. Humayd [in 828 by Babak] meant the end
of any attempt byMa' mün 's govemment to subdue Babak, and the area seems to
have relapsed into anarchy untilMu'taşim began to take determined measures.
But the whole affair is of interest for a number of reasons. lt shows once again
how limited Islamic penetration was in some areas, particularly mountain areas
nominally included in the caliphate, and how these areas could retain their
autonomy long after the "conquest". lt also shows the military weakness of
Ma'mün's government, and the failure to raise a reliable standing anny, like the

104 Hibri (1999) 126-32 for the political strategies ofMa'mün since he came to power.
105 See Robinsoıı (2011b) 199-201 and, more generally, Donner (1981). For the
partisans ofwar agaiııst Byzantium as a separate party at tlıe Abbasid couıt that opposed
the interests of the "traders", see Clıapter 18.1.
 !ııvasioıı ar Cil'i! /Yar'! Tlıoıııas ıhe Slav wıd tlıe Arabs 213

Klıurasaniya and abııa •ıor, of previous generations. To get round this problem,
Ma'mün began to adopt the expedient ofmaking bargains witlı military leaders.
Both Zurayq and Muhammad ibn Huınayd raised their own armies at tlıeir own
expeııse to figlıt Babak. They were very different men - Zurayq was a rogue and
a fraud while Muhammad was a coııscientious and determined soldier, related to
the great Qahtaba family - but they had a coınmon objective. They both hoped
to raise and lead arınies to take over this potentially very valuable province.
Here, tlıey could have established theınselves aııd their followers as rich, almost
independent priııces. These "private enterprise" ınilitaıy expeditions were a far
cry froın the organised caınpaigns of early Abbasid tiınes, and they boded ili
for the future of the caliphate. The most iınportant change was not so much
in recnıitment of leadership ... but in the ınatter of paynıent. Early Abbasid
arnıies were paid by the administration from revenue raised by taxation; in the
Azerbaijan campaigns, by coııtrast, the leaders were entrnsted with a province
to exploit as they wished. The govemınent had tost direct coııtrol over taxation
and salaries and with it a large measure ofits authorily. 1117

Be this as it may, it was after the enci of the civil' war in the caliphate in 819
tlıat Ma'ınün slowly started the process of regaining control of soıne territories.
it is perhaps not nıere chance that the first person to fail was Naşr ibn Shabath,
defeated by 'Abdallah ibn Tahir in 824 and brought to Baghdad, in the presence
of Ma'mün in May 825.ıos lmmediately afteıwards, Egypt submitted once more
to Ma'mün. The caliph, who had first appointed both of the rebels governors to
the areas they controlled, as he could not depose them, finally sent an army under
the command of 'Abdallah ibn Tahir, who defeated them in 826 and put the land
under Abbasid rule. 109 Nevertheless, the region remained turbulent and the Copts
rebelled against the caliph in the delta region, being defeated in 832. 110 It was only
Mu'tasim, the brother ofMa'mün and heir of the caliphate, who finally succeeded
in defeating them in 837.
In 827 the invasion of Sicily by the Aghlabids took place, an event that is
usually connected with the rebellion of the tounnarches Euphemios against the
Byzantine governor and thus interpreted in loca! terms by mpdem historians. 111
Nevertheless, the coincidence with other events we are considering here strikes
the attentive scholar. In a sense, Thomas' position is very similar to that of the

106
Kennedy (1981) 104: "The term is short of abna'al-dawla or 'sons of the state'
and it seems to be used by the new generations ofKhurasanis, whose fathers had settled in
Baghdad after the revolution and who now regarded the city as their home." They were the
main supporters ofAınTn and the Baghdadis against Ma'ınün until 819.
107 Kennedy (1981) 173-4.
ıos TabarT IIl. !067-74, trans. Bosworth (1987) 138-46.
109
TabarT III.l 086-92, trans. Boswortlı (1987) 159-66.
110
lbn Mufarrij, Histoı:v of ılıe patriarchs, 486-502.
111
For a short summaıy of the events see Treadgold ( 1988) 249-55.
214 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeop/ıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 829-841

conteınporary rebel Euphenıios, insofar as both gained the support of loca! Arab
rulers, who were only in theory subjects of the Abbasids. Besides, both Thomas
and Euphemios proclaimed themselves emperors and their troops fought against
the Byzantines along with Arab troops. Is this just a coincidence?
After his arrival in Baghdad in 819, Ma'mün seems to have laid the foundation
for a slow process of recovery of the caliphal authority in the west, highly
necessary after so many years of the caliph 's absence in the distant east. The end
of the process nıay be signalled in 828-829 by the appointınent of his brother
Mu'taşim as govemor of Syria and Egypt and of his son 'Abbas as govemor of
JazTra, the frontier regions (thughür) and the defensive fortress ('awaşim). A direct
offensive against Byzantium would inevitably follow. We will deal with this in the
next chapter.
 Chapter 14
Campaigning in· Cilicia and Cappadocia
in 830-833

14.1 Ma'mün's invasion of Cappadocia in 830

Ma'mün invaded Byzantine territoıy in the summer of 830, forınally breaking a

peace agreement between the caliphate and the empire that, at least theoretically,
had been in force since the reign ofhis father Harün al-RashTd. 1 In fact, as we saw
in Chapter 13, the involvement of the caliph in the so-called civil war had meant
that hostilities between the two main powers in the region actually began in 819.
Nonetheless, the year 830 ınarked the first time in 20 years that the Muslinı caliph
personally leci a summer expedition.against tlıe Byzantines.
The campaign was ambitious. Two arınies entered the empire by two different
routes. The first contingent moved into south Cappadocia from Tarsos tlırough the
Cilician Gates and was leci personally by the caliph. TabarT is our main source for
this. 2 Apparently Ma'ınün took the northern route on entering Byzantine territoıy,
bypassed Tyana, which is not mentioned by theArab historian, and first seized the
fortress ofMajida, to which most ofthe population ofTyana_had probably moved
permanently by then (see Map 2). Koron (Qurra) was the next stronghold taken by
the Muslim anny. T his was at the time the military headquarters öfCappadocia and
probably the administrative capital ofthe district,3 which explains why it became
the final target ofMa'mün's expedition, for the caliph did not advance fürther into
Byzantine territory after taking it. Important cities !ilce Tyana or Kaisareia had
lost their economic importance since they were easily reached places frequently
raided by the Arabs, so that the administrative centres moved away from them to
well-fortified positions like Koron whereas fortress settlements like Majida were
numerous and sheltered the urban population.4
From Koron (or Majida) Ma'mün dispatchedAshinas to the north(east) to take
the fortress of Sundus (modern Soganli), and 'Ujayf and Ja'far al-Khayyat to the

1 He had set out from Baghdad in March 830, ifwe give credence to TabarT III.l 102,
trans. Bosworth (1987) 184. This undoubtedly means tlıat the preparations for a campaign
into Byzantine teJTitory took much time, for the caliph probably assembled the troops
during his march and prepared the strategy for the offensive in Syria.
2 TabarT III.1103, trans. Bosworth (1987) 185-6.
3 Cappadocia was already a theme by the time, as recently argued by Metivier (2008)
443-8.
4
Hal don aııd Keıınedy ( l 980) 86-98.
216 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeop/ıilos aml ılıe Eası, 829-842

northwest to take the fortress of Sinan. Atler both detachments had accomplished
their mission Ma 'nıün retired again to the south.
The route followed by the second army, led by 'Abbas, Ma'mün's son, is not
so we\l detailed in the sources. Tabarı says that 'Abbas accompanied his father
westwards just until they reached Mopsuestia (Maşşışa). Then he departed for
Melitene. Tabarı says nothing of the ınovements 'Abbas made after reaching
this point, but it is probable that he entered the Byzantine frontier crossing the
Antitaurus range through the passes ofAdata or Melitene.5 Manuel the Annenian
accompanied the army of 'Abbas on this occasion.6 After they both plundered
some Byzantine fortresses whose names are not given by the sources, Manuel
betrayed 'Abbas and fled to the Byzantines. 7 The exact point ofhis flight is open
to debate. Ya'qübı says that the caliph destroyed the city ofAnkyra and "Manuel
the patrician fled from there". 8 This information is probleınatic. To begin with, the
capture ofa ınajor city like Ankyra is unrecorded by the rest ofthe sources, which
on the contrary detail a number ofminor strongholds and fortresses in Cappadocia
taken by the Arab forces. üne would expect a greater emphasis on the taking of
Ankyra by the Arab sources if this had taken place, for the other places named
were less important. Accordingly, one suspects that the reference to Ankyra in
Ya'qübı is mistaken, either an anticipation ofthe capture ofthe city in 838 or as a
result ofconfusion with a city ofsiınilar name, less known to the historian. lf we
consider the second option, then Koron/Qurra would be the most likely candidate.9
This fits in well with infonnation preserved in Genesios recording that Manuel's
flight took place "in the fortress that is called Gerön" (ıı:poç -ı:6 1ı:oAixvwv ö fepffiv
sıceıô.:rı-ı:o). ıo Warren Treadgold has suggested that the Gerön of Genesios was the
Koron/Qurra mentioned in Tabarı. 11 However, were this identification correct,
then 'Abbas would have passed by the fortress of Koron before it was taken by
the caliph's army, which does not rnake much sense, or even after, which leaves
unexplained why 'Abbas should have rnarched deep into tlıis area of Cappadocia
after his father the caliph had already campaigned there. Moreover, we do not even

5 He could even have reached Charsianon, which Ibn Qutayba mentions among the
fortresses laken by Ma'mün in 830. See the passage in Vasiliev (1935) 267 and below in
section 14.2 for the problems conceming a campaign against Charsianon.
6
Th. Cont. III.26 (119.23-120.19), Gen. III.17 (51.33-43) and Log. (A) Theop/ıilos
[130] 19-2 l (222.132-223.152). See also Chapter 5.3-5 for the exile ofManuel among the
Arabs.
7 TabarI III.l 103, trans. Bosworth (1987) I 86 only mentions that Manuel was with
'Abbas as both met Ma'mün in the city ofRa's al 'Ayn when the caliph was on his way to
Cilicia. However, lbn Tayfür 264, trans. Vasiliev (1935) 392 has provided us with a more
detailed account where it is expressly said that Mamıel accompanied 'Abbas in his raids
into Byzantine territory and finally betrayed him and passed onto the empire.
8
Ya'qubI vol. 2, 567, trans. Vasiliev (1935) 272.
9
Treadgold (1988) 433, note 377.
111 Gen. 111.17 (51.36-37).
11 Treadgold ( 1988) 433, note 378.
 Caıııpaigııiııg in Ci/icia and Cappadocia iıı 830-833 217

Rodandos

Mountains

a I n s

o Anazarbe (831) !
..o 0
� Eirenoupolis (831)
�o"'

Map2 Routes ofthe campaigns of 830, 831, 832 and 833 with the names
ofthe places involved
218 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilas aııd tlıe Eası, 829-842

know whether 'Abbas really entered Byzantine territory in 830 or campaigned in

the area north of Melitene. 12 That he entered into Cappadocia is to be deduced
from the indication of Ibn Tayfür that 'Abbas left Byzantine territory through the
pass ofAdata. 13 This points to sonıe kind ofproblem forcing 'Abbas to come back
to the caliphate.
It is likely that Manuel's deseıtion played some role in the further development
ofthe campaign, although we are not able to detennine the movements ofthe Arab
army led by the son of the caliph with any greater precision. The silence of the
Arab sources about the failure ofthe expedition of'Abbas in 830 has also rendered
it difficult to assess its impact on the contingent led by Ma'mün himself and then
moving to south Cappadocia. It could be that the caliph was even forced to put an
end prenıaturely to his campaign due to Manuel's flight to the Byzantines.

14.2 T heophilos' First Triumph and his Campaign in Cilicia in 831

The dating oftlıe first triumphal caınpaign ofTheophilos in the east is connected
with sonıe chronological problems that are again diffici.ılt to disentangle due to
the scarce and confused accounts at .our disposal. We know the carnpaign mainly
through the so-called Appendix ad libruın primııın of the Boole of Cereınonies,
edited by John Haldon as a separate text. 14 We find there an accurate protocol of
the triumphal entry and subsequent festivities Theophilos held in Constantinople
when he retumed from a victorious campaign against the Cilician Arabs. The title
ofthe protocol runs as follows in Haldan 's translation:

'H a.nb ı:ou qıocrcra.rnu eıcavoöoç 0aoqıiı.ou pa.crııı.emç, Ö'tE EVllCT]CiEV ıcaı:a
ıcpaı:oç ı:ouç a.ıc6 Kıı.ııciaç crı:paı:oıcaöırucra.v-raç ıcaı:' a.uı:ou Tapcriı:aç,
Moµıııouacrı:iı:a.ç, Aöa.viı:aç, Eiprıvouıcoı.iı:aç, Ava.ÇapPirmç ıcai ı.oııcouç,
xııı.ıc'ı.oaç ıc'. 'Eıcavaı.06vı:oç ı:oivuv 0wqıiı.ou -ı:ou pcıcrıı.emç aıc6 ı:ou ıcoMµou
ı:rov a.nb Kıı.ııc[a.ç ıcaı:' a.uı:oü crı:paı:OıtEÖEucra.vı:mv Ayaprıv&v, E-yEVEı:o � ıcpoç
ı:�v pa.crıı.ıruoucrav ıc6ı.ıv dcroöoç auı:ou ı:oıauı:rı.

The retum ofthe emperorTheophilos from campaign, when he was completely

victorious over those who made war against him from Tarsos, and Mopsuestia
and Adana· and Eirenoupolis and Anazarba and others, numbering 20,000. When
the emperorTheophilos retumed from the war against the C.ilician Saracens who
campaigned against him, his entry into the imperial City was as follows. 15

12 Treadgold ( 1988) 273 suggests that the caliph's son fought against the Khurramites

in 830 with the assistance ofMamıel and his troops, but this is not warranted by the sources.
13 lbn Tayfür 264, trans. Vasiliev (1935) 392 and Keller (1908) vol. 2, 120.
ı; Haldan (1990) 146-50. For the ceremonial of triumplıs arnong the Amorians see
fvlcCormick ( 1987) 144-52.
ı; Constantine Vll, Tlıree ııwıtises 146.808-814.
 Caıııpcıigııiııg iıı Cilicicı and Cappcıdocia in 830-833 219

We are thus infornıed tlıat tlıe emperor fought Musliın troops froın Tarsos,
Mopsuestia, Adana, Eirenoupolis and Anazarba, 16 vanquished them and took
many prisoners. Ali the cities naıned here lie in Cilicia, south of tlıe Taurus range
(see Map 2), froın the westward Tarsos to the eastward Eirenoupolis, already
positioned in the ınountains preventing access to the Cilician plain froın the east.
But when could Theophilos' campaign in Cilicia have taken place?
lbn Tayfür, Tabarı and the Boole of the Sozırces coıne to mır aid since ali three
date the raid of Theophilos against the Cilician troops to HA 216 ( 18 February
831 to 6 Febnıaıy 832). The Arabic sources provide us thus with the only clue for
dating the triuınph ofTheophilos described in the Byzantine protocol, which does
not in fact provide any chronological reference. Only the mention ofa kaisar riding
next to Theophilos offers a possible hint, 17 but we are again on shaky ground, as
we do not know when Alexios Mousele, son-in-law of the emperor and the only
known kaisar in Theophilos' reign, was granted this title. Moreover, as we argued
in Chapter 7.2, Alexios could not have been kaisar at the beginning ofTheophilos'
reign. 18 We considered in Chapter 11.3 the possibility that the Persian Theophobos
was in fact the kaisar of this triumph, based to a great extent on the conclusions
about the dating we will now reach here.
The dating of the Arab sources can be accepted witlıout furtlıer questioning. it
confirms that the young emperor Theophilos was able to organize in some months
a military campaign to retaliate for the Muslim invasion of 830. But where did the
carnpaign of Theophilos actually take place? Did the emperor invade Cilicia, as
the protocol seems to imply?
Logic would suggest that we Iocate the fighting in Cilicia itself, but the text is
not explicit concerning the place. The question is complicated by a suggestion made
by Alexander Vasiliev and later modified by WaITen Treadgold, who identified
the victory of 831 with a campaign fought by Theophilos against the Muslims at
Charsianon, in the Armeniakoi theme, mentioned only by the Continuator. 19 The
passage reads as follows:

Tq"ı ô' emovn evıau-rq"ı EÇElcrt 7tO.A.lV µE,U ÔUVO.�LECOÇ 6 0e6cptA.OÇ, ıcai ıcara ro
Xapcrıavbv noAA.a eıc rfjç nporepaç viıcııç raıv 'Icr�taTJA.rraıv c'.mau0aöıaÇoµevrov
ıcai aA.aÇovı,uoµevcov, rofrcoıç cruµnAaıceiç noA.1ı.ouç re xeıpoiiraı rourolv, ımi
tı.E[av tı.aµ�O.VEl ciıç raıv nevre ıcai EtlCOüt iixpı XIA.10.ÔCOV, ıcai �IE,a VllCTJÇ A.a�mpflç
ıtpüÇ ,�V �acrttı.E1JOUCTUV enavepxeraı.

16 For Cilicia and its cities during the Byzantine period see Hild and Hellenkemper
(1990).
17 Constantinc VII, Three treatises 148.840-44.
18 More arguments for this supposition in Signes Codofier ( 1995) 45 l-3;wlıere I refute
Treadgold (1988) 331-2, who argued that the protocol ofthe triumph of831 mistakenly
included a reference to a kaisar based on a parallel protocol of837.
1" Vasiliev ( 1935) vol. 1, l 04-5 aııd Treadgold ( 1988) 275 aııd particularly 434, note
380.
220 T/ıc Emperor T/ıeoplıi!os cmd ılıe Eası, 829-842

The followiııg year Theophilus weııt out agaiıı with a force, and engaging at
Charsianoıı tlıe Ismaelites, who had grown very bold and boastful on account of
their earlier victory, he worsted nıany of them and took booty anıounting to five­
aııd-tweııty thousand, aııd witlı spleııdid victory he retumed to the imperial city.20

This passage introduces a lengthy account of the fight in the hippodrome

at Constantinople between one of the Muslim prisoners of war and Theodore
Krateros, one ofthe future ınartyrs ofAınorion, who obviously defeated his rivaU 1
A hagiographic source must be presupposed.
For Vasiliev, since tlıe protocol ofthe triumph refers to a caınpaign in Cilicia,
the reference to Charsianon must be to a secondary expedition of another
detachrnent ofTheophilos' army during the same campaign of831. Treadgold for
his part thought that the emperor could have cornpletely vanquished an army of
Cilician Muslims at Charsianon (in the An11eniakoi theme), that is, that the Arabs
came.fi-oın Cilicia but the fight actually took place on Byzantine teıTitory.
The identification ofthe Cilicia and Charsianon campaigns is further favoured
by the fact that the emperor is said to have taken ınany prisoners in both of them:
20,000 in the protocol and 25,000 in the Continuator. Both campaigns also ended
with a triumph in Constantinople. However, tlıere are some problems with the
identification of the campaign of831 with tlıe expedition in Clıarsianon.22
First of ali, while we could understand the text to indicate that the encounter
lıappened "at Charsianon" (by linking Ka.-ca 1:0 Xa.pcna.vov with (J1)�t1t1ı.a.ıcı::iç), it is
also possible to understand the text of the Continuator in the sense that "since the
Isınaelites had grown very bold and boastful against Charsianon on account of
their earlier victory" (by linking ıca.-ca 1:0 Xapcrıa.vov with cbı:a.u0a.oıa.Ço�unırov and
a1ı.a.Çovıruoµtvrov),23 the emperor engaged in combat with them. If we accept this
second possibility, the text could indeed refer to a previous attack ofthe Muslims,
probably coming from the area of Melitene, against the border region around
Charsianon. A retaliatoıy campaign ofTheophilos against these attacks could then
be identified with the campaign of 837, where the emperor plundered Sozopetra
and defeated the Melitenians in the battlefield, forcing them to pay tribute to
Byzantium. However, Ibn Qutayba, an Arab historian of the second half of the
ninth century, mentions that Ma'mün took Charsianon in 830. Could the text ofthe

20
Th. Cont. III.23 ( 114.17-22).
21
For a commentary on this episode see Chapter 8.2.
22
For arguments against Treadgold's identification see Signes Codofier ( 1995) 501-2.
23
The punctuation in the manuscript, preserved by the editors, appears to favour this
!ast rendering ofthe text, for there is no break or pause before rcona. The genitive absolute
r&v 'lcrµaıııı.ır&v arcau0a&ıaÇo�tevrov ıcai &.ıı.aÇovımo�uivrov seems also to demand some
kind ofspatial specification. Moreover, the dative roı'.ıroıc;, which refers to r&v 'Icrµaıııı.ır&v
aııd is governed by the participle O'U�mıı.aıcEic;, introduces a clear break with the previous
senteııce. However, the possibility tlıat the ıııilitary encounter lıappened at Charsianoıı ımıst
not be completely discarded, for tlıe autlıor hastily summarizes his source:
 Caıııpaigniııg in Cilicia and Cappadocia in 830-833 221

Continuator somelıow refer to tlıe previous victory as being against Charsianon?".ı

Ifwe iııterpret the passage in this way, tlıen tlıe retaliatory canıpaigıı ofTlıeoplıilos
could have taken place in 831, but without lıaving Charsianon as a target. in any
case, the fact remains that tlıe Continuator indicates that tlıe lsnıaelites wlıo fought
Theophilos at Clıarsianon had grown veıy bold and boastful "on account of their
earlier victoıy" (tK rtjç rrportpaç v(ıcııç), so that a Muslinı victory ımıst precede the
triumph unless we consider that the Continuator added this detail just to link his
account with the previous narrative (see below).
it seenıs even nıore problenıatic to place on Byzantine teITitory what seems to
have been a brilliant victory ofTheophilos against the Muslinıs, so brilliant that it
was recorded and even taken as a model as ]ate as in the reign ofConstantine VII.
Could a defeat of invaders or raiders on Byzantine soil at Charsianon have been
sufficient occasion for a triumplı? Would we not ratlıer lıave expected a plundering
offoreign cities that provided the spoils to be shown on tlıe streets ofthe capital?25
Although the wording of the Greek text is not especially clear, I would argue
that Treadgold pusbes his argunıent too far when he suggests that nowhere in
the text is it saicl tlıat the war was fouglıt in Cilicia. Strictly speaking he could be
right, as the text seenıs to say that Tlieoplıilos defeated Arabs comingfi-oın Cilicia.
However, it seeıııs strange that the text mentioned only tlıe provenance of the
troops without refereııce to the combat zone whiclı !ay furtlıer away, as Treadgold
supposes to have been the case. Moreover, an attack of the Cilician Muslinıs
against Byzantiunı would most probably have set off fronı the Cilician Gates, as
did the inroads of Ma'nıün in 830 and again in 832, as we will see further in this
chapter. And, as Sophie Metivier puts it in a recent study, Charsianon provided
no help for anyone attempting to occupy the south of Cappadocia, except for its
fünction of rear defence.26 Accordiııgly, Treadgold makes the Cilicians cross the
· frontier by the pass ofAdata, in Syria and further east, a route that led directly to
Charsianon and Sebasteia. However, in this case one would have expected the
presence ofSyrian troops (Melitenians) in the Muslinı army. 27
The high nunıbers ofprisoners given in both accounts, 20,000 in the protocol
and 25,000 in the "Charsianon" campaign, are worth considering in this connection.
Ifthese numbers refer to soldiers captured during the war, they are indeed too high

2.ı
See the translation ofthe passage oflbn Qutayba in Vasiliev (1935) 267.
25
Although the protocol fqcuses on the movements of the emperor, it mentions also
the spoils that were paraded on this occasion along with the prisoners: roı'ıç oscrµiouç ıcai ı:a
ıı.aqıupa t0pıaµpwcrav, Haldan (1990) 150, lines 877-8.
26
Metivier (2008) 449-50. For the location ofCharsianon see Beldiceanu-Steinherr
(1981) and Hild and Restle (1981) 163-5.
27
Strictly speaking the text does not say that Theophilos defeated the invaders "when
they were campaigning (crrparoıı:sosuovı:aç) against him", but that he defeated the Muslim
Cilicians "who had campaigned (crı:paı:oırsowcravı:cı.ç) against him", meaning perhaps that
they had previoııs{v attacked or even used la attack the Byzantine border: Tlıeophilos would
have punislıed theın with a retaliatory expedition deep iııto Cilicia .
222 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos emel tlıe Eası, 819-842

considering that this was well above the average ofthe armies ofthe period, which
oııly exceptionally reached these dimensions.28 But they perhaps also included
civilians taken as booty when plundering the enemy's ten-itoıy and countryside.
Michael the Syrian notes that Theophilos sent to the ernpire in 837 ali the captives
taken in Sozopetra, Annenia and the region of Melitene. His account makes it
clear that the civilian population was enslaved.29 Tabarı mentions that at Sozopetra
alone over a thousand women were enslaved.30 We are thus obliged to suppose
that the imperiı:ıl ı:ırmies ravı:ıged Arab territory in both cases. This would mean
not only that Theophilos entered Cilicia, but also that a campaign "in Charsianon"
does not ınake sense either, provided of course that we accept that the emperor
returned witlı 25,000 prisoners.
Finally, tlıe Arab sources seem to imply that the emperor took at least some of
tlıe Cilician cities. Jbn Tayfur and Tabarı speak ofa "slaughter of people ofTarsos
and Mopsuestia (Maşşışa)",31 but the anonymous Book of t/ıe Sources stresses
also tlıat the emperor entered Cilician teITitoıy.32 Certainly, it seems unlikely that
Theophilos took ali the Cilician cities named in the protocol, for they were important
strongholds, which constituted the vanguard ofthe defences ofthe caliphate against
Byzantium, the so-called "frontier regions" or thughür organized by Harun al­
Rashıd.33 In fa.et, TabarT tells us that in HA 213 (22 March 828 to I O March 829)
Ma'mün "appointed his son 'Abbas ibn al-Ma'mün as governor over the JazTra,
the frontier regions (thughür) and the defensive fortresses ('awaşim)".34 Probably
Ma'mün's first campaign of830 was the natura! consequence ofthe appointment of
his son as governor of the frontier districts and made manifest his will ofreassuming
campaigns in the west against Byzantium. He must therefore have paid some
attention to the fortification ofthe Cilician cities in the years 828-830. Some ofthe
cities named in the Byzantine protocol, especially Eirenoupolis, lay in the mountains
ofeastern Cilicia, a region where the emperor would probably not have ventured.
Nevertheless, as early as during the reign of Nikephoros I, the Byzantines
had devastated the areas of Mopsuestia and Anazarba and even taken captives at
Tarsos.35 And Tarsos, known in the tenth century for its imposing double-walls,

28 See Haldon (1999) 101-3 and (2006) B2-4. Obviously the size ofthe annies was
directly related to the logistics of the military expeditions and the numbers ofthe cavalry
contingents, on which again Haldan ( 1999) 163-74 and (2006).
29 Michel the Syrian 531-3, trans. Chabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 89.
30
TabarT III.1234, trans. Bosworth (1991) 93.
31 TabarT III.1104, trans. Bosworth (1987) 187; Ibn Tayfilr I.264, trans. Vasiliev
(1935) 392. [bn al-AthTr and Ibn Miskawayh are dependent on TabarT.
32 Vasiliev (1935) 104, note 1, but this important point is not rendered conveniently
in the translation at p. 370.
33
Sivers ( l 982) 76-7.
34 TabarT Hl.l l 00, trans. Bosworth (1987) 178.
35 Mich. Syr. 488-9, trans. Chabot (1889-1905) vol. 3, 16, dating the campaign to
1115 of tlıe Seleucian era AD 804. This expedition motivated a retaliatory campaign of
Harün al-RashTd, who advancecl as far as Herakleia.
 Cw11pcıig11iııg iıı Cilicia aııd Cappadocia iıı 830-833 223

had changed sides in the years before and had probably been in Byzantine hands
for ıııany years. 36The Musliın population of Cilicia remained a nıinority anıong
the Christians, who could have supported the Byzantine raids. 37 it is therefore
not altogether unlikely that the Byzantine eınperor raided Cilicia after the first
canıpaign ofMa'mün and took some Muslim garrisons by surprise.
A !ast point to be considered in establishing a date for the Charsianon caınpaign
is the fact that its account is introduced by the Continuator with the indication
that the emperor took the field "in the year following" (TQ) o' Eırt6vn EVtatHQ))
another caınpaign, an account of which inıınediately precedes our text. in this
other case Theophilos fought a fıerce battle against Muslim troops comnıanded
by two otherwise unknown generals, named lbrahim ('Ippaıı�ı) and Abuzachar
(APouÇax,ap). Both the Persian leader Theophobos and the domestikos Manuel
fought at tlıe side of tlıe emperor, we are tolcl, but whereas Manuel took flight
before tlıe troops of Abuzachar,Theophobos was able to rescue the emperor, who
remained surrounded by the eneınies on the top of a lıill.38Tlıis account has always
been rightly identifıed with the battle of Anzes of 838, whereTheophilos, being
persecuted by the enenıy, took refuge on a hill wilh a few of his men and was
alnıost captured by the Arabs wlıo surrounded lıinı, altlıough he fınally succeeded
in opening a breach in their lines and escaping (see Chapter 8.2). 39 This means
that a campaign following that of 838 shoulcl accordingly be clated at the earliest
to 839. However, since no triumphs ofTheophilos took place after the defeat of
Amorion in 838, we ınust conclude that the Continuator mistakenly placed the
account of the victorious campaign of Theophilos "in the year following" this
previous campaign of 838. He probably made some decluction about the relative
chronology of the events when trying to put in order his undated sources. This
is by no means an uncommon procedure of this author, who systematically tried
to arrange chronologically the undated accounts of his sources.40 In this case, he
did not notice that the account of the battle against Ibrahim and Abuzachar was
a double of the battle of Anzes he reported later on in his work. He accordingly
put it at the beginning ofTheophilos' reign, for he perhaps did not have any other
sources at his disposal about the first campaign of Ma'mün. We rnust take into
account the fact that most of the sources in which Theophobos and Manuel are
protagonists (this is the case for the campaign against Jbrahim and Abuzachar)
were taken from biographic or hagiographic sources without a precise dating.
We cannot therefore conclude anything positive about the victorious "Charsianon"
campaign of Theophilos. Although I would tenci to place it later in his reign and
even identify it with the tıiumph of 837, one should not exclude the possibility of
identifying it with the victory of 831, as Vasiliev andTreadgold argued. Anyway, the

36 Bosworth (1992) 271-4.

37
Sivers (1982) 75-6.
38 Th. Cont. III.22 (112.22-114. 16).
)'' See also Signes Codofier (2013a).
4" Signes Cocloi'ier( 1995) 669.
114 Tlıe Eıııpeıvr T/ıeop/ıilos aııd t/ıe Eası. 829-842

fact that it is presented by the Continuator as the second campaign ofTheophilos' reign
is no valid argumcnt, since the cmnpaign previously mentioned is probably dated to
838. That the Continuator must have had some infon11ation about Theophilos' major
triumph in 831 is alsa speculative, particularly considering that this episode is absent
froın Genesios. For a dating of831 we should interpret the text in the sense that the
fight took place in or around "Charsianon", for this could have been the scenario only
in Theophilos' early campaıgns against Ma'mün: later campaigns against Mu'taşim
between 834 and 837 were fought outside the Byzantine borders. Only ifwe suppose
that in the Continuator's source (without any doubt a hagiographic text: Theodore
Krateros is the protagonist ofthe history) some kind ofconfusion took place between
Charsianon (Xapcnav6v) and the region of Chorzane (XopÇa.vı::) or Chorzianene
(XopÇıavııvıi), could a plausible explanation be found, for the imperial troops fought
in the region ofthe Khordzean/Khortziane in 837, although Theophilos defeated the
Melitenian troops to the west ofArsamosata, far away to the south (Chapter 16). But
this is mere coııjecture without any further support.
Whatever the solution, the fact remains that Theophilos won a major victory
in 831. Ma'ınün, who had perhaps underestimated the ability ofthe new emperor,
felt obliged to mount a second campaign against Byzantium. This campaign is
usually dated to the same year, 831. This dating is again not unproblematic. The
evidence ımıst be assessed in some detail.

14.3 The Dating ofMa'mün's Second Canıpaign in Cappadocia

The three Arab historians who date the campaign of Theophilos against the
Cilicians to HA 216 link it to a retaliatory expedition supposedly directed by the
caliph Ma'mün the same year against several fortresses ofsouth Cappadocia. This
campaign was apparently well organized, for Ma'mün was accompanied by his
son 'Abbas and his brother and successor Abü Is!Jaq (the future caliph Mu'taşim),
who cornmanded their own troops and followed different routes while plundering
Cappadocia. Here is Tabarı's account in the English translation by Bosworth:

Ma 'mün s returıı to tlıe land of the Byzantines. There are varying reports about
this. !t is said, the reason far it was that Ma'mün received reports about the
king ofByzantium's slaughter of people ofTarsos and Maşşışah- according to
what has been mentioned, amounting to sixteen hundred in ali. When he got this
news, he set off on an expedition till he entered the land of the Byzantines on
Monday, the nineteenth of Jumada I of this year, and he remained there till the
middle of Sha'ban. But it is alsa said that the reason far it was that Theophilos
son ofMichael wrote to Ma'mün and put his own name first in his letter. When
the letter reached Ma'mün, he did not read it, and set off far the land of the
Byzantines. The envoys ofTheophilos, son ofMichael, met him at Adana, and
Tlıeoplıilos sent along to Ma'mün five hundred Muslinı captives.
 Campcıigııiııg in Cilicia and Cappadocia in 830-833 225

Wlıeıı Ma'nıüıı eııtered tlıe Byzantine lancls, he lıalted befon:: An\Tglıü aııd
besiegecl it, ancl İls garrison nıarchecl out to lıinı after securing peace ternıs
(witlıout figlıting). Ma'nıün tlıen proceedecl to Heraklia, and its garrison
nıarchecl out to hinı after securing peace terms. 1-Ie sent offlıis brotlıer Abü lsbaq,
wlıo capturecl tlıirty fortresses and subterraneaıı stronglıolds ancl storelıouses
[Matiimir] and lıe sent offfronı Tuwanalı Yabya ibn Aklıtaın, wlıo raicled, killed,
burned, seizecl and enslavecl captives, ancl lıe returnecl to tlıe main bocly of tlıe
army. Ma'nıün next set offtowards Kaysünı, ancl renıained tlıere for two or tlıree
clays aııcl tlıen turneci bade to Danıascus.41

The accounts of Jbn Tayfür and of the Book of the Sources are much more
succinct, although the latter has some important discrepancies concerning
Ma'm[ın's route in Byzantine Cappadocia and also includes a very significant
addition, for it says that the arnıy of' Abbas met the Byzantine troops comnıanded
by the eınperor Theophi los and defeated them, taking considerable booty:

This year al 'Abbas, son of Ma' nıüıı, leci an expedition agaiııst the Oreele
emperor. Tlıey had a el aslı and God nıade tlıe tyraııt flee. 'Abbas defeated his
arnıy and took a big booty.42

This point is also mentioned by Ya'qübT, who reduces his account of the
campaign of HA 216 to the pillaging of the MatamTr by Ma'mün and the defeat of
Theophilos by his son 'Abbas.43
Ali told, one gets the impression that something does not fit with the sequence
of events. Does it really make sense that Theophilos, after having defeated the
Muslims in Cilicia in the spring of 831, hurried to the capital in order to celebrate
a triumph, knowing that the caliph could coıne after him, and invade Byzantine
territory? What was the point for the emperor in making such a hasty triuınph in
Constantinople, especially considering that he was apparently forced to ınarch
iınmediately against the caliph again and even to risk, as appears to have happened,
a defeat at the hands of his son 'Abbas?
Such a developınent of events appears unlikely. Indeed, if Theophilos ended
his campaign in Cilicia in late spring, though that would not allow him sufficient
time to reach ali the major Cilician cities that we are told were involved in the
raid, the caliph might have time enough to assemble his troops after the riews
of the Cilician raid of Theophilos reached him in Baghdad and to march at ali
speed against the empire in order to cross the frontier, say, about the middle of the
summer. But what about Theophilos? When he became acquainted with the arrival
of the caliph at the frontier he had pillaged about two months earlier, the sumıner
would have been approaching its end. In theory he could have set off again froın

41
TabarT III. l l 04, trans. Bosworth (1987) 187-8. See also Vasiliev (1935) 288-9.
42
Vasiliev (1935) 371.
;.ı Vasiliev ( 1935) 272.
116 Tlıe Eıııpuror Tlıeııp/ıilos aııd ılıe Eası, 829-842

Constantinople at this time and have reached the frontier at the beginning of
autumn, in order lo meet tlıe retiring forces of the caliph in a !ast battle. in fact, lbn
Tayfür and TabarT say that the caliph ·'renıained there (in Byzantii1e lands) till the
middle ofSha'ban". that is to say, until the enci ofSepteınber and the beginning of
October. However, caınpaigning over such large distances needs time to prepare,
to say nothing of money, logistics and strategy. Such rapid moves as are implied
in the above sketch appear highly suspect. it is moreover absolutely unheard offor
a Byzantine emperor to campaign twice the saıne year in the same place - and to
celebrate a triumph in belween!��
it is therefore advisable to review the evidence provided by the Arab sources,
for another sequence of events ınay be arguable. The first point we should notice
is that the victorious caınpaign of Theophilos against the Cilicians is not dated
in the Arab sources, but only mentioned as the direct cause of Ma'mün's second
canıpaign against the Byzantines, the first one dating to HA 215. Nowhere in
the Arab sources is it expressly said that this second campaign of Ma'mün took
place in the same year as the one led by Theophilos. As we have already seen, it
would seeın advisable to place the campaign ofTheophilos in the year before the
retaliatory expedition of Ma'mün against Cappadocia in order to create a more
appropriate tiınefraıne.
it is however impossible to date the first campaign of Theophilos to the year
830, since in this year, which corresponds approxirnately to HA 215 (28 February
830 to 17 February 831), Ma'nıün directed his first expedition against Byzantiuın,
as we have seen. Would it be possible to date the second campaign of Ma'mün
in south Cappadocia against Tyana, Herakleia and the Mata.mır to HA 217 (7
February 832 to 26 January 833)? There is sonıe evidence that suggests this could
be the right option.
First of ali we ımıst take into account that the second caınpaign of Ma'mün
against Byzantiuın is dated to HA 216 because ali Arab historians who mention
it included the information they found in their sources about this caınpaign under
this year. Ali three historians we are considering here, namely Ibn Tayfür, TabarT
and the Book ofthe Soıırces, worked in the cut-and-paste method characteristic of
the annalists or chronographers,45 that is to say, selected their material froın the
available sources and itemized it under the corresponding year. The account ofa
year in these three historians is mostly the sequence ofa series of unrelated events.
Accordingly, it is perfectly possible that a single comment taken from a source
could occasionally be inserted in the wrong year, especially when the information
provided by the source was misleading, undated.ı6 or even included a sequence of

.ı.ı This sequence of events is noııetheless the one adopted by Vasiliev ( 1935) and
Treadgold (1988) and thereafter constitutes tlıe comımınis opinio.
.ı; See Khalidi (1975) 5-6 for tlıe expression "woodcutter by niglıt" that Mas'üdT used
to describe tlıe historiaıı 's craft .
.ıı, Confusion arose wlıeıı the origiııal clatiııg of tlıe source was not nıade according to
tlıe 1-legira, as usually happenecl with Llıe olclest sources abOLıt the origiııs of lslaın: see Notlı
 Cwııpaigniııg in Cilicia and Cappcıdocia in 830-833 227

events eınbracing ınore than one year. On the other hand, we ırnısl consider alsa
that not ali the Arab chronicles oftlıe time were arranged according to Hegira, for
there were alsa caliphal chronographies organized in regnal dates. The Book of
tlıe Sources appears to be a lıybrid, where annalistic dating is interleaved within
regnal chapters.4 i As regnal years do not fit in with Hegira, this easily triggered a
one-year shift in the chronology. To guide our judgment in these cases we must
accordingly pay serious attention to the suppleınentary dating the writer provides
for each one of the items listed under a year.
That the dates provided by Ibn Tayfür are not always trustworthy is confirmed
by the chronological references provided for the campaign of HA 215 (= AD 830)
by TabarT, who relied mainly on him.48 TabarT begins his account bfthe campaign
of830 with a veıy precise dating. According to him, Ma 'ınün set out froın Baghdad
to raid the Byzantines on Saturday 27 Mubarraın of215. This corresponds exactly
with 26 March 830, which was a Saturday.49 The dating is lacking in lbn Tayfür.
However, TabarT immediately adds that "other reports say that he travelled from
Shammasiyya [a town to the north of Baghdad] to Baradan [a town on the Tigris
above Samarra] on Thursday, after the nooıı worslıip, the 24th of Mul)arram,
215".50 This second dating is not exact, since 23 March 830, which corresponds
to 24th of Mubarram, 215, was actually a Wednesday, not a Tlıursday. The source
oftlıis alternative dating is undoubtedly lbn Tayfür, wlıo refers to it exactly in tlıe
same way as TabarT but with further precision, for he says that Thursday the 24th
of Mul)arram 215 was the 24th of (the Hebrew month of) Adar.51 Moreover, Ibn
Tayfür should lıave referred rather to the month ofVeadar or Adar II, for this year
( 4950) was embolismic in the Hebrew calendar and an extra 111011th must be added.
Accordingly, tlıe reference of Ibn Tayfür is mistaken, perhaps because the author
did not make the right conversion from the Hebrew to the Islamic calendar. Tlıe
same problem appears again when lbn Tayfür mentions that Ma'mün ordered the
Byzantine fortress ofQurra to be destroyed on Sunday the 26th ofJumadaL This
date coıTesponds to 21 July830, which was a Thursday.52 TabarT repeats the wrong
dating taken from Ibn Tayfür.53
Conceming now the dating of the second campaign of Ma'mün in south
Cappadocia, TabarT expressly says that Ma'mün "entered the land of the

and Conrad (1994) 42-8. In mır case, we slıould establislı first whether the information
about the campaigns of the caliplıs was official, dependeııt on oral sources or based on a
dating different from Hegira (see below for the references to 1-Iebrew months in lbn Tayfür).
47
See Robinson (2003) 46-7 and 74-9.
48 For Ibn Tayfür see now Toorawa (2005).
49
TabarT III.1102, trans. Bosworth (1987) 184.
50 TabarT III.1102, trans. Bosworth ( 1987) 184.
51 lbn Tayfür, 262, trans. Keller (1908) vol. 2, 1 I 9 and Vasiliev ( 1935) 391.
52
lbn Tayfür, 262, trans. Keller ( 1908) vol. 2, 119 and Vasiliev ( 1935) 392.
5-' TabarT
111.1103, trans. Bosworth ( 1987) 185.
228 Tlıe E111peror Theophilos aııd ılıe Ecısı, 829-842

Byzantines on Monday, the l 9th of Jumada I of this year". 54 The 19th of Jumada
I of2 l 6 corresponds with the 4 .luly 831, but this day was actually a Tuesday, not
a Monday, as TabarT claims. The date figures alsa in the text of Ibn Tayfur, where
we can read that Ma'mün "entered the land ofthe Byzantines on Monday, the 19th
of Jumada I of the year 216".55 Again, the error, if there was one, passed thus to
TabarT from him. lf we analyse then with some attention the weekdays given by
lbn Tayfur for the days ofthe month cited in his work, we easily discover that they
do not usually fit at ali.
it is accordingly significant that lbn Tayfur dates the ending of M.a'mün 's
canıpaign in Byzantium for the year 216 "in the rniddle of Sha'ban, that is, the
24th of Elul", 56 thus giving again a Jewish date along with the Muslim one. As
we have seen, TabarT suppressed this reference to the Hebrew calendar from his
narrative, perhaps rightly, for the month of Sha'ban con-esponded to the Hebrew
Tishri, not to Elul. But the main point is that the apparently exact chronology of
lbn Tayfur for the weekdays is unreliable for these years, apparently due to an
imperfect combined use of two different calendars. Accordingly, it could be that
"the 19th of Jumada !" mentioned in lbn Tayfür did not necessarily refer to the
year 2 l 6, under which this piece of narrative was frıserted, but to another year.
in particular, the year 217 would be a more likely candidate for the retaliatory
campaign ofMa'mün. Certainly; this year the 19th of Jumada I fell on a Saturday,
not a Monday as lbn Tayfur states, but this discrepancy, as we have already seen,
is not a definitive objection to mır supposition considering the frequent slips of
this historian regarding weekdays.57 More important, the circumstance that Ibn
Tayfür expressly dated to HA 216 the second Cappadocian campaign ofMa'mün
is not actually significant, since the mention of the year comes automatically from
the inclusion of the report of the campaign under the events taking place that
year. There is an unmistakable tendency in the Arab sources to pair related events
under the same year despite their diverging chronology, for the narrative unity
seems tci them more important.58 As we will see in Chapter 16, this circumstance

54 Taban III.1104, trans. Bosworth (1987) 187.

55 Ibn Tayfür, 264, trans. Keller (1908) vol. 2, 129 and Vasiliev (1935) 392-3.
56 lbn Tayfür, 264, trans. Keller ( 1908) vol. 2, 120 and Vasiliev (1935) 393.
57 It would therefore be daring to suggest any emendation of the text of Ibn Tayfür
in this passage, but some possibilities are perhaps available. So, the 19th of Jumiidii II of
the year 217, which con-esponds to 22 July 832, was actually a Monday, although this date
seems too !ate for beginning a military campaign. I think therefore that the error lies in the
weekday and is perhaps explained by the fact that the Muslim and Hebrew weeks begin on
different days.
58 Donner(1998) 141-6("Themes and lssues in the Early Islamic Narrative Tradition")
mentions "Boundary themes", including Islamic campaigns against the Byzantines, as topics
which favoured the existence of clusters of accounts which articulated historical narratives.
See ibid. 280-82 for a short characterization of the historiography of the Abbasid period
and its reworking ofthe sources according fo the organizational scheme ofthe works. See
also Robinson (2003) 40-43 ("The significance ofninth-century clıange") far the problems
 Caıııpaİg11İııg İıı C'İIİcia cıııd Cappadrıciıı İıı 830-833 229

also explains that the Arab sources date to 838 (HA 223 = 3 December 837 to
22 November 838) the campaign of Theoplıilos agaiııst Sozopetra. which was
undoubtedly carried out in 837. The Arab chroniclers did so just to make a single
narrative out of Theophilos' campaign and the ensuing caınpaign of Mu'taşim
against Amorion of 838. Accordingly, the narrative needs of the chroniclers
pushed Theophilos' campaign against Sozopetra forward to HA 22 3 to connect
it with Mu'taşinı's campaign in that year, whereas in the case we are considering
now it seems that Ma'mün's campaign in HA 217 has been moved back to HA2 l6
in order to present it as the immediate military answer to Tlıeophilos' invasion
of that year.
üne should also observe that the usuallydetailed lbn Tayfur recorded no campaign
of Ma'mün for HA 217. However, it is interesting that he and TabarT mention the
presence ofMa'ınün in the Cilician to\vn ofAdana on the 16th of Jumada I, whiclı
corresponds to 19 June 83 2 (this time without giving any weekday). 5'> On this day
Ma'ınün executed the govemor of Jibal there for his tyrannical conduct. As Adana
lies quite near tlıe Cilician Gates, the entrance into Byzaııtine territory, one wonders
wlıat Ma'mun could be doing here except reassembliııg his troops before invadiııg
the empire. This could have happeııed only three clays la ter. Perhaps even on tlıe19th
ofJumada 1 = 22 June mentionecl already?
Also revealing is the lack of any date for the second Cappaclocian campaign
of Ma'mün in the account of the Book of tlıe Sources, which is closely related to
the account given by TabarT. 6° Curiously enough, lhe Boole of the Soıırces dates to
HA 215 (28 February 830 to 17 February 831 ) Ma'mün's first campaign against
Cappadocia and to HA 217 Ma'ınün's campaign against tlıe Byzantine fortress
of Loulon, of whiclı we will speak below. It seems as if tlıe second Cappadocian
campaign of Ma'mün, which is described in the Boole of the Soıırces after the
first and before the latter, could have taken place only in the meantime and
accordingly in HA 216. However, if this was the case, why should the Boole of
the Soıırces have omitted such an obvious dating? I think the reason was that
its source provided no exact dating for this campaign. The writer of the Boole
of the Soıırces (or his source) inserted the account of tlıe caınpaign in what he
considered the most obvious place, as he did have some accurate information on
a campaign ofMa'mün against Loulon for the next year. But it could be that the
supposed campaign against Loulon wasjust an episode ofthe second Cappadocian
expedition ofMa'mün, but taken from a different source. There is some evidence
for this being the case.

raised by "the amalgamation ofdisparate and fragmeııted accounts into the large, synthetic
works ofthe mid-ninth century".
59
lbn Tayfür vol. !, 267, trans. Keller (1908) vol. 2, 121; see Vasiliev (1935) 393.
TabarT lll.1107, trans. Bosworth ( 1987) 192.
"" Buok oft/ıe Sources 374, trans. Vasiliev (1935) 370-71.
230 Tlıe Eıııperur Tlıerıplıi/os cıııd ılıe Eası, 829-841

14.4 The Fortress of Loulon

The Byzantine foıtress of Loulon (/\ou1ı.ov, Arabic Lu'lu'a) lies 30 km north­

northwest of the Cilician Gates and could be considered easily the first target in a
possible invasion ofByzantine territoryfrom the Arab-held Cilician lands (Map 2) .61
The fortress was besieged by Ma'mün in HA 217 = 832 according to the Book of
tlıe Soıırces and Tabarı, as lbn Tayfür does not mention any canıpaign ofthe caliph
un der this year. The Book of tlıe Sources says that the caliph besieged the fortress
"for sonıe time",62 Tabarı "for a hundred days" (which seems a simple rounded
figure).''3 and both that Ma'mün left the place after appointing 'Ujayf (the ııisba
is given in Tlıe Book of ılıe Sources: lbn 'Anbasa) conımander of the besiegers.
Apparently Ma 'nıün retumed to Muslinı territory, because the Book oft/ıe Sources
says that the caliph left Loulon and set offfor a fortress named Salaghüs, which is
near Ciliciaıı Tarsos and accordingly in Muslinı territory.6�
Nobody has coıısidered strange the possibility that the caliph led in person a
canıpaign against Byzantium only to be stopped by a fortress scarcely a few miles
away from· the froııtier. Moreover, the caliph apparently despaired of taking the
fortress of Loulon aııd returned to Cilicia afteı: some time. it makes more sense
if we consider the siege of Louloıı as only tlıe first stop ofa massive canıpaign
agaiııst Byzantium. in fact, to the east of Loulon two main roads led into the heart
of Cappadocia. One of theın leci eastwards to Herakleia (today Eregli), the other
northwards to Tyana. To the north of Tyana lay the fortress of Antıghü and the
region of tile Matamır. These places are mentioned in Tabarı in connection with
Ma'mün's second Cappadocian campaign. As we have seen, Ma'mün advanced
to the north ofTyana in the caınpaign of HA 215 = 830, even further away from
Muslinı Cilicia than in the campaign clated to HA 216 = 831. It is therefore difficult
to believe that Ma'mün could have undertaken a third campaign in Cilicia in HA
217 = 832 only to besiege Loulon. lfthis was the case, it would have been a major
failure for the caliph.
A possible explanation is that the Byzantines fortified Loulon after a previous
attack ofthe Muslim troops against Cappadocia. In that case, perhaps more time was
needed thanjust a few wintry months in order to fortify a place that was apparently
so difficult to take. On the contraıy, every inroad against south Cappadocia setting
offfrorn the Cilician Gates could advance as far north as fortresses such as Sinan,
Koron or those in the Matarnır region only after having subdued or taken control

61 Hild and Restle ( 1981) 223-4.

''2 BookoftlıeSoıırces 375, trans. Vasiliev (1935) 371.
"3 Tabarı Ill.1109, trans. Bosworth (1987) 194.
''� Of the stay of Ma'mün in Salaghüs we lıave only a brief entry in Tabaı'f Ill. l il l,
trans. Boswortlı ( l 987) 197: "in tlıis year Ma'nıün went to Salaghüs." Tlıis sentence is
unrelated to tlıe siege of Loulon described by Tabarf ınany lines before.
 Campaigniııg in Cilicia aııd Cappcıdocia iıı 830--833 231

of the Byzantine garrison of Loulon, whiclı could otlıerwise endaııger tlıe retreat
of tlıe caliplı 's forces into Cilicia after a sumıner campaign. 65
Strategy would suggest that Loulon was besieged during aMuslim campaigıı in
south Cappadocia. This could be precisely tlıe reason for tlıe caliph not taking tlıe
fortress by himself, but leaving a detaclıment behind hinı and proceeding furıher
nortlı into tlıe lıeart of Byzantine Cappadocia, in order to infl ict as much harm as
possible to the Byzantines. üne rnigtlı have also expected this siege to have taken
place during the first Cappadocian inroad of tlıe caliplı, dated witlıout aııy slıadow
of doubt to HA 215 = 830. However, as tlıe siege of Loulon is ınentioned in tlıe
account as HA 217 = 832, two years later, 1 anı inclined to identify it with tlıe
second Cappadocian campaign of Ma'mün, tlıus providing additional argumeııts
to date tlıis campaign to HA 217.
We slıould now seek an explanation for Loulon not being ınentioned at ali
during the first Cappadocian caınpaign of Ma 'ınüıı despite its high stralegic
significance, as tlıe fortress guarded the roads tlıat leci into inııer Cappadocia.
Tlıe reason could be that Loulon was only fortified in tlıe year 831, in conııeclion
with the victorious caınpaign ofTlıeoplıilos against Cilicia we mentioned above.
it is reasonable to suppose that the Byzantine eınperor marched against Muslim
Cilicia in 831 in order to relaliate for tlıe M uslim inroad againsl Cappadocia of
tlıe previous year, but also to prevent future attacks of suclı a kiııd. Tlıeophilos
defeated the troops of theMuslims, took a large number of captives, aııd probably
fortified the place where Loulon stands, at a strategic point north of tlıe city of
Podandos that lay close to the Cilician Gates. He could have invested the entire
year of 831 with the fortification works in Loulon and thus provoked a second
campaign ofMa'mün in 832.
in fact, the fortress of Loulon is mentioned in the Byzantine sources for tlıe
first time during the reign of emperorTheophilos.66That the fortress guarded the
Byzantine territory from inroads from Muslim Cilicia through the Cilician Gates
is often expressly mentioned. For example, in the Continuator we read: "there
is a defence and stronghold called Loulon which is near and close to the city of
Tarsos in Cilicia" (epuµa -rı ıcai <ppoupıov Tfj ıca-ı:a. K.ıtı.uciav Tapuqı :rctı.rıauiÇov
Kal yı:::rrovouv oüı:co ıcatı.ou�ıı:::vov Aoutı.ov fonv). 67 And in _the fifth book of the
same work, the so-called Vita Basilii, Basil I provides for the rebuilding of the
ruined fortress of Loulon, which is qualified as a very mighty stronghold used in
fonner times to defend the Roman Empire (:rcpfüı:ov µev ı:o :rc?ı.ı:::Tura ı:ııv 'Pcoµaııcııv
bnıcpaı:ı:::ıav o:ı<peA.OUV oxuproı:aı:ov ıcauı:pov).68

65
See, lıowever, Vasiliev (1935) 116-17: "Si, dans le recit de l'expedition de l'annee
precedente contra Heraclee, Tyane ete., il n'est pas fail mention de Lu'lu'a, cela prouve
peut-etre que !es Arabes etaient parvenus iı franclıir !es portes de Cilicie, en evitant Lu' Iu'a."
66
Hild and Restle (1981) 223-4.
67 Th. Cont. lV.35 (197.12-14).
ı,x Th. Cont. V.46 (277.19-21 / liııes 2-4 in Sevcenko (2011]).
232 Tlıe Eıı111cror Tlıeop/ıilus aııd t/ıe Eası. 829-842

Even more important is the fact that the chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon attributes
the builcling of the fortress of Louloıı to the eınperor Theophilos and Leo the
Philosopher. Accorcling to him, the fortress was the first station of the farnous
cimin offire signals that were lighted on the top ofa continuous series offortresses
between the Cilician Gates and the imperial palace at Constaııtinople in order to
wam the enıperor in 24 hours ofa possible invasion ofthe Arabs through this point
ofthe frontier. Here is the passage in Pseudo-Symeon:

Leo the Philosopher, after being appointecl to preside over the see of
Thessalonike, advised the emperor to make two clocks that shoulcl
strike the hours synchronizeclly; the one was placed in the stronghold
of Cilicia, near Tarsos, the other was watched in the Palace, and both
had each hour written with eveııts in Syria, such as at the first hour, if
some raid of the Saraceııs took place; at the second, if it was war; at
the third, ifa fire; at the fourth, if something else happened, and in the
sarne way for the following hours. Accorclingly, frorn among the twelve
possible events, ifeventually sornething happened in Syria, in the hour
at which this eveııt occurred, a light was lit by the men there, for there
were persons who were in guarcl watching over with attention ancl care
wlıat was inscribed in them, ancl this light was immediately sent out
froın the stronghold callecl Loulon to the watchers at the mount Argaia,
and again to those at Samos, and to those at Aigilos, then again to those
at the ınount Mamas, from whence Kyrizos, then Mokilos, and from this
last the mount of Saint Auxentios made it visible in short time to the
stewards in charge at the balcony ofthe Pharos at the Palace.69

69
Pseudo-Symeon 681.21-682.15: 6 <ptMcro<poç Afow 6 0ecrcraıı.oviıcrıç yEV6µEvoç
rcp6 Elipoç, ı:ip pacrÜı.ET 0Eo<piıı.cp mıµpouıı.wcraç, roç cbpoıı.6yı a ercoirıcrEV 8ı'ıo el; foou
ıcaµvovı:a · ıcai ı:o �tev !lv erci ,ip <ppoupicp ,ip ıca,a. Kııı.tıciav ı:fi Tapcrip rcıı.ııma.Çov a.rce0Ew, ı:o
8e E!Epov ev ,ip rcaıı.a,icp E<puıı.a't"t'E't'O, ÜrcEp clxov yEypa�tµeva Eiç etca.CT!llV &pav ,a EV :Eupiçı
yev6µEva , ofov ıı']v rcpronıv &pav El Etc8poµı'J ı:&v :E apaıcrıvci'ıv ytyovE, ı:ı'Jv p' El rc6ıı.Eµoç,
ı:ı'Jv y' El Eµrcpııcrµ6ç, ıı']v 8' Ei a.ıı.ıı.o n, ıcai. Eiç ,aç ıı.omaç 6�wiwç. Eıc ı:&v yEypaµµtvoıv oi'iv
8clı8Etca imo0foEOJV El n ıcüv mıvePıı EV :Eupiçı, EV ,fi &pçı EV 11 11 urc60ECTLÇ yeyovEV, av&.rcrnv
cı.rco ,füv BICEtcrE <pav6ç, E1CEl ıcai oi <pUtı.aCTCTOV't'EÇ ıcai U't'EV(J)Ç ıcai a.ıcpı p&ç PMrcovı:Eç ı:a.
't'E1:U1C(J)µEva EV auwTç �crav, �lETE8i8ow Eu0uç 6 <pavoç a.rco 't'OU <ppoupiou 't'OÜ tı.Eyoµtvou
Aouıı.ou ı:oTç ıca,a ,ov A.pyaiav Pouvov ıcai ai'ieıç wTç ıca,a. ı:ı'Jv :E&.�tov ıcai wTç ıcaı:a. ,o
Aıyı1ov, Etm 't'OLÇ ICU't'O. 't'OV M&.µavm rcaıı.ıv Pouv6v, a.<p' OÜ 6 K:uptÇoç, Eim 6 Mroıcı1oç,
a.<p' oi'i 6 ı:oü uy[ou Aıil;Evı:iou Pouvoç 't'OLÇ EV ,ip rcaıı.a,icp ıca.a. 't'OV ı'Jıı.ı aıcov 't'OÜ <I>apou
8tm,ap[otç a.<pwpıcrµevo ıç Ev ppaxET Ercoie t <pavEp6v. The passage is inserted in the reign of
Michael III, for this eınperor purp ortedly suppressed this chain of fire signals after the alarm
was given on one occasi on during the races in the hippodr ome, n.ıining his own triumph
there as charioteer. The same stoıy appears in Tlı. Cont. V.35, but here we do n ot find any
mention ofTheophilos or Leo the Plıilosopher.
 Caıııpaigııing iıı Ci/icia wıcl Cappadocia iıı 830--833 233

The ınost probable date for the fortification of Loulon is the year 831, the
oııly occasion Theophilos made an inroad iııto Arab Cilicia through the Cilician
Gates and could observe in person the weak points ofthe defence ofthe Byzaııtine
territory in south Cappadocia. lf we suppose that tlıe second Arab inroacl into
Cappadocia actually took place in 832 and not in 831, as is generally assuınecl,
Theophilos could have had enouglı time in 831 to rebuild tlıe fortress ancl to
establislı it as tlıe starting point of an ambitious systeın of comınunications between
the froiıtier and tlıe capital. 1t is also of significance that a fortress walching the
frontier with Cilicia was the place chosen to set offthe alarm system announcing
an Arab attack. This circumstance points also to 831 as the nıost likely date for the
fortification of Loulon, as in the following years and especially during the second
half ofTheophilos' reign invasions through the Charsianon ancl Armeniakoi borcler
became more frequent. it is also relevant !hat the setting up of the systeın was
attributecl toLeo the Philosopher, for this woulcl ınean, if our dating is souncl, that
in the year 831 he was already in favour with the iconoclastic emperor.
The iınportance of Loulon in the comprehensive clefensive system conceived
by the eınperor coulcl perhaps explain by itselfwhy its siege by caliph Ma'mün in
HA 217 = 832 was singlecl out fronı the narrative of the second Muslim caınpaign
in south Cappaclocia. However, if we reacl attentively the account of the siege of
Loulon in the Arabic sources, we can fincl adclitional evidence that also explains
why the Arab historians clicl not connect tlıis episode witlı the second Cappadocian
campaign. I thiıık that the main character in the siege of Loulon by the Muslims,
Ma'mün's commancler 'Ujayf (whom the caliph put in charge of the besiegers),
has something to do with this problem. Let us examine with some care the story
told by our sources.
According to the Boole of the Soıırces,70 as the siege was prolonged, Ma'mün
fortified two military camps aröundLoulon and handed the command of the first
to Jabala, and the second to his brother Abü Isl:ıaq. He then parted and left 'Ujayf
"as coınmander in chief of the troops that remained there". Some time later the
Byzantine emperor (Theophilos is meant here) came to the rescue ofthe defenders
ofLoulon, but was clefeated by the besiegers in a pitched battle. Theophilos' camp
was taken by the Muslim troops, who seized considerable booty from it. The
inhabitants ofLoulon, seeing the defeat of the emperor, surrenclered to 'Ujayfafter
he gave theın the aman and guaranteed their lives. Then 'Ujayf occupied the city.
The story nıns somewhat differently in TabarT, for he says:

in this• year, Ma'ınün invaded the Byzantine Iands, and halted before and
besieged Lü'lu'a for a hundred days. Then he withdrew frorn there and left as
his deputy for the siege 'Ujayf, but the people ofLu'lu'a outwitted 'Ujayfand
captured hiın so that he remained a prisoner in their hands for eiglıt days until
they set him free. Theophilos advanced on Lu'lu'a and surrounded 'Ujayf; but
Ma'mün dispatclıed further troops to Lu'lu'a, and Theoplıilos fell bacl< before

711
Book ofılıe Soıırces 375, trans. Vasiliev { 1935) 371.
234 Tlıe Emperur Tlırmplıilos and tlıe Ecıst, 819-842

making aııy contact \Yİtlı tlıe Muslim aımy. So tlıe people of Lu'tu·a marched
lorth lo 'Ujayf under a guarantce of security.71

in this version of the episode. Theophilos suıTounded the besiegers of Loulon

and retired before the reinforcements sent by Ma'mün appeared in place. There was
accordingly no defeat ofTheophilos at the hands of the besiegers and of 'Ujayf.
it is however possible, as the nan-ative focuses on Loulon, that the reinforcements
senl by Ma 'mün could in fact have defeated Theophilos but in another place
further north, to which the eınperor fell back probably in fear ofbeing surrounded
in turn betweeıı the Muslim besiegers of Loulon aııd_ fresh troops sent by the
caliph. it is just a possibility that the reinforcements were led by 'Abbas, the son
ofMa'mün, who accornpanied him on his two Cappadocian campaigns. The piece
ofinformation we have translated above frorn the Book ofthe Soıırces, stating that
'Abbas defeated Theophilos and seized ımıch booty with his aııny, seerns to fit
well with the reportecl defeat of Theophilos before Loulon exposed in the same
work a few lines below . it could be that we are facing here two different versions
of the same event. This would be another piece of evidence suggesting that the
second Cappadociaıı campaign of Ma 'mün actually took place in 832.
But let us return to 0tır main argument: a likely reason why the account of the
sources and particularly the so-called Book of the Sources duplicated Theophilos'
clefeat by the Muslirn army in 832 could be that the infonnation about the siege
of Loulon was probably taken frorn an independent source which focusecl on the
activities of'Ujayfibn 'Anbasa, the appointecl cornmander ofthe besiegers ofthe
fortress. This figure appears again in the ııarrative ofTabarT for HA 217 as having
been sent by Ma'mün against the govemor ofJibal in order to seize hirn ancl bring
him before the caliph at Adana, where he was executed, as we have already seen,
on the 16th of Jurnacla l (19 June 832). 'Ujayfis also mentioned as being sent to
arrest the governor of Jibal in a short note TabarT included in his report of HA
216.72 The possibility that all these pieces ofinfonnation came originally from a
single account is therefore alluring. That this infoıınation is lacking in lbn Tayfür
suggests that TabarT used a source other than him for these events.

14.5 Exchange of Letters Between the Emperor and the Caliph, and
Ma'mün's Stay in Egypt

The evidence we have seen until now suggesting a dating of 832 for the second
Cappadocian carnpaign of Ma'mün is substantially reinforced when we consicler
again the account of TabarT, who was unsure, as we saw, about the actual reason
for Ma'ınün campaigning a second time in Cappadocia. TabarT telis us that in HA
216 (= spring/sumıner 831) the caliph set off against Byzantiurn when he heard

71
TabarT 111.1 109, trans. Bosworth ( 1987) 194.
72
TabarT 111.1 105, trans. Boswortlı ( 1987) 189.
 Ca111paigni11g iıı Ci/icia a11d Cappadocia i11 830-833 235

about the slaughter of the people of Tarsos ancl Mopsuestia, but he then gives as
an alternative reason for the Muslim campaign that the emperor had written to the
caliph "ancl put his own name first in his letter". As notecl earlier, TabarT says that
Ma'mün clicl not even reacl the letter but set off immecliately against Byzantium. 73
Apparently, the caliph considered the fact that the emperor named himself first
offensive, although it followed the usual procedure of the Byzantine chancellery
of putting the name of the seneler before that of the addressee. 74 In HA 217 (=
spring/summer 832) TabarT speaks at length about a letter the emperor reportedly
sent to the caliph this year offering lıim a lasting peace agreement between tlıe
two powers. Here TabarT says again tlıat Tlıeoplıilos "put his own namefirst in his
letter''. The content of the letter is tlıen given, followed by an answer written by the
caliph.75 1 think that TabarT referred twice to the same letter sent by Theophilos to
Ma'mün, probably because he found it mentioned in two different sources.76 The
fact that in HA 216 Ma'mün does not answer the enıperor's letter, whereas in HA
217 he does, does not contradict this supposition. For perhaps Ma'mün's reply to
Theophilos was written when the caliph received in Adana a second letter from the
eınperor, mentioned by TabarT in HA 216. 77
it is possible that TabarT was conscious of the duplication but was not able
to resolve it in a satisfactory way. 1-Iowever, the Boole of the Sources, based on a
similar source, suppressed the first mention ofthe letter and mentioned itjust once
in HA 217, adding that the caliph was seized by wratlı on its reception. 78 This last
dating must be the correct one, as we have argued above. Then, if the letter was
actually sent in 832 and was the cause of the second expedition of Ma'mün into
south Cappadocia, this expedition could not have taken p!ace before that year and
its dating in HA216 (= spring/summer 831) would be wrong. For his part, Ya'qübT
omitted the reference to the emperor's letter in HA 217 and mentioned it in HA
216, indicating that Ma'mün did not want to read it because the emperor named
himselffirst. So the emperor wrote him a second letter, in which the caliph was
namedfirst. 79 Now, it is interesting to note that Ya'qübT mentions this exchange
of letters without any dating after a short account of the campaign of HA 216
and not before, as it appears in TabarT. This is the same order followed by the
Boole of the Soıırces, but with the difference that the latter did not give any exact
date for the campaign of HA 216 (it is dated "in the same year" after the nıention
of the campaign of HA 215) and also suppressed mention of the second letter

73
Tabar-T III.1104, trans. Bosworth ( 1987) I 87-8.
74
See the remark in Müller (2009) Regest 423.
75
TabarT III.1109-l 1 I O, trans. Bosworth (1987) 195. See MUller (2009) Regest 428.
76
Accordingly, Regest 423 (dated in June 831) and 428 (dated to the enci of 832 or
tlıe beginning of 833) in Müller (2009) actually refer to a single letter sent by the emperor
after his suınmer campaign of 83 l and before Ma 'mün set off for Byzantium in spring 832.
77
Müller (2009) Regest 425.
78
Book oftlıe Sources 375, trans. Vasiliev ( l 935) 371.
7''
Yn'qübT 568, trans. Vnsiliev ( 1935) 272-3.
136 Tlıe E111perıır Tlıeoplıilos and the Ecısı. 829-842

from Theophilos (referred to in HA 217). This betrays the use ofdifferent sources
for thc account of the caınpaigıı, a circuınstance which suggests that the Arab
historians fabricated aııd incorrect chronological sequence ofthe events.
The content ofTheophilos' letter as reported by TabarT could perhaps provide
us with soıne extra clues for the dating of the second Cappadocian expedition of
Ma'nıün. First of ali, if the letter offended diplomatic usage followed until then in
the coıTespondence between caliphate and empire, surely this was not by chance
or due to a slip of the Byzantine chancellery. Probably the offence was intentional;
the letter could have been written after a victorious campaign such as the one
Theophilos unclertook in 831. it is therefore conceivable that the emperor, after
perforıning a major triumph in the streets of Constantinople, wrote to the caliph in
a haughty tone, clisregarding previous diplonıatic usages. The content of the letter
speaks of an emperor who feels confident of his might, so that he can offer a peace
agreenıent to the caliph in order to promote tracle and conımercesn but also threaten
him with launching a massive attack on the caliphate. The end of the letter in
TabarT's worcling does.not leave room for any doubt about the emperor's resolution:

1 f you reject tlıis peace offer, 1 shall not creep up on you secretly in an ambuslı,
nor slıall I speak to you in an ingratiating, misleading manner; but I simli
penetrate into the innermosl recesses of your land, take over against you its
barriers and scatter its cavalry and infantry alike. And if I do tlıis, it will be only
after setting forth a valid excuse and after setting up between us tlıe standard of
decisive argument. Farewell.

IfTheophilos, as is generally assumed, was already clefeatecl in summer 831 by

the caliph, how could he have written such a rnenacing Jetler by 832? Not even the
deep anger felt after a humiliating clefeat, which would have ruined his previous
bombastic triumph in Constantinople, could explain this course of action. It is
more reasonable to suppose that the emperor became bolder after his victorious
raid in Cilicia in 831 had met with no response by the end ofthat year. He probably
thought that he had retaliated with this expedition for the caliph's invasion of830
and so established a balance ofpower between the two states. However, although
Theophilos might even have considered that a further inroad into the caliphate
woulcl be as successful as the previous one, his peace offer was surely sincere, as
he found that it would be advantageous for the two sides. His purported avoidance
of every deceit or "secret ambush" in their mutual relations was also perhaps
an undisguised allusion to the unexpected invasion of Cappadocia by the caliph
in 830, which put a definitive end to the forma! peace agreernent the two states
had respected until now, and this even despite the involvement of the caliph in
Thoınas' usurpation.

"" For the inıpoıtaııce ofthis point, see Chapter 18.1.

 Campaigııing iıı Cilicia 1111d Cappadocia iıı 830-833 237

TabarT says in HA 217 = 832 that Ma 'mün wrotc bnck to tlıe emperor aııd he
reproduces nlso in his work the wording of the letter.' 1 Now, Mn'mün threatens
tlıe enıperor witlı tlıe seııdiııg ofbloodtlıirsty Muslim troops wlıo scom any danger
they miglıt suffer at tlıe lıands of tlıe Byzantine soldiers and are only willing to
cause them tlıe utmost damage. However, at the end ofthe letter tlıe caliph abstains
from fulfilling his threats and profters oııly a warning to the emperor, wlıich is
indeed an impossible choice: eitlıer Theophilos converts to lslam or he pays a
tribute to the caliph. Tlıe conclusion oftlıe letter runs as follows:

But ifyou clıoose not to ınake tlıat, tlıcıı you will clearly cxpcrieııce face-to-face
mır [martial] qualities to an exteııt wlıiclı will make aııy effoıi [on ıny part] of
eloqueııt speaking aııd an exlıaustive atteiııpt at descriptioıı superfluous. Peace
be upon lıiın wlıo follows tlıe diviııe guidance!

We do not know when Ma'mün wrote lıis answer to tlıe emperor. IfTabarT is
right and the caliph did not read the offensive letter from Tlıeophilos,82 perhaps
the reply was sent wlıen tlıe caliph was already in Adana in 832 and received a
second letter from the ernperor along with 500 Muslim captives to Ma 'mün. As
we lıave seen, according to Ya'qübT in tlıis second letter, Theoplıilos put his name
in second place. This makes it again most unlikely that the second Cappadocian
campaign of the caliplı took place in tlıe summer of HA 216 = 831 irnmediately
after Theophilos' triumph in Cilicia, as some time was needed for the letters to be
exchanged. Whether Theophilos sent his letter at the end of831 or at the beginning
of832, the caliph set offfor the Byzantine frontier for a second time probably in the
spring of832, as he had done in his previous campaign of830.
Ifmır dating ofthe second Cappadocian campaign ofMa'mün in 832 is sound,
we now face the problem ofestablishing the movements· ofthe caliph in the central
months of the year 831, as he apparently did not face Theophilos' troops when
they were raiding Muslim Cilicia. I think that the revolt in Egypt against Ma'mün
could offer us likely grounds for the apparently unexplained inactivity of the
caliph during tlıis year. TabarI says in his account for HA 215 = 830 that Ma'mün
retumed to Damascus after his first campaign against Byzantium. In his account
for HA 216 = 831 TabarI says that Ma'mün returned again to Damascus after his
second Cappadocian campaign and then inserts the following comment:

In tlıis year, 'Abdüs al-FilırT rose in rebellion, aııd he and his partisans attacked
Abü Isljaq tax officials and killed several oftheın, tlıis being in Slıa'ban. M.a'müıı
set out froın Damascus for Egypt on Wednesday, tlıe fifteentlı ofDlıü al-I:lijjalı.83

81
TabarT 111.1110-1111, trans. Boswoıilı (1987) 196-7.
sc TabarT 111.1104, trans. Boswortlı (1987) 188 .
'3
TabarT111.1105, trans. Boswortlı (1987) 188 .
238 Tlıe Emperur Tlıeoplıilns and ılıe Eası, 829-842

TabarT ınentions Ma 'ınün 's arrival in Egypt in HA 217 as lıaving taken place in
the montlı of Mul)arranı. As this montlı is the first of the Muslim calendar and Dhü
al-J:-{ijja is the !ast, the sequence implies that Ma'mün set off for Egypt on the 15th
of Dhü al-1:lijja 216 (23 January 832) and arrived in Mul)an-am 217 (February­
March 832). However, it is interesting to note that the rebellion in Egypt broke out
in Sha'ban of HA 216, that is to say between 13 September and 11 October of 831.
it is possible that the rebellion had started earlier, since Ma'ınün 's brother had left
Egypt already in HA 215 = 830, but in any case Ma'mün had to face two tlıreats
in lhe west at the end of tlıe sumıner of 831: the Byzantine invasion of Cilicia and
tlıe uprising in Egypt. 1 think that he could not have ventured on an expedition
against Byzantiuın before getting rid of the serious danger posed by the rebels in
Egypt, for the land had been out of reach of the caliphate for many years since
the Andalusian occupation of Alexandria in 814.84 He ınay have waited some time
before he finally set offfronı Daınascus to Egypt in the winter, his hesitation being
due to tlıe problems caused by the Khurramites of Babak in Azerbaijan and tlıe
rebellion of 'Alf ibn Hislıam in .libal, wlıich was finally suppressed in 832, as we
have seen, by the aforeınentioned 'Ujayf TabarT speaks at length about the danger
posed by tlıe Klıurrarnites in HA 217, when 'AiT was executed in Adana, but the
problems ınust certainly have begun earlier in the year 831.
Nor can we rule out the possibility that the caliplı knew too well that a campaign
against Byzantiuın through the Cilician Gates could be extreınely dangerous if the
eınperor was in position with his aımy controlling the passes. Moreover, a winter
campaign was more practicable in Egypt than in the cold plains of Byzantine Anatolia.
Accordingly, several likely explanations can be advanced for the caliph not
having taken the battlefield against the Byzantines in 831, although we cannot
really be sure ofhis movements that year.

14.6 Some Conclusions on the Chronology of the Campaigns of 831-832

Ifwe sum up our previous analysis we can now establish a more accurate sequence
of events for the campaigns of 831-832 in Cilicia and Cappadocia.
In 831 the emperor set off on a campaign against Cilicia. Perhaps even before
crossing southwards through the Cilician Gates he defeated the Muslim Cilicians
in a pitched battle and then pillaged some of their cities (Tarsos, Mopsuestia at
least, maybe also Adana, Eirenoupolis and Anazarba), taking much booty and
many captives. The possibility that another Byzantine army entered the territory
of the caliphate at the same time through Charsianon is not to be excluded, but
the Greek source whiclı speaks ofa victorious campaign ofthe Persian troops of
Theophilos (see above in section 14.2) gives no further details which could enable
us to date or identify this campaign.

"' For this date see Signes Codoıier (2005 ).

 Ccı111paig11iııg iıı Cilicicı cıııd Ccıppcıducia in 830-833 239

Theophilos decided by then to fortify the fortress of Loulon in order to watch

the southern frontier ofCappadocia and detect any aıTival ofMuslim troops coming
from the Cilician Gates. Perhaps at this time Leo the Philosopher devised Loulon
as the first station in a chain of fire points designed to forewarn Constantinople,
in a nıatter of hours, of the approach of Muslinı troops coıning from Cilicia. The
emperor held a ınajor triumphal celebration in the capital, probably in the summer,
that was meticulously recorded and has coıne to us through its later inclusion in the
Book o.fCereınonies. Arab historians ofthe time, ınainly relying for their narratives
on the witness paid by participants in the caliphal expeditions on their return to
lraq,85 did not have available a detailed account ofthe Byzantine caınpaign of 83 l ,
for the obvious reason that the caliph did not take part in it. This circumstance
explains why they mention this caınpaign only in passing.
The caliph, busy with the insurrection in Egypt and the problenıs posed by the
Khurramites in many provinces, apparently did i1ot react irnmediately. He knew
perhaps that an attack through the Cilician Gates could be risky, as Theophilos
was there with his army. Theophilos sent him a letter, perhaps as early as autumn
831, offering him the renewal ofthe peace agreement openly broken by Ma'rnün's
campaign of 830. However, the wording ofthe missi ve was insulting to the caliph,
not because Theophilos named himself first in it, but probably because the ofter
was interpreted as a gracious concession coming fronı a victorious enıperor. The
caliph set off again for Byzantium in the year 832. He remained in Cilician Adana
for some time, as if reassembling his troops before crossing the Cilician Gates. On
16th of Jumada I (19 June 832) he executed there the governor of Jibal . He also
met there the envoys ofthe emperor Theophilos, who apparently renewed his offer
of peace and brought 500 Muslim captives bade (probably taken in the campaign
of 831). 86
Notwithstanding, Ma'mün refused to sign a peace agreement and entered
Byzantine territory on the 19th of Jumada I (22 June 832) through the Cilician
Gates with a big army and accompanied by his brother Abü Isbaq and his son
'Abbas. First ofall, Ma'mün besieged the fortress ofLoulon that had been fortified
the previous year by Theophilos and barred his way into Cappadocia. But it was
perhaps dangerous to remain there for long, as the emperor could be approaching
with his army. So Ma'mün left 'Ujayf ibn 'Ansaba in Loulon as commander of
the besiegers and then proceeded further inland with the remaining troops. The
moveınents of the army of the caliph are rather confused from this point on, as
TabarT and the Boole of theSoıırces, oıır main sources, name different agents of
the events and also different places that are not always clearly identified. We have
already seen how TabarT rnakes Ma'mün proceed first to the city ofAntTghü,87 on

85 On the perspective of the sources for the campaign of838 in TabarT see mainly
Chapter 17.2; and on tlıe role paid by 'Ujayfas witııess andinformant oftlıe campaign of
832 see above section 14.3.
86 Mliller (2009) Regest 425.
"7 HildandRestle(l981) 142-3.
240 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ı/ıe Eası. ii]Y-841

the northern route departing from Loulon, and then to Herakleia,88 which !ay in
the south, to the east of Loulon. Both cities surrendered to the caliph. in Tabarı
Ma'nıün makes his brother Abü lsbaq capture 30 fortresses and strongholds in the
Matamır region to the north ofTyana, whereas another general, Yal)ya ibn Akhtanı,
apparently raided the region around Tyana. 'Abbas is nowhere mentioned in the
account ofTabarı.
The Book oftlıe Soıırces mentions Ma'mün marching only against Herakleia and
not in connection with the siege and surrender ofAntıghü.89 Indeed it makes little
sense for Ma'mün to have gone as far as Antıghü in the north just to turn back to
the south for Herakleia. it is perhaps more logical that the caliph took the eastwards
route to Heraklcia afler leaving Loulon whereas his brother and son proceeded to the
north with the other generals. it would make sense to identify the fortress ofAntfghü
witlı Loulon, but Antıghü seems lo be located in the Matamır region to the north
of Tyana. Moreover, the Book of the Sources nıakes 'Abbas nıarch in succession
against the fortresses of Anfighü, Al)rab (modern Keçikalesi)90 and I;Iaşın. The
location of the first two is clear (see Map 2) and their capture by 'Abbas makes
sense, as they lay on the eastward route leading from Tyana to Salaberina. The
location ofthe third is probleınatic, since Hild and Restle suggest Sasima, which lay
to the north ofTyana.91 The Book oftlıe Sources ınentions also the activities ofAbü
lsbaq, who took 12 fortresses (instead of the 30 of Tabarı) "named Khardaylah",
which probably lay in the Matamır region.92 So it could be that the caliph remained
in the south around Herakleia, whereas his son 'Abbas plundered the route leading
to Koloneia and his brother Abü Isbaq the Matamır region.
Theophilos may have descended from Kaisareia along the route that led to
Podandos93 and then have proceeded to Loulon in order to help the besieged
Byzantine garrison. This could have caused serious difficulties for the Arab
general 'Ujayf, who had been appointed commander of the besiegers. However,
the caliph, stili in Herakleia, sent reinforcements to the besiegers according to
Tabarı94 (perhaps the neighbouring troops ofAbü lsl)aq that were in the vicinity
of Tyana) so that Theophilos was convinced to retire to the north before being
surrounded. This made an encounter with the caliph's son 'Abbas unavoidable, as

88 Hild andRestle(1981) 188-90.

89 Book o.fthe Sozırces 374, trans. Vasiliev(1935) 371.
90 Hild andRestle(l981) 135-7.
91 Hild andRestle(1981) 272-3. See also Vasiliev(1935) 112, note 1.
92 See Vasiliev (1935) lll, note 1 and Hild and Restle (1981) 181, 200-201 for a
possible identification ofthe place.
93 Hild(1977) 122-3.
'!4 "Ma'mun dispatched further troops to Lu'lu'a and Theophilos fell baclc before
making any contact with the Muslim am1y" in Bosworth (1987) 194. As we have seen, in
the account of Ya'qübT (Vasiliev (1935] 273) Theophilos is defeated by the besiegers of
Loulon, who seize great booty from his camp, but this could be only an echo of the later
defeat of the emperor by 'Abbas. Nevertheless, a ıninor encounter between tlıe besiegers
and Tlıeophilos where the forıner gol Lhe upper hand is not to be nıled aut.
 Caıııpaig11i11g iıı Cilicia cıııd Ccıppaclocia in 830-833 241

he barred the route leading to Koloneia. The defeat ofTheophilos by the army of
'Abbas nıentioned in the Book of the Sources could therefore have taken place in
the region noıih ofTyana.
This is naturally only one reconstruction among nıany of the nıovenıents both
armies might have followed in the sumnıer campaign of 832. in the endTheophilos
was probably defeated by the troops of 'Abbas, but his coming to Loulon while
the troops of the caliph were stili in the inner regions further north, as I think was
the case, is to be considered without any doubt a bold move and a sign that he felt
confident enough to risk an encounter. Tlıe caliplı, on the contrary, reınained near
the Cilician Gates that led to the Musliın-lıeld Cilicia, ınoving betweenLoulon and
Herakleia and sending his son and his brother to the northern regions.

14.7 Ma'mün's Third Campaigıı in Cappadocia in 833

That the outcome of the second Cappadocian campaign in 832 was perhaps not
entirely satisfactory for Ma 'ınün is proved by the events of 833.',5 Tabarı telis us
that Ma 'mün sent his son 'Abbas to Tyana İn the spring in order to fortify tlıe
city.Wı As no militaıy action was undertaken before that, one is tenıpted to suppose
that Tyana had renıained in Muslim hands since the previous canıpaign of 832,
like the slronghold ofLoulon further south. Be this as it may, Tabarı describes tlıe
caliph's anıbitious building program forTyana to provide the city with substantial
walls.This can only mean that the caliph was trying to establish a steady base for
his future attacks against Cappadocia, as the experience gained İn the previous
years had made it clear to him that any further incursion deep into Byzantine
territory would otherwise be too risky.
While 'Abbas was busy with this large-scale building program, the caliph
Ievied troops from Egypt, Syria and other regions of lraq, surely with the intention
of Ieading a large invasion of the empire. Ya'qübı makes Ma'nıün even exclaim
that he will summon Arabs from the desert and Iet them be settled in each city
conquered along the way until he reached Constantinople.97This boast of the caliph
has occasionally been taken seriously in modern research, as if it reflected the plans
of the caliph for conquering the empire,98 but it must be approached with some
reserve.99 Such an arnbitious project is not only unsupported by fuıiher evidence but
also does not fit with the real possibilities available to the caliphate at the moment.

95 For further details see Vasiliev (1935) 121-4.

96
Tabar'i IIl.1111-12, trans. Bosworth (1987) 198-9.
97
Ya'qübTvol. 2,573, trans. Vasiliev (1935) 274.
98
See for example Sivers ( 1982) 78-9 and Yücesoy (2009) 113.
99
Bonner (1996) 148 writes that "this sort of archaism appears in many of Ma'mün's
pronouncements and gestures". Crone and Hinds ( 1986) 94-6 refer to a certain restoratioıı
of the Umayyad concept of the caliplıate by Ma'ınün tlıat fits in well witlı suclı political
proııouııcenıeııts.
2-ı2 Tlıe Emperor T!ıeoplıi/os aııd ılıe Ecısı. 819-842

As we simli see in Chapter 17, the carnpaign of838 led by Mu'taşim, probably even
more ambitious tlıan tlıe one of833. clid not aim to conquer Constantinople despite
the claims put in Lhe mouth ofthe caliplı by some Arab lıistorians. lfMa'ınün ever
intended to conquer Constantinople - and the boast was not siınply invented by
Arab historians in order to nıagnify the ambition ofhis canıpaign, fnıstrated by the
caliph's untimely death - then either tlıe caliph did so in a propagandistic manner
in front of his Clıristian foes or else he really believed in the apocalyptic proplıecies
abouncling at the tiıne. 100 Nevertheless, one gets the iınpression that this stoıy is
somehow a variant ofthe boasts put in Theophilos' mouth in the letter he wrote to
the caliph after his victoıy of83 I (see above in section 14.5). Moreover, we lmow
that tlıere were also prophecies announcing the iınpending end of the Abbasids
(see Chapter 22). Accordingly, I would not discard the possibility that the threats
and ambitious plans of Ma'mün were to a great extent part of a psychological
war waged by both powers. But, however it might have been, it is clear that the
frırtification ofTyana could have easily been a first step in a far-reaching project of
Ma'ınün to settle new colonies north ofthe Cilician Gates.
We do not know whetlıer the caliph finally set off for Byzantium leading
this imge army, for Tabarı says tlıat some of tlıe new recruited troops actually
marched off witlıout lıiın and reaclıed Tyana, encaınping there witlı 'Abbas. Tlıe
caliplı finally entered Byzantine land only on tlıe 16th ofJuınada II (9 July 833)
from Tarsos, probably after the region had been secured for him by the troops
previously dispatched. ıoı This was perhaps the signal for an all-embracing attack
against Cappadocia, but this never took place, because the caliph soon became
ill at Podandos and died. He was buried in the neighbouring city ofTarsos, to the
south ofthe Cilician Gates.
Mas'üdı provides us with additional information about this failed caınpaign
of Ma'mün. According to him, Ma'ınün invited the Greek garrisons of many
strongholds to embrace lslaın, threatening them with the yoke and the sword ifthey
resisted. As a consequence, many converted to Is lam. This piece ofinfornıation,
without further evidence, seems likely to be a further product of the caliph's
propaganda, as does the next one transınitted by Mas'üdı concerning a letter
Theophilos puıportedly sent to Ma'mün when he was already in Podandos. In it
the emperor promised to pay the caliph for the expenses arising from the campaign
and even to release many ofthe Musliın prisoners he retained, provided Ma'mün
ceased his projected invasion. This letter seems very similar to the one Theophilos
supposedly sent to the caliph Mu'taşiın after the capture ofAmorion in 838 (see

um Yücesoy (2009) 116: "While Ma'ınün ınade his political and militaıy decisions in
a concrete historical context, his response to the Byzantine emperor revealed that he was
not only aware ofthe iınplications ofhis conquests, but also that he consciously aligned his
actions with messianic expectations." See also Chapter 22.
101
For the enıbassy to the Frankish eınperor Louis I sent by Theophilos during tlıis
sunınıer, perhaps wheıı the ııews ofthe invadiııg arnıy reached Constantiııople, see Chapter
18.2.
 Ccııııpaigniııg in Ci/icicı cıııd Ccıppcıdocia in 830-833 243

Chapter 17.4). Curiously enough, Mas'üdT does not nıention this second letter in
that year. As in 838, tlıe reply Ma'mün gavc to the Byzantiııe messenger was full
of fuıy and threatened to leave no stone standing in the Byzantiııe fortresses. After
that Mas'üdT adds the following conınıent:

The caliph coııtinued then his march and he did not conıe back before he had
taken fourteen stroııgholds. Only theıı he returned aııd eııcaınped in the spriııg
of Podandos, betler known witlı the name ofQushaira, as we ınentioned İl in the
previous pages.102

it is inıpossible to say which foıiresses were taken then by the caliph, but I
wonder whether in fact any were taken, because the whole narrative ofMas'üdT,
who does not say a single word about any other campaign of Ma'mün, has an
undeniably propagandistic flavour. The only certain fact is that the caliph reached
Podandos, close to the Cilician Gates, and died there. However ambitious his
designs far Byzantium, he did not risk enteriııg Byzantine territory again and
entrusted the vanguard ofthe army to his son 'Abbas.
The death ofMa'müıı put a temporaıy end to the canıpaigning ofthe caliphate
in eastern Anatolia until 837. Tlıe lıeir and successor of Ma'ınün, his brotlıer Abü
lsl)ag (Mu'taşim), had many probleıııs to cope with in the caliplıate and did not
want to take any risks abroad before solving them. Setting aside tlıe Khurranıite
problem, which has been dealt with in Chapters 9-11, a major issue for him was
the role Ma'mün's son was to play in his reign. 'Abbas' upheaval against his uncle
and his final execution by Mu'taşim on the charge ofgoing over to the Byzantines
and betrayal of Islam 103 could have given rise to the legend of the conversion of
the caliph to Christendom narrated in the Life ofTheodore ofEdessa, as we shall
see in Chapter 22.
But concerning more paıiicularly the attitude of the new caliph with regard
to the Byzantine Empire, the silence of the sources speaks clearly for a new
period of mutual understanding. It is sufficient for us to say that one of the first
decisions taken by the new caliph was to demolish the walls erected by Ma'mün
in Tyana. 104 We do not know whether this act was unilateral or the result of some
kind of forma! agreement with the Byzantines, as no record has survived about
the background to this decision. But it is perhaps not infeasible to suppose that the
new caliph pursued some compensation for withdrawing his troops to the Cilician
Gates. Byzantine diplomacy may well have been behind this move. In the end, the
outcome ofthe· continuous warfare in east Anatolia between 830 and 833 was not
so negative for T heophilos as may appear at first sight. In fact, the likely takeover
ofthe fortress at Loulon by the Byzantines (the fortress was apparently not pulled
down in 832) was to mean a serious blow for future Arab inroads into the area.

102 Mas'üdT, Tlıe Mecıdows of Go/d96, trans. Vasiliev ( 1935) 330.

ıo) Miclı. Syr. 539, trans. Chabot ( 1905) vol. 3, 1 O 1.
1"' Vasiliev ( 1935) 124.
 Chapter 15
Byzantine Expeditions in Westem Armenia
Between 834 and 836

The many internal problems caliph Mu'taşim had to tackle after his rise to power
in 833 sufficiently explain why he was prevented from invading Byzantine
territory in tlıe years that followed. The raids on both sides ofthe Cilician frontier
seem therefore to have come to a provisoıy end witlı the death of Ma'nıün. The
abandonment of the projected fortification of Tyana by Mu'taşinı, followed
perhaps by a Byzantine takeover of Loulon, clearly evidences the will of both
parties to dampen the fighting in this area for sonıe time. The tension, however,
was clisplacecl to the east as a result nıainly ofthe contacts tlıe Persian Khurramites
macle with Byzantium and also of the settlenıent in the enıpire of many of tlıem
after December 833, as we saw in Chapter I O. Theophilos probably took the
opportunity ofopening up a new front on the Armenian border as soon as the first
contingents of Khurramites arrived in the empire seeking Byzantine help in their
war against the caliph. The proclamation ofTheoplıobos as exousiastes or prince
of the Persians (see Clıapter 11.4) was a clear signal to the caliphate that a new
conflict was soon to start at the Annenian frontier.
However, Arab and Greelc sources say practically nothing of Byzantine
expeditions in this area before Theophilos took to the battlefield against Melitene,
Sozopetra and Arsamosata in 837, an action that we will analyse in Chapter 16.
The silence ofthese sources is perhaps understandable, for no direct confrontation
between the Roman and the Muslim empires (the main subject of the historical
writers ofthe time) was then possible in theAımenian lancls, which were atomizecl
in confüsion of Muslim and Armenian lordships under the nominal sovereignty
of the caliph and his govemor at Dvin. Both powers tried to control the strategic
Armenian territory indirectly by attracting the loca! nılers with titles and privileges. 1
For the caliph the ınatter at issue was mainly balancing the power between the
Musliın autonomous landlords and the Armenian princely houses in order to keep
control ofthe territoıy and avoid uprisings against Baghdad. It was surely this aim
that moved Harün al-Rashıd to appoint in 806 Ashot I Msaker, of the Bagratid
house, prince ofAnnenia, as a counterbalance to the loca! Persian andArab rulers
ofArmenia who were constantly defying the authority ofthe caliphate. 2
The Byzantines, also tried to gain support for their policy among the
Christian Aımenians, as they had always done. They surely took advantage ofthe

1 Martin-Hisard (2000).
Grousset ( 1947) 341-2, Laureııt ( 1919) 98-9 aııcl Laureııt aııd Caııarcl ( 1980) 131-2.
246 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeop/ıi/os and ı/ıe Eası, 829-842

circumstance that ınany Armenian soldiers and princely houses had established
themselves in Byzantium in the previous decades. Moreover, as we have seen in
Chapters 3-8, the Byzantine court was controlled by Armenians during the second
iconoclastic period. After the Persian K.hurranıites fled to the empire in 833, the
conjuncture seemed favourable for the intervention of the Byzantines in the area,
since the caliphate was iınınersed in internal probleıns.

15.1 Stephen ofTaron on the Campaigns ofTheophilos

Stephen Asoghik ofTaron,3 who wrote in the eleventh century, has preserved a
brief but detailed account of the raids the Byzantines ınade on western Armenia
during the reign ofTheophilos. The passage is well known to scholars, who have
made abundant use of it. However, the scholarly consensus is that the account of
Stephen refers only to one single victorious campaign, that ofTheophilos in 837.4
On a closer look, it appears however that Stephen mentions this campaign only as
the culmination of a series ofprevious raids ofthe Byzantines on western Armenia. 5
Let us examine the passage before further commenting upon it. 1 reproduce here
the English translationTimothy Greenwood has kindly provided (paragraphs are
mine):1'

l . Then in 278 ofthe Era, Michael died and his son Theophilos became king for
13 years.

2. in his days, the Horomider came to the district ofBasean and they massacred
ınany with the sword and attacked the komopolis ofGoınadzor.

3. Then Theophilos went to Khagtik' [Chaldia] and went to the land [C'amak']
bridge and captured many ofthe Armenians with their faınilies and he conferred

3
Samuel ofAni repeats in his Clıroııological Tabies some of the information given
by Stephen Asoghik about this campaign of Theophilos, perhaps because both of them
consulted the lost history of Sahpuh Bagratuni. However, Samuel does not include any
reference to this spring campaign of Theophilos. The reasons are unknown, but laclc of
space is a probable cause (he could only include some brieftopics in his tables).
4 See especially Marquart (1930) 41-57 and Laurent (1980) 249-52, 267-8.
5 Timothy Greenwood had come to the same conclusion independently from me when
I contacted hiın in summer 2006 over soıne questions concerning the interpretation ofthis
passage. I am greatly indebted to his advice on the understanding ofthe problems posed by
this passage. See Greenwood (2008) 348-9.
6 There are �ther translations into modern languages: Modem Greek in Bartikian
(1994); Gerınan in Gelzer and Burckhardt (1907); French in Dulaurier (1883) 171.
Dulaurier translated Books 1-11 (called part 1) and therefore our passage, whereas Macler
( 1917) translated only Boole III ( called confusingly part il). A commentary of the passage
is in Marquart { 1903) 421-3 and ( 1930) 41-57.
 By::cmtiııe Expeditioııs iıı l·fıesıern Arıııeııia Betll'ee11 834 emel 836 247

tlıe lıoııour ofthe office of!ıiııpaıaı,or [üıraı:oc;] that is to say the office ofpatrik
apıılıiıl'paı [rrarpiKıoç aıro ü;ı:{,miıv] upoıı Ashot son of Slıapuh aııd he left lıiııı
in tlıe district of Sper. And he lıimself, on receiving tax from tlıe inhabitants of
Theodosiopolis, returned from there.

4. And then the men ofHoromid canıe to Vanand, to the village ofKaclıkak'ar;
tlıey were destroyed by Salıak, son oflsnıayel.

5. And in the sanıe year, Tlıeophilos penetrated Syria and took tlıe city ofUrbeli
and fouglıt with the Arabs at Alımılat [Arsamosala] and triumphed. This maıı
duriııg his marclı to the eastern part ofthe province ofArmeııia, took Tsmu the
Armenian fortress, Asaghin, Metskert and Aghberd in the district of Geglıam;
and he rendered Klıozaıı and Fourtlı Armeııia deserted by man aııd beast.
Stepheıı Asoglıik 11.6.

Tlıere is no exact dating for al! the events ınentioned in tlıis passage, but tlıey
have been linked with the campaign of 837 because the text of Stephen says
in §5 that "in the same year" Theophilos entered Syria and took Arsamosata.
Since we know from nıany sources that tlıe campaign of Theoplıilos against
Melitene, Sozopetra and Arsanıosata actually took place in the sunımer of 837
(see Clıapter 16), nıost sclıolars supposed that tbe events mentioned by Stephen
Asogbik in §§2-4 are also to be dated to 837, probably some months earlier in
the spring, because Theophilos went into battle against Melitene at the beginning
of the summer. However, the temporal adverbs that introduce §§3-4 (translated
as "then") indicate that the author is describing a consecutive series of events,
following each other, but do not demand that all ofthem took place in the same
year.7 On the contrary, the precision "in the same year" which introduces §5 was
probably intended to connect this paragraph with the previous §4, but not with
§§2-3. 8 Ifall the events listed in §§2-5 had actually taken place in the same year
and the author knew ofit, then he would probably have used the reference "in the
same year" instead of"then" to introduce §§3-4.
Accordingly, it is perfectly conceivable that the author referred in this passage
not to a single campaign of Theophilos, but to a series of campaigns of the
Byzantines, which took place over consecutive years. As matter offact, we face

7 Bartikian (1994) 127 translates tlıe beginning of this section as follows: br:ım:a,
aqıoü �1ı.0av c,r�v ıiıı:apxia... Gelzer and Burckhardt (1907) 107 include tlıe adverb inside
the temporal clause: "Als mm die Horomdaer nach dem Dorfe Kackakhar im Distrikte
von Wanand gekommen wareıı ...". Dulaurier (1883) 171 does not translate any temporal
adverb, as he perhaps considered that the temporal clause alone rendered rightly the sense
oftlıe phrase.
8 Timothy Greenwood points out to me that it is also possible, even likely, that the
paragraph was originally inteııded to be introduced with a note, whiclı included a specific
Armeniaıı era date, which was not retained by Steplıen but onıitted.
248 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 819-841

serious problems when tıying to make sense of the nıovements described in this
passage if we tıy to force tlıem into a single campaign. A detailed analysis of the
text will follow in the next pages in order to trace a likely explanation for the
ınilitary routes mentioned in this passage.
We nıust first makc sense of the Horomider'' or men of Horomid cited in §2
and §4 to understand what was going on. Against previous interpretations such as
that advanced by Marquart to the effect that Stephen uses this term to refer simply
to the Romans, 10 1 subscribe to the idea of Bartikian that mır text refers to the
Persian Khurramites serving in Theophilos' army.11 The fact that the Khurramites
are mentioned without any explanation by an eleventh-centuıy Armenian historian
is not surprising when we consider that Stephen only copied his account from
a contemporaıy source, where the significance of the term was self-evident.
Marquarl even supposed that Stephen used the tost histoıy of Shapuh Bagratuni,
clirect witness to events. 12 Although this point is clifficult to prove, 13 the infoıınation
provided for the campaign ofTheophilos is so detailed and exact in contrast to the
account of the previous Roman emperors that it seems unavoidable to conclude
that Stephen Asoghik used a well-informecl source when he mentioned these
expeditions. We coulcl therefore play with the idea that the Khurramites raided
the regions of Basean and Vanand during the reign of Theophilos, as they were
probably trusted with the defence ofthe Armeniakoi frontier. They could have had
their headquarters in the capital of this theme, in Anıaseia. 14
Let us now consider the sequence of events described in this passage. A
campaign ofTheophilos seems to begin in §3 when the emperor enters Armenian
lands from the Byzantine theme of Chaldia. Although the exact place at which
Theophilos crossed the frontier, the "land-bridge" of the text, 15 has not been

9
According to Greenwood this could be an early medieval Armenian plural in -er.
10 Marquart (1930) 42, note 2.
11 Bartikian (1994) 128-30. See Chapters 9-10 for the Khurramites.
12 Marquart (1930) 42-4.
13 Book II ofStephen ends with clıapter 6, which includes a list ofthe Roman emperors
"to this day". The last mentioned emperors are Theophilos and Michael III, so that it seems
probable tlıat the source used by Stephen ended in the latter's time. However, the text of
the summer campaign ofTheophilos is very corrupted and Marquart (1930) 42 conjectured
that this section pertained to the end ofa quaternio before the beginning ofbook III, so
that it is alsa possible that some text is now lost and that the original list continued after
Michael !Il. üne last point is, however, alsa worth taking into account when considering
the reliability ofthe account of Stephen Asoghik. The son ofAshot Bagratuni, consul in
Sper, mentioned in the above passage was probably the histoı-ian Shapuh Bagratuni, whom
Marquart considers the main source far the History of Stephen. Ifthis is so, the account
of Stephen Asoghik is even more valuable than is generally admitted. However, as we will
argue in Chapter 16.2, it is possible that Stephen based his work on a Greek source. In this
case, it could be that Stephen did.so through the mediation ofShapuh's work.
1•1 Far a seal ofTheophobos probably found in Trebizoııcl, see Clıapter I 1.3 and Figure 2.
15 Bartikian (1994) 127, note 38.
 Byzcıııtiııe Expeditioııs iıı Westerıı Arıııeııia Betıreeıı 834 c111d 836 249

identified, 11' it is possible to think of it in terms of a mountain pass, perhaps one

tlırouglı tlıe Pontic Mountains tlıat linked tlıe Byzantine coastal lands around
Trebizond witlı tlıe mainland in the south, wlıere Sper and Theodosiopolis lay.
Accordingly, the attack on a village in the Armenian region of Basean tlıat
comes before in §2 miglıt not lıave been part ofthe same expedition, as Basean lies
immediately to the east ofTheodosiopolis. Only ifwe think that tlıe Khurramites
cited in §2 entered the teıTitory in advance as a kind ofvanguard ofthe main aııny
could their mention before the main expedition led by Theophilos rnake sense.
However, this sequence is not supported by any indication in the text. it remains
as a possibility that the expedition ofthe Klmrramites in §2 was different from the
one led by Theophilos in Sper and Theodosiopolis in §3, despite the fact that tlıe
regions targeted, Basean in §2 and Karin (whose capital was Theodosiopolis) in
§3, border eaclı other (see Map 3).
�, MY�ııry1..c�\r;��.s: 1 :.'.: :,.: ,
.sP�R · :::: R·�gıç·� oi-.'P�fıt���-,.���ty ABASGIA Klıa:::ars
iıa8�a·,ı�i:. RLI.nng't:1m)ıes or PeoPı��- :.. · '. Ca spİJ ti
·::-' ... ,. );,··:',',
__
. Se�
. ·', ·_,· ·.
Black ·sea

A',
,,, 1 Klıurramites
LakeVün Ard:.rırni
) ) TARON)
')\
(untll 837)
{---.......-........)

---..............____..
ligrls
..
samosata ...
ıoomıın

Map 3 Byzantine expeditions in westem Armenia between 834 and 836

It could also be that the Khurı-amites mentioned in §2 attacked the region of

Basean in tlieir march to the west coming from Azerbaijan, that is to say, c. 833
before they integrated into the Byzantine aııny. But what then about the action the
Khuırnmites undertook in §4 at Vanand? They are mentioned again alone, without
any explicit connection with Theophilos' aııny. The region of Vanand attacked
by them Iies to the northeast of the Basean, as we can see in Map 3, so that the

1'' lfwe unclerstand C'amak' as a place name, it coulcl tlıeoretically refer to Kaıııaklıa, but
this localily is too far soutlı (on tlıe left bank oftlıe Euplırates) and cloes not ıııake sense here.
250 T!ıe Emperor T!ıenplıilos aııd tlıe East. 819-841

Khuıwmites this time certainly came from the west, since they had previously
rai<led in Basean. On the othcr hand, it makes no sense that the Khmrnmites marched
further east when Theophilos, as the text says in §3, had already left: Theodosiopolis
and "returned from thcre", surely back to Byzantiunı. Why should the Khurranıites
have parted from the imperial main aııny aft:er the eınperor had already settled
the matters in Theodosiopolis and turned back to the Byzantine territory? Theirs
was surely a different expedition fronı the one led by Theophilos mentioned in
§3. If we give crcdence to the text, which expressly says in §5 that "in the same
year" Theophilos attacked Syria and Arsamosata and ravaged the Fourth Armenia,
the attack in Vanand should have taken place in 837, for we know well through
oricntal sources that this campaign dated from that year (see below in this chapter).
However, just a look at the map suffices to show that Vanand and the Fourth
Armenia lie far away from each other, so that Theophilos and the Khurramites
evidently pursued different targets and led different expeditions. Since the year
837 saw the final Abbasid offensive against the Khurramites in Azerbaijan, it could
be that by making a separate oftensive on two different fronts, Theophilos tried to
divert the Muslim forces attacking Babak and lighten the pressure exerted on him.
Nevertheless, the sources that report the victorious campaign of 837 are absolutely
silent about a northern alrnost contemporary offensive ofthe Khurramites in Yanand
ending in a coınplete failure, which seenıs difficult to explain.
We can therefore conclude that §§4-5 refer to two different campaigns leci
respectively by the Khurramites and the emperor. The second being dated in
837, the previous one must have taken place shortly before, for it is mentioned.
as happening "in the sanıe year". On the other hand, §§2-3 refer to two further
campaigns of unceı1ain dating, but in any case after December 833, because the
first Khurramites fled to the empire at this date. Because some time would be
needed to organize the Khımamites into a well-trained army in the service ofthe
empire, I think that 834 is the first possible year for the campaign mentioned in
§2. Whether the raid ofthe Khurramites in Basean referred to in §2 was connected
with the campaign of Theophilos in Sper and Karin described in §3 cannot be
ascertained, so that they might even have taken place in successive years.
Nevertheless, the main problem in interpreting this passage remains the
extremely laconic narrative ofthe author, who limited himselfto a concise summary
ofthe facts. He (or his source) focused on the impact of the campaign on Armenian
territory, leaving aside other aspects that seemed secondary to him, like the targets
aimed at by the Byzantine army, the exact route followed in the campaigns or the
role played by the main actors in the area, the Georgian and Armenian Bagratids.
But perhaps we can find additional evidence in the Greek sources.

15.2 The Abasgian Campaign and the Iberian Bagratids

The Continuator mentions briefly and without any dating a failed campaign "in
Abasgia" led by Theophobos and Bardas, the brother ofTheodora. According to
 By::a11ti11e Expedilioııs iıı 1-Vesterıı .4rıııeııia Beııreeıı 834 cıııd 836 251

tlıe lıistorian, wlıo is tlıe only source to mention tlıe facts, tlıe expedition encled
in a complete failure aııd only a few soldiers returned to Byzantium. 17 This is
the only time a Greek source meııtioııs a defeat of the Khurramite troops leci
by Theophobos in the Caucasus and the temptatioıı is great to identify it with
the massacre of the Khurramites nıentioned in §4 of the passage froın Stepheıı
Asoghik we have just discussed. However, the places where the two defeats took
place seeın to be quite distant from each other, as Abasgia lies to the northwest of
the Lesser Caucasus range and Vanand to the south. Accordingly, Bartikian denied
any possible campaign in Abasgia and thought that the Continuator was referring
rather to the campaign that took place in Aıınenian lands, mentioned in §4 ofthe
passage froın Stephen Asoghik. For this scholar the mention of"Abasgia" in the
Continuator is a mistake. 18
On the coııtrary, I think that we have no special reason to suspect the reference
to Abasgia in the Greelc text to be wrong (it is indeed the only precise detail of
the briefaccount ofthe expedition!). it is the context ofthe "Abasgian" campaign
ofTheophobos and Bardas that is lacking for us, but ifwe were able to provide a
likely background for it, then perhaps we woulcl not need to amend tlıe Greek text.
Let us now look for this context.
in §4 Stephen Asoghik menti ons a certain Sahak, son oflsmayel, as responsible
for the slaughter oftlıe Khrnı-amites. Tlıis person, to be identifiecl witlı Isl)aq ibn
Isma'TI, the Muslim emir ofTiflis (833?-853), provides us with a starting point for
mır research.
The Georgian Principality ofBagarat Bagratuni, running along the Kyros river
to the west of Tifüs, perhaps offers a clue for the expedition. Different branches
ofthe Bagratid family were slowly extending their power in Iberia (Kartli) with
the support ofthe caliphate, which wanted to check the rebellious Muslim lords
in Aıınenia through them, as we said earlier. Ashot Bagratuni was accordingly
recognized as prince ofGeorgia by the caliph but also designated curopalates by
Leo the Armenian, who probably wanted to establish a foothold in the region.
Ashot ruled in the regions ofKlarjeth, Kolaver and Aratahan from c. 807 to 833,
pursuing a balance between the two mighty neighbouring powers. This policy
could not prevent Ashot from being pushed to the Byzantine frontier by the Arab
govemor ofArınenia, but in the end he managed to remain in power. At his death
his son Bagarat (c. 833-876) inherited the principality, but was imınediately
fought off by the emirs of Tifüs, especially by the already-mentioned Isl)aq ibn

17
Th. Cont. III.39 (137.16-18): ıcai ai'İ0tç ev A.pacryiçı ö ı:s 0s6cpopoç ı<ai 6 Tijç
0soocopaç a.os7ı,qıiıç Bapoaç a.ıı:ocrı:a7ı,evı:sç �leı:a. crı:panfiç icrxupöıç ı!:oucrı:uxrıcrav, 67ı,lymv
iiyav ı!:Ksi0sv ı'.ııı:ocrı:psıııav,cov: "and Theophobos and Bardas, Theodora's brother, being
sent again to Abasgia with a big army, suffered disgrace withjust a few men coming baclc
home from there".
18 Bartikian (1994) 130-31. See also Laurent and Canard (1980) 67, note 108 for
the previous consensus for a dating of the Abasgiaıı campaign of tlıe Coııtinuator to 837
accordiııg to Steplıeıı Asoghik.
252 Tlıe Eıııpl!ror Tlıi!oplıilos c111d //ıl! Eası, 829--841

lsma·TI, who pushed him back into the ınountains of Klarjeth and forced him to
pay tributc. As Bagarat held the power during the reign ofTheophilos (he was also
appointed curopalates, although at a later stage, perhaps c. 862), it is probabie that
the emperor tried to secure his position and win hiın over to the Byzantine side. 19
Now, Aslıot had ınarried his daughter to the king of the Abasgians Theodosios
il, who was to provide him with military support in his wars against the Musiims.20
Abasgia was at the beginning ofthe ninth century a very extensive kingdom stretching
from present-day Abklıazia in the nortlı to the ınouth ofthe riverAkaınpsis in the south
and therefore comprising Koichis and Lazika. During the eighth century the teITitoıy
was ruled by dukes recognized by Constantinopie but who then rebelied against the
enıpire in the last decades of the century, when Leo II (the father ofTheodosios II)
seized Egrisi and took the title of king of the Abasgians. 21 The Abasgians were a
branch ofthe Georgian people so that a mutual understanding between theAbasgians
and the lberian Bagratids against the Aıınenian warlords or Muslim emirates of the
Caucasus was surely conceivable. This ailiance as well as the seizure of traditionai
lberian lands by the kingdom of the Abasgians could perhaps explain why the
Continuator referred to a caınpaign in the region with the broad geographical term
"Abasgia", especially as the influence· of the kingdom of the Abasgians continued
to increase during the ninth and the beginning of the tenth centuıy, near to the time
when the Continuator wrote his history. 22 If this interpretation holds true, then we
could perhaps identify the defeat of the K.htmamites at "Abasgia" mentioned by
the Continuator with the routing of the KhuITaınites in Vanand, to which Stephen
Asoghik refers in §4, for Vanand borders the teITitoıy of the Iberian Bagratids.
More importantiy, the campaign refeITed to by the Continuator took place "in
Abasgia", but was not necessarily aimed at the Abasgians as is repeatedly stated
in modern studies. 23 The Continuator just says that Theophobos and Bardas were
sent to Abasgia with a iarge army and that the Byzantines suffered heavy losses,
but does not specify at whose hands. Surely, the prociamation of the kingdom of
the Abasgians at the end of the ninth centmy was directed against the interests
of Constantinople in the area, as the Georgian chronicies say. And probably
Constantinopie had every motive to regret the de facto independence of Abasgia.
But it is stili possible that the kingdom, though autonomous, still acknowledged the

19 Grousset (1947) 344-5 and 352-3, Martin-Hisard (2000) 437-42, and Laurent and
Canard (1980) 137-9.
20 Book of K'art 'fi 259: "At that time Ashot czıropalates set out on a campaign.
Theodosios, king of the Apkhaz, son of the second Leo, who was the son-in-law of Ashot
curopalates, gave him assistance."
21 Book of K'arı'/i 258. For a dating see Settipani (2006) 458-61, Martin-Hisard
(2000) 459-61 ancl Toumanoff (1956b ).
22 See Suny (1994) 29-30 and Khroushkova (2006) 89-96.
23 See for example Martin-Hisarcl (1981) 156 and Treaclgold (1988) 321, clating the
expedition against Abasgia in 831 and 840 respectively. Maı1in-Hisard (2000) 461, note
689 dates the ı:ampaign to 837, following tlıe comnıunis opinio.
 By::ıııııiııe Expeditiom iıı 1-Vesterıı Arıııe11icı Betıı-eeıı 834 aıu/ 836 253

suzerainty oftlıe Byzantines-24 On tlıe otlıer lıand, there were ıııany ways to recover
influence in tlıe area otlıer than direct ıııilitary intervention against the kingdoııı of
the Abasgians. The alliance oftlıe Byzantines with tlıe Klıazars since the beginning
ofTheophilos' reign (see Chapter 19) was perhaps not unrelatecl to the events we
are considering here. in foct, tlıe first king ofAbasgia, Leo il, was the "offspring of
tlıe daughter of the king of the Khazars", as the Georgian chronicles tell us.25 Far
the kingclom ofthe Abasgians there was every reason to be on goocl terms with their
mighty Khazar neighbours, so that tlıe Byzantines might have triecl to reassert their
influence in the area first through an alliance with the K.hazars.
The activities of the Khurraınites in the regions of Basean and Vanand, and
even the campaign ofTheophilos in the areas ofSper and Karin, could certainly be
unclerstood as pressure against the neighbouring lberian Bagratids (see M ap 3),26
but it is alsa conceivable that there was soıne kinci of understanding with the
Georgian principalities wlıich borderecl ali tlıese areas against a conımon foe,
such as the Armenian princes who campaignecl with caliph Mu'taşim against the
Byzantines in 838 (see Chapter 17.2) or the Muslim Caucasian emirates. In fact,
Stephen of Taran says that the Khurranıites were destroyecl by the emir of Tiflis
lslJaq ibn lsnıa'TI; a nıajor opponent of the Georgian Bagratids. it cloes not ınatter
whether the Khurranıites were on their way baclc to the west when they were
surprisecl and nıassacrecl in Vanand by the emir ofTiflis or their defeat took place
when they attempted to cross the Caucasus to the north, towards Abasgia, or to the
east, towards the territories held by the emir of Tiflis.27 What matters is that they
probably engaged in a war against the Muslim ruler ofTiflis who was expanding his
power towards the Black Sea in direct confrontation with the Georgian principalities
and the kingdom of the Abasgians. As a matter of fact, there are some passing
through Vanand and crossing the Lesser Caucasus towards Tifüs. 28
It is therefore appealing to suppose that the expedition ofthe Khurramites was
planned in support of the Iberian Bagratids, a supposition already advanced by
modern historians.29 It would have been a serious blow far the Byzantines if the
emir ofTiflis had controlled Kolchis/Lazika, far the city ofTrebizond, one ofthe
most important urban centres ofthe empire, was directly affectecl by the events in
the area and even assumed the role of see ofthe ecclesiastical province of Lazika

24 Toumanoff (l 956b) 75. See alsa Gregoire (1927-1928) for a letter supposedly sent
by empress Theodora to the relatives oftlıe Georgian martyr Constantine in 853.
25 Boole of K'art 'li 259. �ettipani (2006) 460-61 suggests that tlıe !(hazar wife of
Constantine V was sister ofLeo's II motlıer.
26 See alsa Hewsen (2001) map 75.
27
The province or region of Vanand !ay between the possessions of the Georgian
Bagratids and the principality of Simbat Ablabas (another Bagratid and son of Aslıot I
Msaker), who had his capital at Bargaran. It was therefore tlıe natura! route to enter the
Lesser Caucasus froın tlıe south.
28 Hewseıı (2001) ınap 55.
2" Grousset (1947) 354: "Bagarat avait saııs doute cru que l'expeditioıı byzaııtine de
837 le delivrerait de la meııace que faisait peser sur lui !'emir lshaq de Titlis."
254 Tlıı! Eıııpı!ror T/ıeop/ıi/os cıııd t!ıl! Eası. 829-842

when this was annexed to the kingdom of the Abasgians. 30 it is not necessary to
postulatc a special link between the enıperor Theophilos and Trebizond in order to
explain the sending of an army to the region.31
A further problem in this reconstruction of the events is the location of the
''village of Kachkak'ar" mentioned by Stephen Asoghik. No scholar has tried to
identify this place in the account of Stephen, as far as I know.32 A mountain of
this name (modern Koçkar) is located in the Pontic range to the east ofTrebizond
(3,937 111), certainly on the way to Georgia and Abasgia, but far away from
Vanand, where the above-rnenlioned village was supposed to be, according to
Stephen Asoghik. Moreover, the presence of the emir of Tifüs in the area near
Trebizond ımıst be completcly excluded. Other possibilities could be explored, but
they renıain unreliable without complementary evidence.33
Another point to be considered in connection with the "Abasgian" campaign
mentioned by the Continuator is the aı"i0ıç "again, anew" that introduces his
account of the campaign. As 1 have already argued elsewhere,3-ı this adverb nıay
imply that this caınpaign was the second one the Byzantines conducted in that
region. However, as no other previous campaign is mentioned in lhe Greek sources
aııd the Continuator mentioııs an even later campaign led by Theoktistos during
the reign ol' Michael 111,35 scholars have supposed that no third campaign could
have taken place. This argument has even been reinforced since Huxley, based on
the mention of an eclipse, dated the Abasgian expedition of Theoktistos36 to 840
(and therefore to the reign ofTheophilos).

30 Maıiin-Hisard (1981) 155 and Khroushkova (2006) 89-90. For the role ofthe Laz
and Tzan as mediators between lberia and the Byzantine area of Pontic Trebizond see Bryer
(1966-1967).
31 In a synaxarion ofthe archbishop Athanasios ofTrebizond edited by Papadopoulos­
Kerameus (1967) l 39-41, men tion is made on page 140 of a daughter "of the emperor
Tlıeodosios the small" (ı:ou pacrıtı.ıımç 'COU �nKpou 0aooocriou) who was possessed by a
demon. Athanasios travelled to Constantinople to practice the exorcism at the request ofthe
emperor and his wife. As Athanasios is said to have been appointed archbishop by patriarch
Methodios, Papadopoulos-Kerameus thought that the text should be corrected to "of the
abominable emperor Theophilos" ('COU pacrıMwç 'COU µıapou 0aocpitı.ou). Martin-Hisard
(198 I) 156 took this emendation as evidence ofa special relationship between the emperor
Theophilos and Trebizond. For a seal of the Khurramite's leader Theophobos found in
Trebizond see Chapter 11.3, Figure 2.
32 Hübschman (1904) 438 interprets the ending as "stone".
33 Timothy Greenwood points out to me that Hewsen (2001) in map 91 registers two
villages in the district ofKechror, to the south ofVanand, named Kechror and Tsarakar and
very close to each other. The name K.achkaka'ar could have arisen as a false conflation of
them. Both villages Iie on a noıih-south route tlıat leads to a mountain pass in the south and
then proceeds eastwards to Dvin.
ı.ı Signes Codofier ( 1995) 593 and 596.
:;5 Th. Cont. IV.39 (203.2-7).
·"' Huxley { 1989). See alsa Sigııes Coclofier ( 1995) 593-4 and 596-8.
 By=antiııe E.rpeditioııs in Wesıerıı Arıııeııia Betıreeıı 834 aııd 83(ı 155

However, we coulcl fincl a reason for the Continuator not to ınention a first
caınpaign in Abasgia. in fact, tlıe Continuator lists succinctly a series ofupheavals
ancl disasters during the reign of Theophilos that because of their annals-like
nature were surely copied froın a nıinor chronicle of the period. 37 These brief
*Anııales Tlıeoplıili probably alsa containecl information about other events ofthe
reign which perhaps turneci out well for the enıperor. Now, since tlıe aiın of the
Continuator was to blacken the picture ofthe reign ofTheophilos,38 he could lıave
singlecl out fronı tlıe list only the events that set the emperor in an unfavourable
light. Among theın was uncloubtedly the fiasco ofthe"second" Abasgian canıpaign
we date to 837, but perhaps not a first one leci by the Khurramites and perhaps to
be dated to 835-836. 39 He then suppressed the mention of the first campaign froın
his narrative, but he copied the account of tlıe second without much reworking,
including the adverb u-Ö0ıı; that pointed to the existence ofa previous campaign in
the same area.
lf mır supposition proves to be right, we nıight tentatively identify the
campaign in Basean in 835-836, nıentioned in §2 by Steplıen Asoghik, with tlıis
first "Abasgian" expedition ofthe Klıurramites. Incleed, Basean is near the Vanand
region, which is alsa callecl "North Basean", as we see in the inclex ofthe Hewsen
atlas. it is alsa on the way to Tiflis. However, nıore eviclence woulcl be needecl in
orcler to accept this iclentification. Tlıe aclverb uu0ıc; rnight have been ıısecl by the
Continuator simply to introcluce a new entry in a sequence ofevents, ancl cloes not
necessarily imply a previous Abasgian canıpaign.
In any case, the emperor did not take part in any campaign at Basean and
Vanand, for he is not connected with the actions ofthe Khurramites in the account
of Stephen Asoghik. Probably his new Persian troops were better suited than a
huge imperial army to advance further east into Armenian ten-itory. Moreover, it
would have been too risky for the emperor to force his way through the passes of
the Lesser Caucasus towards the lancls ofthe emir ofTifüs.
Therefore, a strategic alliance between Theophilos and the Iberian principalities,
clespite its likelihood, remains only hypothetical for there is no single positive
piece of evidence in the sources confirming it.40 The same is alsa valid for a

37 Th. Cont. IIl.39 (137.1-22). See Signes Codofier( l995) 594-6.

38 Signes Codoiier (1995) 672-3 and passiııı.
39
In this first campaign the Khurramites slaughtered the people of Gomadzor in the
province of Basean. Timothy G,reenwood suggests to me that it is possible that Gomadzor,
literally "valley ofGom", could be referring to Aksigoms, in Hewsen(2001) map 55, north­
east of Theodosiopolis. For Gom (farmyard? flat and wooden area?) and Aksigoms see
Hübschmann (1904) 382 and 396.
40 As a curiosity we can refer to the facı that according to Tlı. Cont. Ill.26 (119.14-
23) Jolın the Grammarian, in order to contact Manuel during his exile in the caliphate,
disguised lıimself as an lberian mendicant monk on pilgrimage to Jenısalem. As we saw
in Chapter 5.4, this story probably relies on an oral epic source witlıout much lıistorical
valLıe. However, tlıis detail is not to be discounted as furtlıer evidence pointing to a close
relatioııship between lberians and Byzantines.
256 T/ıe Eıııpi!rtJI' Tlıı!oplıi/os aııd ı!ıe Eası, 819-8./2

possible alliance ofthe eınperor with the Arnıenian Bagratids, although we know
that thc cmperor caınpaigned in person in 835-836 in the area around Sper and
Theodosiopolis, peopled byArınenians. We will consider now the evidence related
to this campaign.

15.3 The Armenian Bagratids

in 836 Tlıeophilos awarded to the nıler of the principality of Sper (a little buffer
state at tlıe frontier) the titles ofpatrikios and consul. Significantly, the ruler was
another Bagratuni, this time the Armenian Ashot, son of Shapuh Bagratuni, the
late brother of Ashot I Msaker, who had been appointed by the caliph prince
ofArrnenia in 806 and greatly expanded his power in central Armenia until his
cleath in 826. Two sons of Ashot I Msaker and accordingly cousins of Ashot
consul of Sper rulecl their fat:her's territories cluring the reign of Theophilos:
Bagarat Bagratuni controlled southern Taron, and his brother Simbat Ablabas the
principality of Bagaran (see Map 3). 41 Tlıe proınotion of tlıeir cousin Ashot as
prince of Sper was perhaps a calculated ınove on the part ofTheoplıilos, designed
to assuage the Arınenian BagratidsY An alliance with the powerful sons ofAshot
Msaker, and especially with Bagarat, who was recognized prince oftheArınenians
by the caliph some time after the death of his father, was undoubtedly only to the
aclvantage of the Byzantines. Theophilos could have high hopes for the region,
considering for example that Sirnbat Ablabas had in 833 led a coalition of forces
against the Muslinı governor ofDvin. Although the attack failed and Simbat even
had dissident Muslim emirs as allies, the situation in the region was so unstable
and changeable frorn day to day that any possibility was by then conceivable.43
If such was Theophilos' hope, it remained unfulfilled, for Bagarat of Taron,
who had been appointed prince of princes by the caliph, took the field against the
emperor in 838 along with the Muslim troops leci by Mu'taşim. We do not know the
reasons whyArmenian Bagratids sided with the caliph in 838, althoıİgh they could
be connected with the devastation of the Fourth Armenia by the imperial troops
in 837, as we shall see in Chapter 16. it is not to be ruled out that the ambitions
of the young emperor, the first Byzantine ruler to appear in the Armenian lands
for many decades, were not precisely welcomed by the monophysite Armenians,
who were diffident towards their orthodox fellow countrymen serving under the
banner of the emperor. We must also take into account that the emperor may
have approached the orthodox Iberians, as we argued above, although no positive
evidence is available. However, it is also to be doubted that religious differences
counted for very much at the time, for the majority ofthe Armenian lords were by

41 Laurent and Canard ( 1980) 163-4, 406, 465 note 18.

4' Grousset ( 1947) 354-355 and Toumanoff ( 1963) 323-4, note 81.
4' See Laureııt aııd Caııard ( 1980) 136-7 for the changiııg fidelities of the two sons of
Aslıol Msaker ancl 382-9 for a short overview ofsome Musliın emirs linkecl to them.
 B_r=anıine E.ı:peıliıion.ı- iıı We.ı-ıem Arıııeııia Beııı-eeıı 834 mıd 831i 257

then thoroughly used to the reality of lslanıic governınent aııd were consistently
loyal supporters ofthe caliplı.
it is woıih considering in this connection tlıe possibility that the family of
Alexios Mousele, son-in-law ofTheophilos, could have had a special interest in
Theodosiopolis, where the enıperor's arıny appeared in 836. As I have already
argued in Chapter 7.2, the Kreııitai or Krinitai, to whom Alexios Mousele
belonged, could in fact have been former inhabitants of the region of Karin/
Theodosiopolis. As we saw, the inhabitants ofTheodosiopolis were forced to leave
their city by the emperor Constantiııe V during a campaigıı in the region. As they
subsequently served in the ranks of the Byzantine army, this circumstance may
explain Theophilos' interest in effectively controlling this city, which naturally
meant iınposing taxes on its new inhabitants (to a great exteııt Arabs) and perhaps
repopulating it. Iıı any case, tlıe weight of the Aımenian fanıilies at Theophilos'
court must be a complementary factor for explaining the campaign, wlıich was
undoubtedly made possible by the many threats the Abbasid caliphate had to deal
with after Ma'ınün's sudclen death in 833.

15.4 A Tentative Chronology for tlıe Campaigns of tlıe Years 834-837

Stephen Asoghik ınentions four campaigns in the passage dealt with above in
sectio)1 15.1. We may surmise that the caınpaigns took place in chronological
sequence, although no dates are provided for theın. However, we have established
that the earliest possible dating for the first campaign mentioned in §2 is 834 and
that the !ast campaign referred to in §5 took place in 837.
As we have already arguecl, it appears strange tlıat the expedition of 837
ınentioned in §5 took place "in the same year" as the previous one led by the
Khun-aınites, for this latter ended in failure and would accordingly have somewhat
tarnished, ifnot cancelled, Theophilos' triumph. It does not make sense either that
the Khun-amites campaigned in Vanand while Theophilos was attacking Sozopetra
and pillaging the Fourth Armenia. Moreover, as we will see in Chapter 16, the
Khun-amite troops actually accompanied the imperial army in the campaign
against Sozopetra in 837. As this campaign was probably a long one, considering
the number of cities and foıiresses attacked by the imperial anny, it probably
started at the beginning ofthe spring, thus leaving no rooın for another expedition
of the Khun-amites earlier that year. How do we cope then with the reference of
Stephen ofTaron to the expedition of837 as taking place "in the same year" as that
ofthe Khurramites in Vanand?
We can ofcourse put this reference down as an error. But perhaps we can find
an explanation in the start date ofthe calendar year followecl by Stephen ofTaron.
He uses the Armenian era, which started on 11 July 552 according to GruıneV4
so that in § 1 he dates the cleath of Michael II to the year 278, which began on 3

44 Grumel ( 1958) 140-45. Mosslıanırner (2008) 424-32 seerns also to favour tlıis date.
258 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeop/ıilos aııd ılıe Eası, 819-841

May 829 and ended on 2 May 830, indeed correctly, for Michael actually died
in October 829. As thc Anııeııiaıı solar caleııdar did not incorporate a leap year,
the corrcspondence betweeıı it and the Juliaıı calendar slowly changed every four
years, so that I Nawasard. the first day of the year, teli on I May for the years836-
839 according to the chronological tables of Gnımel.�; lfTheophilos departed for
the east at the start of spring 837, that is to say, in March-April as we conjecture,
then his campaign could have been dated to the very end of the Armenian year
285, which ended on 30 April 837. And then the preceding expedition of the
Khurraınites ınentioncd in §4 could have taken place in suınnıer836, "in the same
year", 285.
it would have been perhaps more logical to dateTheophilos' expedition of837
to the year286, beginning I May 837, for the campaign of the emperor stretched
over several months, probably until the end of the suınmer. But as happened
alsa with the caliphal canıpaigns (see Chapter 17 for the canıpaign of Aınorion),
the date of the eınperor's departure from the capital was usually recorded and
perhaps used as a chronological reforence. Nevertheless, we do not have evidence
llıat Theophilos departed froın Constantinople in March-April, nor even that
he "penetraled Syria" before I Nawasard 28(i, so that this hypothesis cannot be
corroborated.
There is however another possibility to date the Khurraınite expedition
nıentioned in §4 to the year 836. it is more than likely that Stephen got his
infomıation about tlıe campaigns of Theophilos from a Greek source, where the
sequence was arranged according to the Byzantine calendar year, beginning always
on I September. According to this calendar, a campaign ofTheophilos during the
spring-summer of 837 was considered to have taken place "in the same year" as
a defeat of the Khurramites in Vanand, which happened to occur in September
836 and put a sad end to an expedition started in the area earlier in the summer.
Stephen would then have copied the chronological sequence unchanged from the
Greek source, without adapting it to the Armenian calendar year.
There are accordingly good reasons to think that the Khurramite expedition
nıentioned in §4 could not occur simultaneously with the campaign ofTheophilos
of 837 and must therefore be dated to tlıe previous year, 836. If this was the
case, then Theophilos' campaign in Sper and Theodosiopolis mentioned in §3
would probably have taken place in the year before, 835. We would thus have
the following tentative chronology of the Byzantine campaigns in the east for the
years834--837:

1. 834: The Khurramites caınpaign in the region of Basean, perhaps as allies

of Bagarat Bagratuni. There they rnassacre many of the inhabitants of the
town of Goınadzor.
2 . 835: Theophilos enters Amıenia from Chaldia, crossing the Pontic range.
He takes nıany prisoners among the Armenian fanıilies, appoints Ashot

"' Gruınel ( 1958 l 251.

 By:cmıiııe Expecliıioııs iıı llesıerıı Arıııeııia Belll'eeıı 834 c111d 836 259

Bagratuııi consul of Sper and forces the inhabitants of Theoclosiopolis/

Karin to pay tribute to the empire. After that, he returııs to the eınpire.
3. 836: An imperial army under the conınıancl of Theophobos aııd Barclas,
including Khurranıite contiııgents, enters the Georgian priııcipalities to
lıelp tlıe curopalates Bagarat Bagratuni and his alliecl Abasgians in their
figlıt agaiııst tlıe Muslinı emir of Tifüs, lsl)aq ibn lsma'TI. However, the
emir ofTiflis defeats them in the region ofVaııand, probably in September.
4. 837: Theophilos eııters Syria, takes Sozopetra aııcl Arsamosata, and
besieges Melitene. A triumph is lıelcl in Constantinople (see Clıapter 16).

15.5 The Supposed Attack ofthe Melitenians in 835

in a chapter tlıat deals witlı the beginning of the reign of Mu'taşim, Michael the
Syrian compiles several short accounts about events ofthe years 833-835, coveriııg
fewer thaıı two pages in Chabot's translatioıı. The last ofthese accounts refers to a
ıııilitary clash betweeıı the Melitenians ancl tlıe Byzantines and tlıe ensuing clefeat
of the enıperor at the lıancls of the Arabs:

in tlıis year, 'Umar and lıis partisaııs, iıılıabitaııts of Melitene, eııtered tlıe Roman
Iaııd for plundering. emperor Tlıeoplıilos eııcouııtered tlıem aııd he defeated
tlıeın at first. Tlıen the Arabs [Tayyaye] gathered again and prevailcd this time
over tlıe Romans. The Romans turneci their baclc to theın. Many of tlıem were
killed and the eınperor took flight with some. The Arabs (Tayyaye] raıı into tlıe
imperial encampmeııt [cpocrcraı:ov] aııd plundered eveıı his bed and his clothes.
They fiileci their Iıands with his wealth.46

WaıTen Treadgold gave credence to the clıronological reference at the

beginning ofthe passage and accordingly dated the military encounters described
in this piece "in the same year" as the two previous short pieces copied by Michael
the Syriaıı in this chapter, accordingly in 835.47 The first of these two previous
pieces is in fact expressly dated by Michael to the year 1146 ofthe Seleucian era,
that is to say from l October 834 to 30 September 835, and briefly refers in three
lines to a campaign of IslJaq ibn IbrahTm ibn Muş'ab against the Madai rebels in
the mountains. The following piece oftwo lines, preceding the final passage ofthe
chapter, ınentions without any dating that AfshTn was sent by Mu'taşim against

4 r.
Mich. Syr. 529, trans. Chabot (1899-191O) vol. 3, 85. See Vest (2007) vol. 2, 633----4
for a German traııslatioıı with a transliteration ofthe Syriac text. Vest notes tlıat the !ast liııes
ofthe passage are difficult to read because tlıe scribe coınpressed tlıe writing at the enci of
tlıe colunın dedicated to earthly events.
47 Treadgold ( I 988) 286.
260 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos cmd t/ıe Eusı. 829-842

the Khuırnmites, an event that took place in June 835 according to TabarT.48 There
seems to be no reason not to date the final piece ofthe chapter also to 835.
However, the information about these two encounters ofTheophilos with the
Melitenians is suspect for several reasons. To begin with. no other source mentions
it. !fit were a victory for Theophilos, this would come as no surprise, for there was
no interest in reporting his victories after 842. In fact. only an antiquarian protocol
from the time of Constantine VII (see Chapter 14.2) and a difficult passage from
Stephen of Taron (see above in section 15.1) record Theophilos' victories, with
tlıe exceplion of the campaign of837 (see Chapter l 6) that triggered the massive
campaign of Mu'taşim against Amorion in 838. But Michael now mentions a
defeat ofTheophilos, and indeed a very significant one, for the imperial tent was
plundered, with the imperial wardrobe, and the emperor barely escaped death with
sonıe of his men. lt appears strange that no other source nıentions this important
defeat of the emperor at the hand of the Arabs, and especially no Arab historian.
That the caliph did not take part in it does not appear to be enough reason for this
silence.
A defoat ofTheophilos in 835 on the eastern frontier does not fit well with the
chronology of his campaigns suggested above, based on the passage of Stephen
of Taran. If OLır conclusions are right, Theophilos was campaigning in Sper aııd
Theodosiopolis in 835. Nothing is said of an encounter with the Meliteniaııs
ciuring this campaign, which took place in the Armenian heartlands, and nor is any
other campaign ofTheophilos before 837 recorded by Stephen. Furthermore, the
writiııg in 836 ofa letter by the three Melkite patriarchs praising Theophilos for
his victories (see Chapter 21.6) would not have been understandable ifTheophilos
had suffered a humiliating defeat in 835.
To the arguments ex silentio and the historical background, we must add some
other consicierations based on the structure ofthe chronicle ofMichael the Syrian
anci his working methods.49 As is already known, Michael quoted and excerpted
his sources and compiled the material afterwards. His was a work in progress, in
which he occasionally discovered new material pertaining to an earlier section
but inserted it later out ofits chronological order since it was too costly to rewrite
what had a!ready been completeci. When needed, he even excused himself for
these lapses.
There were also frequent duplications ofthe same events, which Michael failed
to detect. This was undoubtedly the case with the reference to an attack against
Sozopetra that Michael refers to at the beginning of the reign of Theophilos for
it is a duplicate of the campaign of 837 described later in some more detail. We
will find evicience supporting this in Chapter 16.1. A parallel case is the double
mention ofthe rebel Thomas at two different points in the narrative ofMichael the
Syrian, as we argueci in Chapter 13.1.

·'" TabarTIII.1170-1171,trans. Boswortlı(l991) 14.

4"
For the renıarks that follow see the overview of Weltecke ( 1997). esp. 19-30.
 B_r::cmıine Expeditioııs iıı Wesıem Arıneııia Betıl'een 834 aııd 836 261

The supposed campaign of the Melitenians in 835 could be a further case of

a misp[aced or misdated excerpt.50 Tlıe Melitenians were in fact defeated in 837
byTheophilos, although not exactly in "Roman land", but in the Fourth Arınenia,
wheıı the emperor was besieging Arsamosata, as we shall see in Chapter 16.1. The
defeat ofTheophilos in Aıızes in 838, as we shall see in Chapter 17.2, almost cost
the emperor his life, for, with a few men, he narrowly escaped death. Although
ııo meııtioıı is made by the sources of a plundering ofTheophilos' bed and clothes
in 838, it is clear that the emperor was forced to abandon his encampment in
a hurry, so that the taking of his personal belongings by the Muslims can be
assumed on this occasion. Curiously enouglı, the Melitenians also took part in
the battle of Anzes under tlıe command of AfshTn, who led furtlıer Muslim and
Armenian contingents. 51 it is even expressly tolcl by TabarT that the leader of tlıe
Melitenians, 'Amr ibn 'Ubaydallah ibn al-Aqta', seized substantial booty during
the campaign of 838, although he refers only to slaves.51
Therefore we find in the sequence of events in 837-838 a defeat of the
Meliteııiaııs by Tlıeophilos and a defeat ofTheophilos by tlıe Meliteııians, exactly
in tlıe saıne order as in the passage of Michael tlıe Syrian. The condensed narrative
in Miclıael perhaps explains why the "gathering" of the Meliteniaııs after their
defeat by the Byzantines appears as an iınınediate move rather than part of
a campaign that took place one year later. The fact that 'Amr ibn 'Ubaydallah
ibıı al-Aqta' is named as 'Umar in the passage of Michael the Syrian, whereas
he is ignored in the narrative of the events in 837, may perhaps point to a loca!
Melitenian source for the passage copied by Michael, either a short chronicle or a
popular song or poem. Concerning this !ast possibility, one must take into account
that Aqta' became an epic hero in Arabic literature. 53 He was also popular among
Greeks. The Continuator reports that "people (ol ıı:oUoi) called him Ambron
('Aµ�pov) with a small comıption ofthe letters,"54 and it is perhaps no coincidence
that the great-grandfather ofDigenis and ancestor ofhis family is named 'A�t�pcov
in the epic poem. 55 Some evocative details of the narrative, like the seizure of the
king's bed and clothes, fit in well the context of an oral tradition. Interestingly,
they also appear in a Latin naırntive of the capture of Jsaak Komnenos' tent by the
men of Richard I the Lionheart in 1191:

50
Vest (2007) vol. 2, 633-4 suggests that the attack of the Meliteııians in 835 as
reported by Michael the Syriaıı could be the result of a "Falschdatierung" or even ''eine
Verdoppluııg eiııer der spaten Razzien" ofthe Meliteııians, but in the end he seems to accept
the dating of Michael.
51
Th. Cont. III.31 (126.23-127.3) and Gen. III.13 (47.23-25).
5' TabarTIII.1259-1261, trans. Bosworth (1991) 124-5.
53 See Canard (1932), (1935) and (1961) 170-71, Vest (2007) vol. 2, 661-4.
54 Th. Cont. IV.16 (166.16-17).
55 Digeııis Akrites G.1.285 aııd G.4.37. See Jeffreys (1998) xxxvi aııd 387. Michael

uses tlıe Greek word <pocrcrıirov in his narrative, wlıiclı could perlıaps poiııt to a Greek
source.
262 T/ıe Eıııperor T/ıeoplıi/os aııd tlıe Ecısı, 829-842

Tlıe people retumed to tlıe loot aııd tlıey made off with muclı booty: anns, valuable
silk garmeııts. and even tlıe emperor's tents, together with ali tlıat was in tlıem.
including gold and silver vessels, the emperor's bed with its choice appointnıents,
aııd ali his fümishiııgs, his special helnıets, breastplates, and swords.56

it is tempting to think that the sack oflsaak Konınenos' tent left its imprint on
the narrative of Michael the Syrian about the victory of Aqta' over Theophilos,
for M ichael was a contemporary of the events of the Third Crusade (his chronicle
ends in 1199). But whatever the source was for tlıe episode of tlıe Melitenians'
plundering of the ernperor's encampnıent, it seems nıore tlıan likely that Michael
the Syrian found it undated among his sources. As he was not able to identify it
with the caınpaign of 837, he inserted it in his narrative of the year 835, probably
because he discovered no furtlıer infornıation aboutTheophilos' nıovements during
tlıis year. Tlıe victory of the Melitenians over Theophilos in 835 also provided in
his eyes supplementary grounds for the emperor's campaign against Sozopetra
ancl Melitene in 837.
There is accordingly no defeat of Theophilos in 835 at the hands of the
Melitenian troops. The events referred to by Michael the Syrian in the year 835
have probably to do with the emperor's campaign against Melitene in 837 and his
ensuing defeat in Anzes in 838 with the participation of Melitenian contingents.

5'' !tinercırium Peregrinorum et Gestcı Regis Riccırdi 11.34 in Stubbs ( 1864) l 93-4. I

take tlıe translation froın Brundage ( 1962 ).

 Chapter 16
The Second Triumph of Theophilos in 83 7

16.1 Michael the Syrian on the Campaign of 837

M ichael the Syrian preserves the fullest account ofTheophilos' caınpaign of 837. 1
Tlıe chronicler gives as ultimate cause for the campaign the arrival of rnost of tlıe
Khurrarnite rebels, Naşr included, at Byzantium, wlıere they becarne Christians.
With their help Tlıeophilos felt confident enough to undeıiake a rnajor campaign
against tlıe Arabs. He first sent ınessengers to the Great Armenia to exact a tribute,
threatening invasion and destruction in case of a refusal. As the Armenians did
not have troops at their disposal, they complied and paid. As a consequence,
Theophilos thought that everytlıing would lıappeıı according to his wishes.
it is difficult to assess whetlıer tlıis slıort account is a faint echo ofthe campaigns
led by Theoplıilos and tlıe Klıurrarnites in Armenia in the years before 837 that we
considered in previous clıapters. However, it appears that Theophilos first tried his
hand at the Armenians and only afterwards ventured on a large-scale invasion of
Arab territory. This comes next in the account ofMichael the Syrian. I translate the
passage from tlıe French version by Chabot:

In tlıe summer of 1148 [oftlıe Seleucid era, i.e. 837] Theoplıilos marched anew
against Zuba\ra. When the barbarians took it, they slaughtered without mercy
the Christians and the Jews. Their ferocity went so far that they raped and
disembowelled the women.

After they had sacked and bumt down tlıe city, tlıey went to the region of
Melitene, to wlıich they set fire and where they also took prisoners. They sent
absolutely all ofthe prisoners to the Land ofthı,: Romans.

They went over to Hanazit and to the region ofArsaınosata. They Iaid siege to
this city. The Taiyaye [i.e., the Arabs] who were inside, and as they had heard
about the slaughter in Zubatra, were seized by fright and coınpelled either to pay
tribute to the Romans or to Ieave the city and take flight, for no rescue was sent
to theın as the Persians were busy with the war against Babak and were angry
with Abü Isbaq, who had levied taxes upon them.

1 Mich. Syr. 531-3, trans. Clıabot (1889-1905) vol. 3, 88-90.

264 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilus aııd t/ıe Eası. 819-841

The hatred or the Taiyaye agaiııst us the other Christiaııs iııcrcased because of
tlıe expeditioıı of tlıe Romans aııd tlıey would have killed us had they not been
tolcl tlıat the Christiaııs ofZubaıra had beeıı sacked by the Romans.

in particular the Christians ofEdessa were sufferiııg because ofa bold man ofthe
same Edessa, called Shaımına, wlıo went to serve the Romans and eııcouraged
thenı to ıııake the Taiyaye perislı.

Wlıile tlıe Romans laid siegc to Arsamosata, one group of the Arabs RabT'aye
[an Arab tribe]' and the people of Melitene gathered to fight thenı. Tlıe Taiyaye
were defeated and four tlıousand died among theın.

The Romans took aııd burnt down Arsamosata aııd went over to the region of
Armenia, taking prisoııers and setting fire. They lefr soon and pitched their camp
ııear Melitene. Theophilos ordered its inhabitants: "lfyou do not opeıı the gates
to nıe ancl do not accept a cleal for your life, I will nıake you ali perish along with
your city as l clicl witlı Zuba\ra." Then tlıe juclge and the people of note came
out to nıeel lıim ancl lıeld an interview with him using flattering worcls. They
asked ilim for sonıe delay to give him hostages and guaranteecl that they would
not make any incursion into his couııtry. When they gave lıiııı presents aııcl the
Roman prisoners who were held in their city, the enıperor parted for he was
afraid ofbeing reached by the anny ofthe Taiyaye.

The king Abü lsl)aq, puzzled by what the Romans had done, sent 'Ujayf [ibn
'Anbasa] against them, with four thousand men. The Romans had the upper
hand, destroying his army, and he took flight with a few men. He soon assembled
a new army and marched forward in wintertime. He took some prisoners, cattle
and horses and turned bacl<. When they approached our country, with hostile
intent, they barred ali routes and pillaged every person they met.

Modem historians have followed the account ofMichael the Syrian practically
without changes when trying to describe the sequence of events.3 Both the
geographical background and the accurate details given speak for the likelihood
ofthe account. There are however some points to consider.
First of ali, there is the fact that Michael the Syrian says that Theophilos
marched "anew" against Sozopetra, as if this were the second expedition of
the emperor against the city. No other source refers to a previous campaign of
Theophilos in the area, but Michael has a duplicate ofthe account misplaced some

2 A nomadic tribe origiııating fronı Bahrein. See Mich. Syr. 540, trans. Chabot ( 1899-
1910) vol. 3, 106-7 for their activities as brigands against the caliph.
3 See for example Treadgold (1988) 293--4, who follows closely the account of
Michael except for some lesser detail takeıı from Mas'üdT. lbid. 440, note 401 a shoıi
comment upoıı llıe main sources for the eveııt.
 Tlıe Second Triıııııplı (ı/'T!ıeoplıi!os iıı 83 7 265

pages before, exactly at the beginniııg of tlıe reigıı of Tlıeophilos.4 Tlıis parallel
accouııt refers agaiıı to tlıe reasons that promptecl tlıe emperor to wage a canıpaign
in the east ancl to his laying siege to and taking Sozopetra, but does not mention
the further development of the militaıy expeditioıı in Arsaınosata, Arınenia aııd
Melitene, for immecliately afteıwards Michael ınentions the desertioıı of Manuel
the Armeııian to tlıe Arabs as taking place "in the followiııg year".
This first account provides some minor details tlıat are absent from the second.
Thus Theophilos is encouraged to attack the Arabs not only because tlıe Khurramites
joined his a1111y, but also because the Bulgarians had submitted to him. 5 It is also
said that the Byzantiııes took Sozopetra by placing scaling ladders on the walls and
that they massacred men, women and childreıı. No word is said about Jews now,6
although the raping of the women, taken naked into captivity, is also mentioııed.
Finally, it is said that the Arabs rebuilt the city after the Byzantines left.
it appears that Michael read two different versions of the same event in two
different sources, which probably made common use ofa thircl one for the siege
of Sozopetra. 7 Despite the remarkable similarity of llıe reports, Michael seems
to believe that Theophilos did indeed take the city of Sozopetra twice, perhaps
because the two versions ofits siege and taking by tlıe Byzantiııes were handed
dowıı by his sources in connection with different events and, most inıportant,
with a different dating: the first version referred to the beginııiııg of the reign of
Theophilos whereas the second provided an exact date, the year 1148, that is to
say, 837. Nevertheless, it is clear that the second dating is the coıTect one, as ali
the other sources date the siege ofSozopetra to the caliphate ofMu'taşim and
more exactly to the years 837-838. The presence of the Khurramites indicates
that the siege could not have taken place before their aITİval in Byzantium after
833, as we saw in Chapter 10.l. The reference to a siege ofSozopetra at the veıy
beginning ofTheophilos' reign must surely originate from the laclc ofa date for
the first report, a circumstance that prompted its author to begin his narrative
about Theophilos with this veıy siege, for he perhaps knew that Theophilos led
a victorious campaign in the east (the one of 831) in the first years ofhis reign

4 Mich. Syr. 522,trans. Chabot (1899-1910) vol. 3,73-4. Vest (2007) vcıl. 2,621-2
follows Michael closely and concludes mistakenly that a first attack on Sozopetra could have
taken place in 829-830 or even in 825-826,during the reign ofMichael II. He considers the
political context in his argumentation but does not appreciate the close similarity between
the two accounts, as we shall sul;ısequently see.
5 This mention of the pacification of Bulgaria may explain why Mas'üdT, The
Meadows o.fGold, vol. 7,133-4, trans. Vasiliev (1935) vol. 1,330,speaks ofBulgarians
and other peoples, but not Khurramites, as taking part in the expedition of Theophilos
against Sozopetra. it is in fact possible that the presence of the Bulgarians was deduced
from tlıe simple statement ofthe source that the enıperor had previously sealed an alliance
with them to put an end to the war in the Balkans.
6
For the presence ofJews see Vest (2007) vol. 2, 638.
7
Oııe oftlıe sources was probably Dionysios ofTell Mabre lıinıself. wlıom tlıe caliplı
IVla'ıııüıı met in Kaysüııı on his way to Daımıscus. See Vesl (2007) vol. 2. 625-32.
266 Tlıe Emperur Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ılıe Eası. 819-841

and he did not have any better source for it. But whatever the reason the author of
the first version had for putting the report of the siege there, Michael borrowed it
unchanged for his chronicle and did not recognize its affiliation with the second
report dated precisely to 837.
A second aspect to consider in the report of Michael the Syrian is the dating
ofthe event to the summer of 1148 oftlıe Seleucian era , which corresponds to the
suınmer of 837. The Arab sources date the expedition instead in the year 223 of
the Hegira (3 Deceınber 837-22 Noveınber 838) and accordingly in the summer
of838.8 Again, as we saw above in tlıe case ofthe expedition ofMa'mün of832 in
Chapter 14.3, the Arab sources are not tnıstworthy, as they connect the expedition
of Theophilos against Sozopetra and Melitene with the retaliatory campaign of
Mu'taşiın against Amorion that undoubtedly took place in 838. Accordingly,
the Arab sources include both caınpaigns under the year 223 of the Hegira in
order not to break the narrative. Evidence of the chronological problems the Arab
authors had with this campaign is provided by TabarT himself, who explicitly says
that the date of the departure of Mu'taşim for his campaign against Amorion is
given differently in tlıe sources: "It has been said that he departed thither froın
Samarra in 224 [23 November 838 to l I Novenıber 839], or alternatively, in 222
[14 December 836 to 2 December 837], after he had killed Babak."Q To these two
years HA 223 [3 Deceınber 837 to 22 November 838] must ofcourse be added the
year when al Mu'taşim actually set offfor Byzantium! TabarT includes the report
ofthe campaign in this veıy year.
We must therefore approach with caution the fact that TabarT dates "on Monday,
the second ofJumada 1"10 the sending by Mu'taşim oftroops under the command
of'Ujayf to relieve the inhabitants of Sozopetra. The 2nd ofJumada I ofHA 223
(the year under which TabarT includes this information) corresponds to 1 April
838, which was indeed a Monday, so that the coincidence would in fact support
this dating. However, April 838 is too Jate for the relief expedition of 'Ujayf, if
we admit that Theophilos' campaign took place in the summer of 837. But ifwe
put the 2nd ofJumada I in Hegira 222, it again rnakes no sense, for it corresponds
to 12 April 837, which was not a Monday but a Thursday, and presupposes that
the emperor had already left Constantinople in the winter for a long carnpaign in
the east, against the testimony of Michael the Syrian.11 The solution to the puzzle
is afforded this time by Mas'üdı, who dates "on Monday, the second of Jumada
I" not the departııre of the relief expedition of 'Ujayf but of the expedition of

8 TabarT III.1234,trans. Bosworth (1991) 93; Mas'üdT, The Meadows ofGold, vol. 7,
133-4,trans. Vasiliev (1935) vol. 1,330; Ya'qübT,vol. 2,580,trans. Vasiliev (1935) 274.
9
TabarT III.1236,trans. Bosworth (1991) 97.
10 TabarT III.1236,trans. Bosworth (1991) 96.
11 Rekaya ( 1974) 56-7, note 5, discusses the problem but comes to the conclusion
that tlıe expedition of 'Ujayf sent by Mu'tasim dates from 222 and set off fronı Baghdad
12 April 837.
 Tlıe Seconc/ Triıımplı [}j'T/ıeop/ıilos iıı 837 167

the caliph himself against Amorion! 12 This is again a warning about the troubled
chronology of the events in TabarT but, more important, implies tlıat Theoplıilos
could not lıave campaigned in 838 in the area of Melitene and Arsamosata, for
it was in spring of that year that the caliph, after sending first the expedition of
'Ujayf, finally succeeded in putting together a massive anny to retaliate against the
enıperor for his previous attacks.
It is also irnportant to stress that the caliph 's delay in preparing a retaliatory
campaign against Theophilos is duly explained in the sources by the fact that tlıe
main goal for Mu'taşinı in 837 was to suppress the rebellion of tlıe Klıurramites of
Biibak: only when the resistance ofthe !ast Khurramites in Azerbaijan was crushed
could the caliph start thinking of a massive campaign against the Byzantines. The
parallel with the campaign of Ma'nıün in 832 is blatantly obvious, for the caliph,
as we demonstrated in Chapter 14.3 and 14.5, was then prevented by the events in
Egypt from taking immediately to the battlefield against Byzantiuın to retaliate for
the previous campaign ofTheophilos in 831.
Moreover, Theophilos probably decided to launch his attack on the eastem
frontier knowing of the ınilitary pressure the Klıurrarnites exerted on the northern
border of the caliphate. Whether Theophilos tried to coine to Biibak's aid at a
moment when the Khurramite leader and Byzantium 's ally was in a desperate
situation in front of the Arab arınies, or whether he simply tried to take advantage
of a suitable circumstance, will perhaps never be known. But the fact remains
that the open front of the caliphate against the Khuıwmites certainly favoured
Theophilos' offensive in 837. It seerns on the contraıy less likely that Biibak, as
TabarI claims, tried to engage the emperor in a campaignjust to divert the caliphal
troops who were fighting him:

It has been mentioned tlıat tlıe reason for that [Theophilos' campaign in 837]
was tlıe position into whiclı Babak had fallen, because ofhis being driven into
a tight comer by Afshin, his reduction to tlıe verge ofdestrnction, and Afshin's
continuous pressure on him. When he was close to final perdition and became
convinced that his own resources were now too weak to combat AfshTn, he
wrote to the king ofthe Byzantines, Theophilos, son ofMichael, son ofGeorge,
informing him that the king of the Arabs had sent his armies and warriors
against him, even to the point of sending his tailor (he meant Ja'far ibn Dinar)
and his cook (he meant Aytakh), and that no one remained behind him at his
headquarters. [He accordingly told him], "Ifyou want to march out against him,
know thanhere is no one in your way who will prevent you." Babak sent that

1" Mas'üdi, Tlıe Meadows ofGold, vol. 7, 135, trans. Vasiliev (1935) vol. 1, 331. See
the critical remarks to Rekaya about this point in Treadgold (1988) 440, note 401. The fact
that Mas'üdi does not mention the expedition of'Ujayfdoes not undermine his reliability,
for he expressly says that his account ofMu'tasim's reign in the Meadows is but a summary
of his other lıistorical works: Mas'üdi, Tlıe Meadows [}(Gole/, vol. 7, 144-5, see Vasiliev
( 1935) vol. 1, 318.
 The [ıııperor Tlıeoıı!ıilos aıul ılıe Eası. 829-84:l

communicatioıı cır his to the king oftlıe Byzantines in tlıe hope that,if he could
induce the kiııg lo mouııt an attack. some oftlıe difficulties tlıal he lıimsclfwas
at tlıat point cııduring would be dispelled by Mu'tasim lıaving to transfer some
oftlıe armies theıı facing Babak to combat the king oftlıe Byzantines and by his
attention being thus deflccted from Babak.13

in any case, the evideııce provided by TabarT and Michael the Syrian waITant
the conııection between the caliphal offensive against Babak and Theophilos'
campaign. As the crushiııg of Babak is to be dated in 837, so too is the offensive
of the emperor..
The campaign of Theophilos in 837 is also characterized by the ferocity of
the imperial troops, although Michael makes the "barbarians", that is to say, the
Khurramites, directly responsible for slaughtering the population of Sozopetra, not
only Jews but also Christians, and for the raping of its women. The cruelty of the
Khum:ımites towards the civilian population is in accordance with the information
Stephen Asoghik provicles about a previous campaign of the KhuITamites in
Western Armenia, where they are said, as we saw in the previous section, to have
attacked the town Gomadzor and "massacred many with the sword". TabarT refers
for his part to the fact that the Byzantines _took over a thousand prisoners in the
cities they seized and "made an exaınple of those Muslim men who fell into their
hands, putting out their eyes with hot irons and cutting off their ears and noses". 14
Although the Khuınunites are not expressly held responsible here for this savagery,
some lines later TabarT highlights their crucial role in the Byzantine arıny during this
campaign, making the connection between them and the punishment inflicted on
the population self-evident for the readers. 15 The arrival of refugees froın Sozopetra
as far as SamaITa, as also stated by TabarT in the same passage, is perhaps fuıiher
proof of the fierceness of the fight, where old quan-els may have played a role. 16
According to Michael the Syıian, as we saw above, the Christians also suffered at
the hands of the Muslims, who wanted to retaliate for the misfortunes of the Arabs
in Sozopetra. The situation in Edessa must have been especially strained, for one
citizen in the city apparently joined the Byzantines with the purpose of attacking
tlıe Arabs. This infoıınation, unparalleled by other sources, is very important and
suggests that Theoplıilos could even have envisaged an advance further south, into
the Osrlıoene, of which Edessa was the capital.
The Greek sources make no reference to ali these religious and etlmic tensions
revealed by tlıe oriental sources, which offer a first-hand account of the impact
of the Byzantine campaign over the mixed population of the area. This is not a
secondary issue, for it is perhaps the sudden eınergence of these tensions that

ıı TabarT Ill.1234-1235, trans. Bosworth ( 1991) 94.

1� TabarT Ill.1234, trans. Boswortlı (1991) 93.
ı; TabarT lll.1235,trans. Boswortlı ( l 991) 95.
1" See Mas'üdT, Tlıe ı\ılecıdoll's c�/'Gold,vol. 7, 134, trans. Vasiliev ( 1935) vol. 1,331:
"Terror spread cverywhere".
 Tlıe Secoııcl Tri11111plı ıı{Tlıeoıılıilos iıı 837 269

Samosata O

O Edessa
o ıo 20 JO ,:o 50 rıo�m
O S IO l!i W 2',; JU l',; ,:amıltl

Map4 Scheme of the campaign ofTheophilos in the east in 837 according

to Michael the Syrian

alienated Byzantine sympathies in the area and may explain that the caliph, despite
the iınportant presence of Armenians in the imperial anny and at the couıt (as we
saw in Chapters 3-8), could rely on the Armenians in the campaign he launchecl in
838 against the Byzantinemainlancl in Anatolia.
ThatTheophilos' army nuınberecl 100,000 men, as TabarT states (he says: "or
even more tha'n that"!) must be nıled out, 17 but it had to be in any case a very large
army for the standarcls of the time. 18 Otherwise,Theophilos woulcl not have clared
to go as far east as Arsaınosata after plundering Sozopetra. He also left behind the
city of Melitene. If we follow his ınoveınents in Map 4 accorcling to the report

17 TabarT Ill.1235, trans.'Boswortlı (1991) 95.

18 See Clıapter 14.2 for coıısideration of tlıe average size of tlıe armies of tlıe time.
witlı bibliography.
270 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos ancl ılıe Eusı, 829-84]

of Michael the Syriaıı, we immediately detect the daııger to which Theophilos

exposed his troops, for coııtiııgeııts comiııg from the regioıı ofMelitene or eveıı the
Kommagene could have barred his way back to imperial territoıy. In fact, Michael
the Syriaıı says that Arabs of the Rabi'a tribe with the help of the iıılıabitaııts
of Melitene followed the army of Theophilos to the east aııd joined in the fight
against the Byzantines when they were laying siege to Arsamosata. Although the
Byzantines were then in a difficult situation, as they !ay between the Arab forces
coming from the west and the inhabitants of Arsamosata - who could make a sally
against the besiegers al any time - they managed to defeat the Rabi'a and kili four
thousand of their men, if we give credence to the probably inflated numbers given
by Michael the Syrian. That the Byzantines took the risk of such a confrontation
far from Byzantine territory can be explained only because they felt confident
enough in their ııumbers to face aııy loca! amıy.
Back in im perial territory after the taking of Arsamosata, the Byzantines even
tunıed again to the southwest to besiege Mel itene, wlıiclı tlıey had bypassed wlıen
they first nıarched south to take Sozopetra. Only after taking hostages from the
Melitenians, Michael the Syriaıı says, did the Byzaııtines leave for their country,
because Theophilos "was afraid of being reached by the army of the Taiyaye", that
is to say, a regular arnıy seııt by the caliph to encounter the invaders. in fact, sonıe
caliphal troops, commanded by 'Ujayf and consisting of perhaps four thousand
men, joined in tlıe. fight witlı the Byzantines and were again defeated, most of the
Arabs dying in the battle. 'Ujayf saved his life, but by the time he could asseınble
anotlıer arıny, it was already winter, asMichael tlıeSyrian inforıns us. 'Ujayf could
only take some prisoners and provisions and pillage the country, ınost probably
to get supplies for his troops. Tlıis is further proof of the isolation of the caliphal
troops in the region tlıat tlıey were trying to defend against the invaders.
It seems tlıerefore that the Byzantine army found no serious rival in the area.
Theophilos could take two cities (indeed even a higher number if we consider the
text ofSamuel of Asoghik which we will analyse in Chapter 16.2), and defeat two
armies in a pitched battle, one consisting of Arab loca! forces and the other a force
hastily sent by tlıe caliph to relieve the people ofSozopetra. Only the prospect of a
major force coming from Baghdad, which seemed increasingly possible following
Babak's defeat, as well as the impending winter, finally moved the victorious army
to retreat to its headquarters.

16.2 Armenian Chroniclers on the Campaign of 837

Another point to be considered in the reconstruction of events during this

campaign is the reason for tbe apparently strange move of Theophilos towards
distant Arsamosata, wlıich !ay outside the main route towards the caliphate to the
south of Melitene. The Arab sources note the taking of Melitene and Sozopetra
but say nothing about Arsamosata. This cannot be advanced as proof that the city
was not besieged and taken by Theophilos, since tlıe Arab authors are ııaturally
 Tlıe Second Triıımplı of T!ıeophilos in 83 7 271

less concerned about events in the Armenian mainland. This is not the case, as we
have seen, for Michael the Syrian and related sources. 19 The Armenian histories
ofStephen Asoghik ofTaron and Sanıuel ofAni provide considerable information
about the movements of Theophilos in the area of Arsamosata aııd the Fourth
Arıneııia, which put the strategy of the emperor into a clearer context. However,
as we saw in Chapter 15.1, the identification of the places mentioned is rendered
difficult by the corruption ofthe naınes.
Let us coıısider first the text of Stephen Asoghik in an English translation
Tiınothy Greenwood kindly provided. It is §5 of the passage quoted in full in
Chapter 15.1:

Aııd in the same year, Theoplıilos peııetrated Syria aııd took the city of Urbeli
aııd fought with the Arabs at Almulat [Arsamosata] and triuınphed. This man
during his march to the eastern part of the province of Arınenia, tookTsınu tlıe
Armenian fortress, Asaglıiıı, Metskert aııd Aghberd in the district of Geglıaın;
and he rendered Klıozan and Fourtlı Annenin deserted by man and beast.
Stephen Asoghik 11.6.

As a sample of the errors contained in the passage we can perhaps consider

first the mention of Urbeli as a city conquered by Theophilos in Syria. The name
is reıniniscent of the well-known city ofArbela in Assyria, also spelt Erbil, Arbail,
Urbel or Irbil.20 However, it should be discounted that Theophilos campaigned in
the heaıi ofthe Abbasid caliphate, so we must assume a comıption of the name. As
we have already said, Marquart supposed that the passage ofStephen !ay at the end
ofa quaternio and was therefore very damaged.According to him, a seribe amended
many ofthe names ofthe places found in this passage as he copied the text. Being
unable to read them correctly, he often supplied missing letters and modified to a
great extent the original wording. So Marquart thinks that Uıp[eli] was a substitute
for [Z}uıp[ata} that was a usual Aımenian rendering of Zupatra or Sozopetra, the
city actually taken by Theophilos in 837.21 Although some letters must be changed
to explain the error, we'cannot find a better altemative, as Sozopetra was the only
Syrian city ever taken by Theophilos. The possibility that the archetype of our text
was damaged, as the ink faded away, should be seriously considered.
This false reading of the Syrian Sozopetra is already a waming against taking
too literally the names of the following Armenian cities, especially when these
names are difficult to identify., This caution is reinforced when look at Samuel of
Ani, who copied in the margin ofhis chronological tables a short version ofthe note

19
See Bar Hebraeus, C/ıroııography 148, trans. Budge ( 1932) vol. 1, 135-6 and
C!ıroııicle of 1234, vol. 2, 22, trans. Abouna and Fiey (1974) 15.
20 See Hewsen (2001) s.v. "Erbil" in index p. 318.
21 Marquart (1930) 48, note 2. AsTimothy Greenwood comments to me, the fact that
Samuel of Ani gets this name riglıt is also strong evideııce for a corruption ofthe origiııal
after tlıe !ate twelftlı century, for Samuel was certaiııly workiııg from Stepheıı ofTaroıı.
272 Tlu: Emperor Tlıeop/ıi/os emel t/ıe Eası, 819-841

Stephen Asoghik transınitted. Samuel, who inserts this passage next to the reign
of Theophilos, lists a series of Armenian cities taken by the eınperor that differs
considerably from tl10se mentioned by Stephen. Saınuel 's text runs as follows:

Theoplıilos entered Syria and seized the city of Zupata. He went also toAm1enia and
took the fortress of Paghin, Metskeıt,Ankgh in the district of Degis, and Khozan.22

Only the cities ofMetskert and Khozan appear in the two texts. As both are
easily identified and lie near to each other to the north ofArsaınosata (see Map 5),
we have every reason to suppose that they were actually taken by Theophilos. But
what can we say of the rest of the cities mentioned in the two lists? Although the
differences seem difficult to explain ifwe consider that both writers based their
work on the same source, there is however a diffuse similarity in the wording that
made Marquart propose a corrected version ofthe more detailed text of Asoghik
taking into consideration the variants recorded by Sarnuel ofAni. His corrected
version of the text of Asoghik, which has not been questioned so far, runs as
follows:

5. Tlıe sanıe year Theoplıilos enlered Syria and took tlıe city of Zurpata. He
fought witlı tlıe Arabs at Ashnıoushat and vanquished tlıenı. This nıan during his
nıarch to the eastern part of tlıe boundaries ofArmenia took Tsmu, the fortress
of the Armenians, Paghin, Metskerl and Ankgh in the province of Degis, and
Khozan, and rendered the FourthArmenia into a desert without men and beasts.23

The eınendation ofthe unknown Asaghin ınentioned in Stephen for the well­
known city ofPaghin recorded by Sarnuel can be admitted. Indeed, Paghin lay quite
near to Arsamosata, although in Hewsen's atlas we find two different locations, as
we see in Map 5.24 The first places Paghin to the east ofArsamosata and, like this
city, lying on the south bank of the river Arsanias that flowed westwards to the
Euphrates. This circumstance would explain why Paghin could have been one of
the first targets ofTheophilos in his campaign. But as the city is mentioned after
Tsmu, which may be Iocated further east (see below), I prefer the second location
ofthe city to the north ofArsamosata, next to Metskert and I<.hozan in the region
ofPaghnatun to which it gives its name.

22 Timothy Greenwood checked the present translation far me. See alsa the German

translation of Marquart (1930) 45, where the event is dated to the year 828. The French
translation of Brosset ( 1876) 423 is somewhat different: "Il va en Syrie et prend la ville
ele Zoupatra; en Arımfoie, il prend la fortresse de Paghin, Medzkert, Degis dans le canton
cl'Ancli et Khozan." The rendering "Degis dans le canton d'Ancli" must be a mistake by
the French scholar, as Marquart cloes not mention any correction on his part of the original
wording of the Armenian text, which he copies at 45, note 2.
23 I adapt into Englislı the translation by Marquart ( 1930) 48-9.
ıa Hewsen (2001) map 48.
 Tlıe Secnıııl T ri11111plı r!f'Tlıeoplıi/os in 83 7 273

Cities attacked by Theophilos in 837 according

� to Stephen Asoghik and Saınuel of Ani
SOkın
'-/"� •···•·•·•· Maın roads
lOmikı - Border of the Fourth Armenia

Map 5 Campaign of Theophilos ın the east in 837 according to the

Aımenian sources

More difficult to accept is Marquart's substitution of "Ankgh in the province

of Degis", as it appeared in Samuel, for "Aghberd in the province of Gegham",
the wording we have in Stephen. The province of Degik' (TEıcı1ç-Digisene)
!ay on the left bank of the Euphrates where it begins to flow southwards after
passing Tephrike. The river served at this point as the Byzantine eastem frontier.
Accordingly, the city of Ankgh should have been in this area, but instead it is
located to the southeast of Arsamosata, close to the point where the western
and eastem Tigris merge and accordingly to the south of the Arsanias river.25
Moreover, the province of Degilc' was not the point where Theophilos crossed
the frontier. fodeed, the emperor supposedly entered Armenian territory through
the bridge to the east of Melitene, for Michael the Syrian says that the Roman
army, after pillaging the region around Melitene, went to the Handzit and entered
the region of Arsamosata.26 The region of Handzit/ijanazıt or Angegh-tun lies in
fact between Arsamosata and Melitene and constitutes the natura! link between
these two territories, whereas the district ofDegik' couid have been raided by the
emperor only on his way baclc to the empire. However, ifthis !ast holds true, what

25 Marquaıi (1930) 49-50. See Hewsen (2001) map 48.

21' Miclı. Syr. 532, trans. Clıabot ( 1905) vol. 3, 89. Tlıe saıne reference in tlıe Chmııic/e
of /234, vol. 2, 22, trans. Abouna and Fiey ( 1974) 15.
274 Tlıe_ Emperor T!ıeop/ıi/ns c111d t!ıe Eası. 82_9-842

is the sense of the nıention of the province Degik' between the cities of Metskert
and Khozan tlıat !ay between Degik' and Arsamosata?27 Finally, if Theophilos
proceeded to the northwestern region of Degik' after taking Khozan, it would be
difficult to explain wlıy he later turned to the south to attack Melitene, whereas
if Khozan were the last city taken in the Fourth Arınenia, he could have easily
followed the route through Handzit on his \vay bacl< home, as we can see in Map 5.
in that case, he would have again come across Melitene on the way.
I think accordingly that Marquart's conjecture on this point is not very likely.
Certainly we have no information about a city called Aghberd, and the province
ofGeglıam, \\·here it should be placed, lies by lake Sevan in the heart ofArmenia,
a place Tlıeophilos surely never reached. Thus the text of Stephen needs to be
amended at this point, but l aın not sure, despite Marquart's arguments, that
Sanıuel of Ani preserved the original wording. 1 think that the name Aghberd
in Stephen could be a corruption ofT'laberd, which [ay, according to Hewsen's
atlas,28 south of Paghin on the river Miuss (the other Gayl, today called Peri-su)
and veıy close to the two other cities listed later, Metskert and Khozan (see Map
5). As T'laberd, Paghin and Metzkert a!l lay in Paghnatun, we should expect that
the region naıned after them was precisely this one, and not Geglram or Degik'.
The fact that Khozan, which lay near to Metskert, is cited after the ınention of the
province can then be easily explained considering that it !ay to the west bank of the
river Getik, which probably ınarked the frontier between Paghnatun in the east and
the Sophene (Cop'k' Shahuni) in the west. 29 So we must suppose that the mention
of Gegham was substituted for a previous mention of the region of Paghnatun,
however the error could have arisen.
The identity of the fortress of Tsınu is also not clear. Marquart admitted that
he did not to know where Tsınu !ay, but then tried to locate it in the region of
Khordzean, near Koghoberd, to the north of Arsaınosata.30 However, his reasoning
is very complex and, being based on several premises, has been discounted by
the specialists.31 The fortress of Tsmu is, however, located very precisely in the

27 Perhaps we should have expected a mention of the region of Angegh-tun in our

Arrnenian sources, for Theophilos crossed it when he marched against Arsamosata. Could
the mention of the province of Gegham have been due to a misreading of Angegh-tun?
However, there is no hint in mır sources that a single city in the Handzit was taken by
Theophilos in this raid across the region.
28 Hewsen (2001) map 48.
29 Bartikian (1994) 127-8 considers in his translation that the reference to the province
ofGeghaın refers notjust to the city ofAghberd, but also to ali ofthe previously cited cities.
30 Marquart (1930) 50-53.
31 Marquart identifies our Tsmu witlı a Greek bishopric called TÇt�tEVoii whiclı is
associated with the region of Kop-rÇw� (Khordzean) and the bishopric of KehÇtv� in a list
ofbishoprics ofthe tenth century edited by Darrouzes (1981) as Notitia 8, Iines 122-3 (see
also ibid. Notitia I I, lines 141-2). But as tlıere was a place called TÇouµtva Iocated in tlıe
Deıjan region, to tlıe nortlı of tlıe lıiglı course oftlıe Euplırates, near to KehÇıvıj, Marquart
ıııust also prove tlıat TÇı�ıEvou had nothing to do witlı it. Dairouzes ( 1981) 81, note 2, 83,
 Tlıe Secoııd Tı·iıımplı o/Tlıeoplıilos iıı 837 275

region of Degik' in two maps of the Hewsen atlas.31 There the place is also given
tlıe naınes of Jonıah and Khosomakhöıı,3ı and it is also identified with the Greek
Romanoupolis. 34 Unfortunately, the location of Romanoupolis seenıs not to be
quite clear in Hewsen 's atlas, for we find two alteıııative locations for it, both quite
near to Arsamosata, in a nıap depicting the ecclesiastical provinces of Byzantium
in the eleventh century.35 As we do not know what Hewsen's hasis was for such
locations, one is tempted to suppose that he somehow identified Tsmu with the
other cities, whose location is also disputed.
Nevertheless, there is some discussion about the location of Ronıanoupolis,
a city already ıııentioned by Constantine VII near the region of Handzit. 36 lt is
significant that Honignıann placed this city in a strategic crossing between the
road leading fronı Theodosiopolis in the north to Aınida in the soutlı and tlıe road
that followed the course of the river Arsanias from Arsamosata to Muslı. 37 Tlıis is
exactly tlıe point where Hewsen places it among otlıer ecclesiastical sees ofthe area
in the eleventh centmy. Whether this Romanoupolis has something to do with mır
Tsnıu is a question I am not able to answer, but its location east ofArsanıosata and
its strategic value made Romanoupolis a first target in Theophilos' expedition to
the east ofArsamosata. it is curious that Stephen Asoghik calls Tsmu "tlıe fortress
of tlıe Amıenians". Actually tlıis precision seems utterly superfluous in a list of
Armenian strongholds. 38 It looks like an explanation destined to identify tlıe place
for the readers. Could we suppose that the chronicle which Asoghik used as a basis
for this account was a Greek one and that he mistook Apµı::virov n61ı.1ç ("the city
of the Annenians") for 'Poı�tmoı'.m:oıı.ıç ("the city of the Romans")?39 This could
point to a kind of Greek Annales of the reign of Theophilos as a source for tlıe
Armenian historians and could be the reason for the comıptions and misreadings
in the names ofthe places we have detected so far. However, we would need more
evidence for that conjecture.40

91 and 122, note 2 and Honigmann (1935) 198-200 had rejected Marquart's conjectures
convincingly as they proved that the connection between TÇı�ıEvou and KoprÇıv� / KEtı.TÇtvıı
in the Notitiae episcopatum can only be a mistake.
32 Hewsen (2001) maps 81 and 87.
33 See also Hewsen (2001) map 78.
34 Hewsen (2001) map87.
35
Hewsen (2001) map 105.
36 De administrando iıııperio, eh. 50.
37 See especially "Mentions de Romanopolis" in Honigmann (1961) 87-98.
38 Unless, as Timothy Greenwood suggests to me, the precision indicated that the
fortress was held by Armenians rather than Arabs, Persians or Kurds.
39
it has been considered that this city was named Romanoupolis after Romanos I
Lakapenos took control of the area in the beginning of the tenth centuıy, but f wonder
whether this city could have had this name before. Alternatively, the Greek source used
could be later tlıan tlıe reign of Romanos 1.
411 According to Tinıotlıy Greenwood, tlıe rendering of Klıurranıite as 1 loroıııid
- ıııay
also point to an origiııal Greek source. However. as ıve already conınıented in Clıapter
276 T/ıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos emel ı/ıe Eası. 819-841

üne must also take into consideration the possibility that the reference to the
"forlress of the Armenians" is misplaced in the present text and that it originally
referred not only to Tsrnu but to ali the fortresses mentioned in the text, for ali the
places named are rnore strongholds than cities. In that case, we would have no
connection between Tsmu and Romanoupolis in the text, thus ınaking its location
in the province of Degik' more likely. But we would then need to explain how
Theophilos could have turned aside to the Degik' region and later proceeded again
lo the south, to besiege Mel itene. As we said above, this makes no sense. However,
if Tsmu is correctly placed in Degik', then we must suıınise a coırnption of the
lext, perhaps lhe result ofa hasty sumrnary ofthe source. We argued along these
lines in Clıapter l 5.1, wheıı cornrnentiııg upon the campaigns ıneııtioned before
during Theophilos' reign.
A !ast point ınust be coıısidered. The Armenian historian wrote at the end of
his account: "Theophilos rendered Khozan and the Fouıth Armenia deserted by
men and beast". The Byzantine province ofFourth Armenia (renamed Justiniana
by Maurice in 591) coınprised the districts ofKhortziane (K.hordzean), Astaunitis,
Palines (Paghnatun), Balabitene (Arsamosata), Sophene, Anzitene (Handzit),
Digisene (Degik') and Gaureııe,41 and included the areas we have considered
until now in our conımentaıy of Stephen's passage. However, it seems that the
reference to the Fourth Arınenia is linked only with Khozan. in this case the term
Fourth Armenia should be understood as referring only to Sophene, which was the
heart ofthe whole region.
lf our conjectı.ıres are right, we could restore the text of Stephen Asoghik as
follows:

And in the same year, Theophilos penetrated Syria and took the city ofZupatra
and fought with the Arabs at Arsamosata and triumphed. This man, during his
march to the eastern paı1 ofthe province ofAnnenia, took Tsmu the Annenian
fortress [or the Arınenian fortresses of Tsmu ete.?], Paghin, Metskert and
T'laberd in the district of Paghnatun; and he reııdered I<.hozan and Fouıth
Armenia deserted by man and beast. Stephen Asoghik II.6.

Ifthis was the original rendering ofthe text (and other possibilities cannot be
excluded!), then T heophilos proceeded to the noıthwest after taking Arsamosata
and conquered several cities in Paghnatun (Paghin, T'laberd and Metskert)
and lastly K.hozan in Sophene. Only the location of Tsmu in Degik' does not
make much sense, for it !ay far away from the route followed by the emperor.

15, Stephen may not have consulted directly this supposed Greek source but lmown of it
through the mediation ofthe lost history ofShapuh Bagratuni, who probably used it.
�1 Hewsen (2001) map 77. This map is an exact and thorough rendering of the
administrative division of Anııenia in the seventlı century drawıı by the Aııııeniaıı
matheınatician and scientist Aııanias of Slıirak.
 Tlıe Secoııd Tri11111plı o/'Tlır!oplıilos in 837 277

Figure 4 Follis witlı triuınplıant Tlıeophilos, holding !abamın witlı cross in

riglıt lıand, globe cruciger in left hand. Found in the Lower City
Enclosure of Aınorion, 2006. Courtesy of tlıe Aınorium Excavations
Project.

A corruption could be surmised, one perhaps affecting tlıe precision 'fortress of

the Armenians', which seems superfluous.
The apparent devastation Theophilos left behind in the area contrasts
surprisingly with the more conciliatory attitude the emperor adopted in his
previous caınpaign in 835-836 in the region of Upper Armenia, where Sper and
Theodosiopolis !ay. The massacre of the K.hurramites in Vanand early in 837
could explain the ferocity of the imperial troops in the capture of Sozopetra and
also the destruction they sowed in the Fourth Armenia, which was probably more
connected with the Armenian Bagratids ruling inTaran and Bagaran. In any case,
this act of retaliation and this display of might was going to cost Theophilos the
participation of Bagarat ofTaron, appointed prince of princes by the caliph, in the
campaign that Mu'taşim undertook against Aınorion the following year, as we
shall subsequently see.
No matter which route was followed by Theophilos in 837, the campaign was
a major success for lıirn. 1 f we also take into account the seizure of Sozopetra and
the defeat of llıe Musliııı lroops of Mel itene, the whole carnpaign of 837 coulcl be
278 The Emperor Tlıeop/ıilos aııd rlıe Ecısr. 829-842

accordingly identified with the second triumph ofTheophilos' reign mentioned in

the Greek protocol edited by Haldon (see Clıapter 14.2).
More difficult to assess is whether this military expedition was the same as
that the Continuator mentions as lıaving taken place "at Charsianon" (Kara ro
Xapcrıav6v). The caınpaign was also followed by a triuınph-4" We favoured such
an identification in Chapter 14.2, but with great caution, for no clear conclusion
can be drawn from the sources.

4'
Th. Cont. 111.23 ( 1 14.17-22).
 Chapter 17
Theophilos' Defeat at Anzes and the
Capture of Amorion in 83 8

17.1 A Retaliatory Campaign for tlıe Plundering of Sozopetra?

According to ali the sources, the defeat of the Muslim troops by Theophilos
during the campaign of 837 infuriated Mu'taşinı, who immediately prepared for
a retaliatory expedition against Byzantiuın. The surrender of the !ast Khuırnınite
rebels in Azerbaijan culminating in the execution of their Ieader Babak had
finally given the caliph a free hand to undeıiake a massive campaign in Anatolia.
Accordingly, the Arab troops entered Byzantine territory in June 838, divided iııto
two contiııgents tlırouglı tlıe passes ofAdata and Tarsus.
Tlıe Byzantine sources explain the campaign ofMu'taşim against Aınorion as
a retaliatory act for the taking and plunderiııg of Sozopetra, which they present
as the caliph's native city. So, the Continuator says that Tlıeophilos took in 837,
besides two other cities, "Sozopetra itseıt: which was the native city ofthe caliph"
(aunıv ı;�y I:wÇ6ıı:sı;pav rcaı;p[oa wrxavoucrav rou aµııpa�LVOUV�). 1 Genesios is
even more explicit, for he informs us that Theophilos proceeded in 837 "towards
the native city itself ofthe then-ruling caliph, which is called Sozopetra" (au"tji -rfi
ıı:a,pioı ... rou ,6rıı ıcpmouvroç aµııpa�tvouvıı, fjrıç I:wÇ6rcıırpa ıı:pocnıy6pııurm)2
and again (in a second version ofthe same events) that the emperor took "Sozopetra,
the city where the caliph was bom" (I:wÇ6ıı:ıı,pav ıı:61ıv ıfjv µmııucraµevrıv ,ov
aµııpaµvouv�).3 As the Continuator combines into a single narrative two different
reports about the same events, whereas Genesios does not,4 we can therefore
conclude that Genesios used two different sources about the taking of Sozopetra
and that both mentioned it as the native city ofthe caliph.
The Logothete seems to draw from a further source, for he adds some details
not mentioned by the Continuator or Genesios. In fact, he refers to the taking of
"Zapetron and Samosaton, a mighty city that then flourished in wealth because
ofthe caliph being from there" (ı:rıv Zarcıırpov ıcai ,o I:a�wcrarov, rc1o-6rcp ıcoµrov
ıcai ouvaµııı. ,6rıı Ola ro rov C(�lcpa�lVOUV� bcıft0ııv ııivm). 5 The chronicler now
ınentions Sozopetra in a form closer to the one used in Semitic languages (Arabic

1 Th. Cont. III.29 (124.11-12).

Gen. III.11 (45.47-49).
3 Gen. III.13 (47.3).
4 Sigııes Codofier ( 1995) 553-7.
Log. (A) T/ıeoplıi/os [130] 23 (223.158-159).
280 Tht• Eıııperor Tlıeuplıi/os aııd tlıe Eası. 829-841

Zibatra, Syriac Zubatra), albeit also attested in Greek writers. 6 More important,
he a\so mentions Samosata as the second city taken by the emperor, an indication
that is lacking in the Continuator and Genesios.; This reference may appear as
an error for Arsamosata, to which the Arab, Syriac and Armenian sources refer
indepe11de11tly of each other, as we saw in Chapter 16 when dealing with the
campaign of 837. The problem is that the syntax ofthe phrase seems to make this
city ( and not Zapetra) the place where the caliph was bom and this makes 110 sense if
the Logothete was referring to the Armenian Arsamosata. However, the Logothete
may be allucling to Samosata, the ancient capital of the Kommagene, which was
not only ınore important than nearby Sozopetra (and accordingly better k11own
to our chronicler), but also the adıninistrative see of the region. The Logothete
could have ınentioned Samosata merely in order to make it clear to readers to
which region Zapetra belonged. That the Logothete did not refer to Arsamosata is
apparently coıToborated by the fact that he does not mention Melitene either, a city
110 oriental source fails to record when reporting Theophilos' campaign of 837.
Whatever the case, it is clear that Sozopetra ( or the smrnunding area)8 was
consiclered by Greek historians to be the native city ofcaliph al-Mu'taşim. However,
nowhere in the Arab sources is it stated that Mu'taşiın was bom in Sozopetra, a
circumstance that has pushed scholars to tllink that the Greelc authors made Sozopetra
the 11ative city ofMu'taşimjust to provide a parallel for the taking ofAınorion in 838,
for Amorion was in fact the birthplace of the reigning dynasty founded by Michael
II the Amorian, Theophilos' father. 9 This explanation is not entirely satisfactory.
Certainly the more important city ofMelitene was not actually taken by the emperor
and Arsamosata lay further away from the area of interest for Muslim historians,
so that Sozopetra was the only one ofthe three major cities attacked in 837 which
remained free to be assigned the role ofnative city ofthe caliph, ifone city should be
punished for that by a Byzantine attack. But was it really conceivable that Byzantine
propaganda could have concocted the idea that Sozopetra was the caliph's native
cityjust to provide a parallel for the taking ofAmorion?

6
Th. Cont. V.39 (268.11 line 3 in Sevcenko [2011]) = Skyl. , Basileios I, 1 8 (136.23)
7
The Logothete uses the singular Laµ6craı:ov instead of the most usual plural
Laµ6craw.
8
The Continuator also has the caliph refer to Sozopetra as his naı:pic; in the following
passages: eıc ıiic; naı:pi8oc; aı'.rrou Th. Cont. III.29 (124 .13-14); eni -rfj ıcaw.Jı.ı'Jıııat ı:e ıcai
ırop0ı'Jcrat 1:fic; naı:piöoc; aı'.rroü ibid. III.30 (125.16-17); eni -rfj ,:fic; naı:pi8oc; aicrxuvn
ibid. III.30 (125.22-126. l); 1:ı'Jv 1:fic; naı:piöoc; a.ı'.rrou iiJı.rocriv 1:a ıcai n6p0ıımv ibid. III.33
(129.19-20). The Continuator also uses the word naı:pic; for referring toAmorion when he
says that twoArabic contingents converged "against the patris of the emperor" ( ıcaı:a. ,:ı'Jv
1:00 �amJı.fo:ıc; nmpi8a) Th. Cont. fil.33 (129.13). On a p�evious occasion, however, the
Continuator uses the expression � 0peıımµEVT] for referring toAmorion as the birthplace of
Michael II (Th.Cont. Il.3 [42.7]). in three other cases nmpic; appears in the Continuator as
a reference to regions or countries (Annenia for Leo V, Paphlagonia forTheodora), but not
to cities (Tlı. Cont. 1.1 [6.4]. 1.1 [6.10-11] and 111.5 [ 89.15-16]).
'' Vasiliev(l935) 140, ııote I andTreadgold(l988)440, ııote 40I.
 Tlıeoplıilos · Dc/eaı al Aıı:=es aııd ılıe Capıııre (}f'Amorioıı in 838 281

Mu'taşinı was born in 794, according to TabarT, in the Khuld Palace of

Baghdad.10 His nıother was a Turkic concubine of his father Harün al-RashTd.
She is said to have come froın Sogdiana, although she could have been born in
Küfa. Her father was apparently resident in Baghdad.11 No connection is therefore
provided between Sozopetra and the nıaternal faınily ofMu'taşim.
However, the possibility remains that some of Mu'taşiın's relatives had
established themselves in Sozopetra. This is what one of the hagiographies
written for the 42 martyrs of Aınorion seems to imply. There it is said that
Theophilos took "illustrious cities of the Agarenes, where thefamifcv of the then­
ruler of the Ismaelites was living" (ırnpıcpaveiç ır61ı.etç r&v A.yapııv&v, Ev0a Kai
r6 roü Kparoüvroç r6re r&v 'lcr�ıaıııı.ır&v KaroiKouv yevoç).12 Although the word
yevoç is certainly aınbiguous (it could apply as well to the race or nation of the
lsınaelites), its connection with the ruler ofthe lsnıaelites, that is to say the caliph,
is unmistakable here, so that some kind ofrelationship between Mu'taşim's faınily
and the area ravaged by Theophilos in 837 seems to be alluded to here. Curiously
enough, the expression -roü Kparoüvroç r6re r&v 'Jcr�taıııı.ırwv reminds us of
Geııesios' roü r6re Kpm:oüvroç u�tepa�tvouvıl,' 3
A story repoıied by later Arabic sources may perlıaps lend soıne support to this
interpretatioıı. Accordiııg to this stoıy, a

Hashemite womaıı, wlıo fell captive in tlıe lıands of tlıe Rum [i.e. during
Tlıeophilos' campaign of 837 against Sozopetra], shouted: "Woe is me,
Mu'taşim", and the caliph, sitting in audience on his throne, answered her:
"Here I aın, here I am." He got up at once and shouted out in his castle: "A
trumpet call, a trumpet cali." Then he mounted his horse, tying behind his saddle
shackles, an iron ploughshare arid a haversack with provisions ...

and departed for Amorion. 14 Nothing is said about the origin and kinship of the
woman with Mu'taşim, althOugh her cali for help was immediately attended by
the caliph and appears as one of the main reasons for his retaliatory campaign.
The story was apparently known to older historians, for TabarT reports that the
fleeing refugees from Sozopetra reached Samarra with the news of the capture of
the city and its inhabitants. When the caliph was informed, he immediately made
a cali for arıns and mounted his horse with the aforementioned objects attached
behind his saddle.15 The difference is that no specific woman is mentioııed among
the prisoners of Sozopetra. Moreover, TabarT adds that the caliph finally depaıied

10
TabarT IIl.1324, trans. Bosworth (1991) 209.
11 TabarT III.1329, trans. Bos�vorth (199 l ) 216.
12
Acta Mart. Aıııoı:, vers. l':ı., 40.26-27.
13
Gen. III.11 (45.47).
1� Ibıı al-AthTr Vl.480. See alsa Ibıı al-Tiq\aqa 316-17, trans. Wlıittiııg ( 1977) 229 ancl

tiıe Book oft/ıe Soıırces 390 as well as Boswortlı ( 1991) 96, note 270.
1;
TabarT il1. 1235, trans. Boswortlı ( 1991 ) 95-6.
282 Tlıe E111peror T/ıeoplıilos emel ı/ıe Ecısı, 829-842

for Amorion only after ali arı-angements had been completed, perhaps because the
historian knew· that İl was only in 838 that Mu'taşim set offfor Byzantium.
it thus appears that Tabarı suppressed the reference to the Hashemite woman
from his source. He found it either inconvenient, for it discredited the Arabs
that a Hashemite woman had been captured, or nonsensical, for the caliph could
obviously not have heard her from such a distance. However, the woman's cali for
help from a distance certainly made a strong impression on the caliph. Although
the sources do not specify why the Abbasids should have considered her particular
case so important, we may surmise that it was because she was a Hashemite,
for the Abbasids considered themselves representatives of this family, connected
witlı the prophet. They claimed descent from 'Abbas son of 'Abd al-Muttalib and
grandson ofl-lashim. 'Abbas had been patemal uncle ofMuhammad and brother
ofAbü Talib, who had taken care ofthe orphan Muhammad and married his son
'AiT to Fatinıa. Accordingly, the Abbasids "cultivated the idea that the family [of
the prophet] consisted of the descenclants of Hashim, thus including the 'Alids
ancl 'Abbasids but excluding the Umayyads". 16
Therefore the emphasis on the Hashemite status ofthe woman, who must have
been a noble lady of some importance, appears clearly as an indication of her
relation to the Abbasids and therefore to Mu'taşim, who surely felt obliged to
come to help his (distant) relative. A more explicit and detailed version ofthe story
has been preserved in the Arab epic of Dhiit al-Himma, where the lady is even
given a name. Although this is obviously a literary work that freely recreates the
past, its account fits in well with our interpretation. According to the summary of
the passage made by Lyons, when Mu'taşim is busy with the building ofSamarra,
one of the spies of his minister 'Abd al-Wahhab arrives "and telis him of a
Hashemite gir! called Zainab, whom he has seen treated as a slave in 'Ammüriya,
and who had called out that she was related to the caliph" (italics mine). We are
fı.ırther told that Zainab was captured at Mayyafüriqi'n by a certain Küshanüsh and
"imprisoned in a dungeon when she had refüsed to become a Christian". She then
converted the mother of her master, but his sister told him ofthis and he therefore
tried to sell her. "Mu'taşim, on being told ofthis, marches against 'Ammüriya".17
We can therefore hypothesize that among the prisoners taken by Theophilos in
Sozopetra prominent members ofthe Hashemite family related to the caliph were
found. The twisting ofthe facts in the oral and epic traditions may explain why the
Byzantines referred to Sozopetra as the native city of the caliph. Arab historical
sources understandably silenced the episode, although some of them preserved a
faint echo ofevents.
Contemporary beliefs about Sozopetra have consequences for assessing the
aims and targets ofthe Aı-ab campaign against Amorion in 838. As we shall see,
every detail in the expedition was carefülly planned, but, if we trust the Greek
sources, the Arabs did not conceal that their target was Amorion, the fatherland

1 <• Kennedy ( 1986) 125.

17
Lyons ( 1995) vol. 3,460.
 f
Tlıeoplıilos · Defecıı al Aıı=es cınd ılıe Ccıplııre o Amorioıı in 838 283

of the reigning emperor. Tlıe Continuator, for example, writes that thc caliph
"ordered and proclaimed everywhere that men of all ages gathered togetlıer from
Palestine and Nether Libya should inscribe Aınorioıı on their shields, alluding with
boldness to his carnpaign against it". 18 Genesios repeats the sanıe infonnation for
he says that the caliph "ordered that eveıy standard-bearer should inscribe his
charge with the word Aınorion". 19 Moreover, the Continuator (but not Genesios)
and the Logothete say that when Theophilos was at Dorylaion, he was informed
of the cal iph's intention to attack Amorion.20 We might consider tlıat the caliph's
announcernent ofhis militaıy plans was a serious strategic error, for the Byzantines
could use tlıe previous knowledge ofthe movements ofthe enerny to organize an
adequate rnilitaıy response on the field: in fact, Theophilos seems to have sent
fresh troops to Amorion when he heard of Mu'taşim's plans. Obviously this clid
not matter in the enci, since we know that the Arabs attained their target and took
and sacked Amorion. But werc the Arabs so confident of their own force as to
minimize the disadvantages such a public proclamation of their targets could
cause them? Or was there some propagandistic aim involvecl? And, Iastly and
most inıportant, why should Mu'taşiın have taken such an interest in Aınorion?
As we saw, when TabarT records that the caliph regarcled the sack ofSozopetra
as a great calarnity, he does not mention any special link between Mu'taşim and the
city. 21 No Arab writer rnentioned Amorion as Theophilos' birthplace either, as one
might reasonably expect, since Arab sources obviously stressed the importance
of taking the city. TabarT says that when Mu'taşim decided to campaign against
Byzantium, he asked first for the place in the Byzantine lands that was most
impregnable and securely fortified. His advisors mentioned Amorion and thus he
set off against it.22 Further on, Tabarı informs us that Mu'taşim planned that the two
contingents of his army should come together in Ankyra, which was also a main
target ofthe expedition. Then he adds: "there was nothing greater in the Byzantine
lands upon which he had fixed his intentions than these two towns [Ankyra and
Arnorion] or any worthier goal for which he was airning". 23 This reference to
Ankyra along with Arnorion indicates that it was the strategic irnportance of the
two cities that made of them a self-evident military objective. This, however,
does not exclude the possibility that the caliph could have chosen Amorion as
a target because of the symbolic value of the city for the ruling dynasty or as
retaliation for the capture ofmembers ofthe Hashemite farnily in Sozopetra in 837

18
Th. Cont. III.3O (125.17-2 1): coç navı:axou 0ecrıticraı ı:a ıcai ıcrıpul;m nfümv �ıı.ııdav
lıc ITaıı.aıcrı:ivııç ı:a ıcai ıfjç ıc6:rro AıPurıç cruva0poıÇoµevııv ini ı:aıç a.crnicrıv m'.mov ı\yypaııım
«Aµ6pıov» ı:ı'jv ıcaı:' auı:oi} liıaPetcrtv �ıaı:a 0pacrfrrrıı:oç aivm6�ıavoç.
19
Gen. III.11 (45.53-55): 0w�Lo0eı:aı ıı:avı:i ı:4i ı:o <ptı.a�Lµoupov nepHpEpovı:ı -ypaqıfi
lvorııı.ouv ı:ı'jv ı:oi} A�ıopiou cruÇ�ı:ııcrıv.
20 Th. Cont. III.3O (126. 1- 15) and Log. (A) Tlıeophilos [ 130] 32 (226.225-228).
"1 TabarT IIl. 1235, trans. Bosworth.(199 1) 95.
" TabarT 111.1236, trans. Boswortlı (199 I) 97.
'·
1
TabarT ili . I237, trans. Boswortlı ( 1991) 99.
284 Tlıe Emperor T/ıeoplıilos aııd tlıe East. 829-842

as well. Obviously Amorion's strategic and economic importance was probably a

determinant for the caliph's clıoice, but we ımıst not disregard the impoıtance of
symbols. The Byzantine authors (or their oral sources) undoubtedly simplified the
facts when they made the caliph attack Amorion in retaliation for the seizure ofhis
native city, but their rhetorical presentation of the events was perhaps not so far
fronı the propagandistic version spread by some Arab sources.
ln any case, there is no doubt about the massive character of the campaign.
TabarT says that Mu'taşinı equippecl hinıself"in a manner that no previous caliph
had ever done in regard to weapons, military supplies, iınpleınents,J.eather water
troughs for the animals, ımıles, beasts of burden for carrying water, goatskins
for water, iron tools, ancl naphtha". Certainly the nuınber of men taking part in
the expeclition, given by Mas'üdI as between 200,000 and 500,000 soldiers, is
untenable,24 and even the more moclerate estirnate of Michael the Syrian (80,000
solcliers plus 30,000 rnerchants and dealers) is to be approached with the utrnost
caution.25 But it must have been in any case a very large expedition forthe stanclards
of tlıe time. The references to a general levy of troops among the population of
Palestine and Egypt, nıentioned by the Continuator and Genesios, fits well with
this idea.26 The caliph accordingly did hot need to put the name ofAınorion on the
shields of his soldiers to ınake the emperor fear for the fate of his native city. This
is what a hagiography ofthe Byzantine martyrs ofAmorion actually suggests. This
version, which is very favourable towards Theophilos, has the following account
of the events:

As tlıe leader of the abominable Arabs envied this. city and wanted to take it,
since he had previously suffered also terrible losses through the great autokrator
Tlıeophilos, wlıo was tlıen the ruling emperor of the Romans, a noble man in
eveıy respect and strenuously active in many occasions, for he [i.e. the caliph]
was ravaged in his own country many times and had been sacked, forced to
abandon many cities and taken as captive, he plans thus in tum to inflict also
a similar damage on him and sets off in campaign full of fury against this city,
reuniting a multitude of nations and drawing behind him barbarians of rough
voices, peoples of confused and slow tongues, to speak in a prophetical way,
from which no mımber exists (ci:ıv apı0µoç oı'.ıK fonv), but even carrying with him
every kind of equipments of engines for sieges ÜLTJXUVTJ�ta.-ı:cov ıcai e1ı.ım61ı.ı::cov

24
Mas'üdT, The Meadows of Gold 135-6, trans. Vasiliev (1935) 331. See however
Vasiliev (1935) 146.
25
Kennedy (2001) 97-99 considers that 100,000 salaried troops were maintained by
the Abbasid state at this time. See also Chapter 14.2 for the average size ofaımies at the
time, with bibliographical references.
26
Th. Cont. III.30 (125.17-20) and Gen. Ill.13 (47.5). The references of the
Continuator in the edition ofBekker (1838) to Babylon and Koele Syria as places wlıere the
recnıitment took place are not in the manuscript ofthe work and were added from Skylitzes
by François Coınbefis, tlıe firsl eclitor ofthe text.
 T/ıeoplıilos · Dc!/'eaı aı A11=es and ılıe Captııre o(ılmoçioıı i11 838 285

crKEUTJ ımvroıa). by which a city is taken and pluııdered. Wlıile the barbariaıı
prepared ancl equippecl hiınself agaiııst tlıe city, tlıe enıperor, leaıııiııg of the plot
(aicr0av6pcvoı; njç ıiırıpou1ı.�ı;), ıııade ready lhe ıneaııs he had at haııd for providiııg
(the defence). And, assenıbling ali tlıe arıııy uııder his conııııaııd, he seııcls to the
city those hejuclged could rival the barbarians aııd fight tlıenı uııdismayecl. These
blessecl lıappened to be among the first officials ofthe wlıole arınyY

This version not only confinns the impoıiance of the army assembled by
Mu'taşim, but also specifies that among the ınilitary supplies and implements
ınentioned by TabarT there were engines for sto1111ing cities, or at least tlıe materials
for building theın (this explains perhaps the "iron tools" referred to by the Arab
chronicler).
When such a big arıny crossed the Byzantine frontier, the eınperor could
not but imagine that some attack on an important target in western Anatolia was
envisaged. And Amorion was at the time perhaps tlıe only major city of Anatolia,
as made evident by recent excavations in the area. It was not only provided with a
massive circuit of walls covering more than 50 hectares but also acted as a centre
for the processing of agricultural produce, functioned as a conınıercial entrepôt and
manufactured finished goods. 28 it is perhaps not without reason that TabarT says
that except for Anıorion and Ankyra "there was nothing greater in the Byzantine
lands upon which he had fixed his intentions".29 Ibn Khuıı-adadhbih considered
Amorion the only city in the district of the Anatolikoi and ınentioned that its
wall was defended by 44 towers.30 Michael the Syrian reports even that when the
caliph entered Amorion he "admired the beautiful structure of the temples and the
palaces" and mentions a population of 4,000 males.31
Mas'üdI reports that, after taking Amorion, Mu'taşim wanted to march against
Constantinople. His plan was to reach the Bosphoros and storın the city by land
and sea. It was apparently only an impending danger (meaning the usurpation
of 'Abbas) that prevented him from doing so.32 This boasting seems unrealistic
and, as we shall see below, it does not tally with the account of the retreat given
by JabarT, for there reference is made to the continuing threat represented by the
Byzantines even after the taking of Amorion. Again, as we saw above in Chapter
14.7 when dealing with the invasion of Ma'mün in 833, Arab sources are not to
be taken too seriously in these cases, for either political propaganda or literaıy

27 Acta Mart. Amoı:, vers. B, 11.21-36.

28 See Lightfoot and Lightfoot (2007) 17-20 and 45-6 and Lightfoot (2007) 286. For
a detailed bibliography on Amorion see tlıe official web page oftlıe Amorium Excavatioııs
Project: http://www.amoriumexcavations.org/Publications.htrn.
29 TabarTIII.1237, trans. Bosworth (1991) 99.
30 lbıı Khuırndadhbih 107-8 (trans. 79-80).
31 Mich. Syr. 537. trans. Chabot(l899-1910) vol. 3, 99-100.
·" Mas'üdT, Tlıe Meadoıı-s of Gole! 136, trans. Vasiliev ( 1935} 332. See Clıapter 18. l .
286 T/ıe E111peror Tlıeop/ıi/os emel ılıe Ecısı. 829-842

cmbellishment here played a role in presenting Constantinople as the ultimate

targel of the invaders.33
Accordingly, the importance of Aınorion explains why Theophilos sent
reinforceınents to the city under the command of Ieading figures ofthe Byzantine
army, as the hagiographical text also expressly says. This point is confinned
by other hagiographies of the ınartyrs of Amorion.34 We do not know which
contingents were first sent by Theophilos to reinforce Anıorion, although the first
man in command was undoubtedly Aetios, the strategos ofthe Anatolikoi, whose
capital Amorion was. 35 When the city was finally taken by the Arabs, among
tlıe clefenders there figured high-ranking officers like the patrician Theophilos, 36
a meınber of the Melissenos family (probably strategos),37 the protospatarios
Theodore Krateros (perhaps strategos of the Boukellarion),38 the droungarios
(perhaps ofthe watch, for he was patrician) Constantine Baboutzikos (Theodora's
brotlıer-in-law),39 and an officer named Bassoes (of unknown rank).40 We do not
know whether Theophilos sent sonıe of them to Amorion before or after his first
encounter with the Arabs at the battle ofAnzes.41 in any case, there is every reason
to suppose that Theophilos reactecl as soon as he could to protect Amorion when
he realized that the city was the main objective ofthe Arab troops.

33 in tlıe accouııts oftlıe Dlıiiı a/-Himma, a bulky frontier epic reflecting eveııts ofthe
eightlı aııd ııiııtlı ceııturies, Coııstaııtinople was takeıı many times. See Lyons (1995) vol. 2,
151-211 and vol. 3, 301-504 for a summary ofthe work. We reproduce here the summary
made by Lyons (ibid., vol. 3, 423) ofa passage referring to Mu'taşim 's preparations for a
campaign against Constantinople: "He [Mu'taşim] now sends a letter to Malatya in which
he says that he intends to attack Constantinople, take it as the seat ofhis empire and crucify
'Uqba [a traitor] there, but in a private message to 'Amr he says that this is a ruse. He then
goes to Khurasan where he collects an army of a million men, including the king of the
Turks who has four hundred thousand followers."
34 Acta Mart. Amoı:, vers. !:ı, 42.4-8 says that Amorion was the second city of the
empire and that Theophilos sent there "the high-ranking officers ofthe Romans" (wiıc; t&v
'Pwµaiwv ıı:pwtcipxouc;) to fortify and secure it (de; ox;upcocrtv Kal acrqıatı.aıav) against the
Arabs. This !ast indication can be connected with information provided by TabarT III.1 245,
trans. Bosworth (199 I) I 08, about the orders Theophilos gave to repair the walls ofAmorion
that had collapsed because of heavy rainstorrns. The walls were badly repaired, probab1y
because of lack oftime, a circumstance that paved the way to the taking of the city by the
Arabs. This suggests that the decision to repair the walls was taken in haste when notice
of the Arab invasion reached the emperor. However, for TabarT it is the negligence ofthe
governor ofAmorioıı that explains why the city walls were not repaired in a timely manner.
35 PmbZ#l08-1 09 and PBE s.vv. "Aetios 2, 4".
36 PnıbZ #8211 and PBE s.v. "Theophilos 6".
37 PınbZ#4952, 8211 and PBE s.vv. "Melissenos 1 , 2".
38 PınbZ#7679 and PBE s.v. "Theodoros 67".
39 PmbZ #3932 and PBE s.v. "Konstantinos 30".
,o PmbZ #982 aııd PBE s. v. "Bassoes 1 ".
41 See Sigııes Codofier (1995) 560-61. See Treadgold (1988) note 408 for an
identilication of the posts held by all these persons.
 T/ıeop/ıilos · Defeaı aı An=es emel ılıe Ccıpıııre ofAmorioıı iıı 838 287

17.2 The Route Towards Amorion

There were maııy roads leadiııg to Amorion aııd Aııkyra from tlıe east, so tlıat eveıı
if the final target of Mu'taşim was known to Theoplıilos, the emperor would not be
able to anticipate tlıe routes that tlıe armies ofthe caliph would follow. The strategy
accordingly played an impoıiant role in the developınent of the war. Fortuııately,
TabarT offers a very long and detailed account of the campaign, füll of minor
details and written with a narrative talent, from which the reader catches a veıy
vivid glimpse of the feelings pervading the caliph's arrny on its advance through
Byzantine Anatolia.42 The events are always told from the point ofview ofa witness
who took part in the canıpaign as a nıember oftlıe caliplı's column (which entered
Byzantiunı through tlıe pass of Tarsos), probably a person close to the Turkish
coımnander Ashnas.43 What happened to the other contingent leci by AfshTn, which
enterecl Byzantium through the pass ofAdata, is told in TabarT through the testimony
of other persons, but is also veıy accurate. However, as AfshTn 's troops were the
only ones that effectively fought the inıperial troops, the Greek sources provide
supplementaıy information about the encounter with the Muslims as seen from the
Byzaııtine side ancl especially about the role the Persians and Manuel the Armenian
played in events. A thorough analysis of the account of this fasciııating text ( one of
the best naırntives ofa nıilitaıy campaign in the period) being not at place here, we
will merely outline the main stages ofthe confrontation with the aid ofMap 6, where
the approximate routes followed by the different amıies are drafted.
The main contingent of the Arab army was with Mu'taşinı and numbered
50,000 men, if we trust Michael the Syrian. The commander of this army was
Abü Ja'far Ashnas, a Turkish general who later became governor of JazTra, Syria
and Egypt. He leci the vanguard of the troops, followed by the main contingent
of the caliph at a distance of a two-day march. TabarT details the different cities
taken by this contingent as he proceeded to the northwest after crossing the pass of
Tarsos towards the end of June 838 (Map 6, route 1 ). When the caliph was in the
region of the MatamTr (subterranean cities) beyond Tyana, he dispatched a letter
to the vanguard ofAshnas, who had advanced until Marj al-Usquf, "the bishop's
meadow", a plateau between Nazianzos and Nyssa (Map 6, route 3).44 In this letter

42 TabarT III.1234-1256, trans. Bosworth (1991) 93-121. Vasiliev (1935) 144-77

has the best modem description of the campaign, based mainly on TabarT. TabarT's source
for thi.s campaign is probably Ipn AbT Tahir Tayfür (819-893), whose Boole ofBaghdad,
containing a comprehensive history oftheAbbasids until the year 879, is unfortunately Iost
except for book 6 dealing witlı the years 819-833 ofal-Ma'mün's reign. As the account of
these years in Ibn Tayfür was copied by TabarT with minor changes, it seems likely that
TabarT also used Ibn Tayfür for his narrative oftheAmorion carnpaign. For the iınportance
of Ibn Tayfür see now Toorawa (2005). A detailed commentary of tlıe route followed by
Mu'taşim in 838 can be found in Bury (1909).
�ı Kennedy (200 I ) 133.
44
For the positioıı of Maıj al-Usquf, see Bury (1909) 121-12, Vasiliev (1935) 149,
note 3 and 412, 1-Iild and Restle ( 1981) 229 and 1-Ialdon (2001) 87-90.
288 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeuplıi/os wııl ılıe Ecısı, 829-842

Map 6 Mu'taşim 's campaign against Amorion in 838

the caliph wamed him that the emperor was waiting for them on the other side
of the river Halys.45 The caliph wanted to join in battle with the emperor after
fording the river and ordered Ashnas first to wait and then to seek out a man from
the Byzantines whom he could question about the plans of the emperor. Ashnas
dispatched a contingent of200 cavalrymen under the command of'Amr al-F arghaıü
with this purpose to the area around the fortress of Koron (Qurra), which was the
administrative capital of the district (thema) of Cappadocia (Map 6, route 4).46
The Arabs rightly supposed that the commander of Koron would probably know
about the movements of the emperor. However, the commander of Koron was
also aware of the presence of the Muslim contingent, so that he "went out with
ali the cavahy who were with him in Qurra and concealed himself in ambush in
the mountain that !ay between Qurra and Durra". 'Amr al-Farghanı succeeded in
avoiding a clash with the forces of Koron and even managed to capture a number
of Byzantines of the imperial army. After that he rode baclc with them to Ashnas.
Tabarı says that they met Ashnas "on the Lamas", meaning the south margin of

45 Bury ( 1909) 121-3 has explained the reference of Tabari to the river Lan10s in
Ciliciaasa ıni stake for I--lalys. See al sa Vasi liev (1935) 146, note 4 and Bosworth (1991)
100, note 296.
�,, Tabarı [il . 1237-1238, t ar ns. Boswortlı ( 1991) 99-100.
 Tlıeop/ıilos · De/eaı at ılıı:::es aııd tlıe Capture ofılıııorion iıı 838 289

the Halys.-ıı Apparently Ashnas had moved north in the meantinıe, leaving Maıj
::ıl-Usqufand approaching the Halys, probably to the east ofNyss::ı,-ı8 although the
exact routes followed by him and the main contingent led by Mu'taşim cannot be
traced with certainty (Map 6, route 6).-19
in any case, the Byzantine prisoners then informed Ashnas that the emperor,
atter waiting for theın for 40 days on the noıih margin of the Halys, had left the
troops under the coınınand of the son of his ınatemal uncle for he wanted to join
battle with the troops of Afshın conıing from the Armeniakoi. 50
As Tabarı stated at the beginning of his account, Afshın was the commandant
of the second Muslim contingent, who entered Byzantine territoıy through the
pass of Adata (Map 6, route 2a).51 Afshın was the Persian general who had defeated
Babak the year before and was an experienced soldier. in his contingent there were
nıanyTurkish cavalrymen, who played an important role in tlıe war, as we slıall see
in section I 7.5. Greek: sources inform us that Afshın was also joined by the troops
ofthe emir of Melitene and important Arı11eniaı1 contingents leci by the prince of
princes.52 Both were affected by the campaign led by Theophilos in 837: the emir
ofMelitene because Theophilos had defeated him in a pitclıed battle, ravaged the
countıyside and taken lıostages fronı the notables of the city (see Chapter 15.5);
Bagarat ofTaron, appointed Prince of Princes by the caliph, because the emperor
had probably made an alliance in previous years with his rivals the Georgian
Bagratids and plundered the Fourth Armenia (with Arsamosata), a region to the
west ofTaron and probably under his control (see Chapter 15.3). We do not know
the route followed by the Melitenians and Armenians to enter the empire, but Bury
suggested that they could have entered through the pass of Melitene andjoined the
arıny of AfshTn at Sebasteia (Map 6, route 2b).53
Michael the Syrian estimates his forces at 30,000 men, a number we can at
least tentatively accept considering the exceptional character of the expedition.54
Accordingly, Afshın certainly had available fewer soldiers than the main contingent
of the caliph, but stili a considerable force. AfshTn would have tumed to the east,
to the Armeniakoi, thus provokingTheophilos to leave his troops at the north edge

47 TabarTIII.1238-1239, trans. Bosworth (1991) 100-102.

48 Mich. Syr. 534, trans. Chabot (1899-191 O) vol. 3, 95 mentions the taking ofNTifüi
by the caliphal army in its progress towards Ankyra. It is described as a deserted city.
Chabot translated 'Nicaea', but it was certainly Nyssa; see Vasiliev (1935) 152 and note 1.
•19 For the advance ofAshnas from Marj al-Usquf to the Halys see Vasiliev (1935)
151, note 1.
50 TabarI III.1239, trans. Bosworth (1991) 102.
51 TabarI III.1237, trans. Bosworth (1991) 98-9.
5" Th. Cont. Ill.31 (126.23-127.3) and Gen. III.13 (47.23-25).
53 Bury (1909) 120 and note 4.
;-ı Mich. Syr. 535, trans. Chabot ( 1899-191 O) vol. 3, 95. Michael gives the ııuınber of
the troops not when they crossed the pass ofAdata, but at the moment in which they joined
battle witlı Tlıeoplıilos. Haldon (1999) 101-3 aııd (2006) 132-4 adnıits tlıe possibility of
arıııies oftlıis size in big expeditioııs at tlıis periocl.
290 Tlıe E111peror T/ıeoplıilo.ı· cıııd ı/ıe Ecıst, c/29-c/42

ofthe Halys (where he was waiting for the caliphal anny) and to march northeast,
to the river iris, leading a cletachnıent of his troops, which inclucled the Persian
contingent aııcl the iınperial tagmata (Map 6, route A). 55 The emperor had probably
decided lo join in battle with Afshın in orcler to avoid being attackecl by his troops
in the rear while he was awaiting the main army ofMu'taşim. This is an iınportant
point, for it means that the Byzantine troops ınay have been clivided into two
contingents of some importance, which could both risk separately a confrontation
with the enenıy. Although we do not know the actual mıınber of soldiers in
the army leci by Theophilos in 838, it vvould also have been considerable. The
Continualor notes a general levy orclerecl by Theophilos which coulcl perhaps have
been intendecl to help support the campaign of 838.56 Moreover, when the troops
ofTheophilos were finally on the brink of engaging in battle against the troops of
Afshın, the Continuator and Genesios say that the eınperor's army seeıned to be
superior in nunıbers.57
Accorcling to Tabarı, Mu'taşinı tried to warn AfshTn ofTheophilos' moveınents
and senl messengers to him fronı the region of the MataınTr ordering him to wait
for fi.ırther iııstructions. But AfshTn had apparently penetratecl the Byzantine
territory more deeply than the caliph assunıecl (Map 6, route 5), so that the envoys
could not fıncl his contingent. 58 Thus Theophilos' army met AfshTn's in a location
called Anzes,5" near the plain ofDazimon to the south ofthe iris river. Both aımies
joinecl in battle.
The iınperial troops won the fırst clash and began pursuing the clefeatecl
Muslims, but the intervention ofthe archers ofthe Turkish cavalry encouragecl the
Arabs again, who turneci bade ancl slaughtered the Roman ranks.60 The eınperor
and a few men, including the Persians and Manuel the Arınenian with the tagınata,
founcl theınselves surrounded by the enemy. lfnight had not come and rain had not
wet the bow strings ofthe Turks (rendering theın useless), they would surely have
met there an inevitable end.61 Fortunately for the emperor, due to the intervention
of Manuel the Arn1enian, he was able to break the lines of the Musliın arıny

55 Th. Cont. lll.3 l ( 127. 3-5; 128.4---5) andGen. lll.14 (48.30 -31 and 46-47).
56 Th. Cont. Ill.7 (93.11 -1 3): "when on account of some urgency the emperor
comınanded that even those who had ceased from service on whatsoever ground should go
out to battle' (eırni Kuı:a ı:ıva. ıcEpmfactcı.v ıccı.vra.ç eı<EA.EUuEv ö �a.aııı.wç Kal wiıç oiçıofıım,E
a.i-ciçı ıcrnauµavouç el;ıavaı ıcpoç ıcoıı.ı,µov . . .). This reference appears connected with the
story ofa general who stole a soldier's horse and gave it to the emperor. The same story
appears in Log. (A) Tlıeoplıilos [1 30) 31 (225.2 0 4---226.225) just before the account of the
military campaign of838, but without any reference to a levy.
57 Th. Cont. 111.31 ( 127.1 3-14) andGen. III14 (48.36-37).
58 TabarTIIl.12 39-124 0, trans. Bosworth ( 1991 ) 1 02 -3.
50 The pince is usually called Anzen in modern research, for it is usually named in the
accusative in theGreek sources. However, it appears as AvÇıjç inGen. lV.14 (66.34).
r,ıı Th.Cont.111.31( 127.17-128.4)andGen. IIl. 14(48.42 -46).
"
1
Th.Cont.111.31( 128.4 - l l)anclGeıı. lll.14(48.46-49).
 Tlıeoplıilos' Defeaı al Aıı::es emel ılıe Capı11re ofıl111urioıı iıı 838 291

tlıat surrounded lıim and rode away to meet tlıe main contingents of his arnıy.62
According to tlıe Continuator and Genesios, Tlıeophilos joinecl the renıaining
troops at the plain of Chiliokomon that lay between the Halys and iris rivers
(Map 6, route 8.2). There he found the generals who had deserted the army. After
confessing their fault amidst tears, they receivecl an inıperial pardon, provided
they would continue fighting against the Arabs.63
Tabarı has preserved a more accurate version of the movements of the enıperor
after his defeat in Anzes, for the Greelc sources do not nıention that the emperor left
tlıe main arnıy on the nortlı ınargin of the Halys wlıen he departed to nıeet AfshTn.
TabarT's version is reported again tlırouglı tlıe voices of Byzantine prisoners
who infornı the caliph of what lıappened in the meantiıne. The caliph took these
new prisoners when his contingent, after failing in an attempt to contact AfshTn,
proceeded to Ankyra, but faced increasing probleıns because of the laclc of water
and fodder (Map 6, route 7). Malik ibn Kaydar, a man of Ashnas (who continued
to march in the vanguard), nıanaged however to capture sonıe Byzantine soldiers
who had takeıı refuge in salt nıines after fleeing froın Ankyra with their faınilies. 64
The Byzantiııes, wlıen questioned, told Malik again, as the prisoners taken at
Qurra had previously done, how the Byzantine enıperor had abancloned the main
arıny on the Halys to fight AfshTn (Map 6, route A)."5 However, the leader of the
Byzantine captives now added some ııew infornıatioıı about the outcoıne of tlıe
encounter between the two armies. He said that tlıe contingent of the emperor first
put to flight and killed the infantrymen of AfshTn. However, "then our own troops
split up into groups to pursue them, but at 110011 their cavalıy returned ancl engaged
us in battle fiercely until they piercecl our ranks ancl minglecl with us and we with
them".66 This version is very close to that transmitted by the Greek sources, except
that the Turkish identity of the cavalıy is not mentioned.
The prisoner continues telling how he and other companions took fl.ight
and came baclc to the place on the north margin of the Halys where the main
arıny of the emperor had been left to wait for the caliph 's troops (Map 6, route
B.l). However, upon their aıTival they discovered that the army had mutinied
and deserted. Theophilos came later with a few men. The fact that the Greelc
sources say that Theophilos reassembled the rest of his troops in Chiliokomon,
further to the north, may be explained if we understand that this was the place to
which Theophilos moved after finding that the main army on the Halys had been
broken up (Map 6, route C).67 The Chiliokomon plain was probably the place to
which söme troops on the Halys had already departed when they deserted, so
that Theophilos might have followed the same route in their pursuit. He must

62 Th. Cont. IIl.32 (128.11-22) and Gen. III.14 ( 48.50-60).

63 Th. Cont. lII.32 (128.22-129.7) and Gen. III.14 (48.60-49.66).
64 TabarTIII.!240-1242, trans. Bosworth (1991) 103-5 .
,,; TabarTili.1242, trans. Boswortlı (1991 ) 105 .
'''' TabarT111.1 242-1243, trans. Boswortlı ( l 991 ) l 05-6.
''7
TabarT111 .1243. trans. Boswortlı ( 1 991) 106.
292 Tlıe E111pernr Tlıeoplıilos and t!ıe Eası. 829-842

have proceeded swiftly, for he could have re-encountered the troops of AfshTn
marching lowards Ankyra after the Byzantine defeat at Anzes (Map 6, route 8).
As we know that the Persian troops in Anzes took flight until they reached Sinope
(Map 6, routes 8.2 and E) and rebelled then against the emperor (see, however,
Chapter 13), it is also conceivable that Theophilos expected to regroup part of
these contingents marching to the north.
The Byzantine prisoner gave Malik ibn Kaydar further details that present
Theophilos in veıy favourable light, as a courageous ruler who did not lose his
temper even in the ınost difficult situation, after narrowly escaping death at
the hands of the enemy. Facing unexpected (almost massive) desertion among
his troops, the emperor decided first, according to the repoıt of the prisoner, to
execute his own relative whom he had left in charge of the army. Theophilos
tlms reasserted his authority and avoided being accused of weakness or partiality
towards a close ınenıber of his family. Most important, he was then able to pardon
the rest of the officers for their cowardice, a fact that is registered, as we saw,
by the Continuator and Genesios: Theophilos neeclecl the officers of his arnıy
to continue fighting ancl could not risk alienating their support in such a critical
moment. This nıeasure accords with the next step taken'by the emperor, according
to the prisoner: Theophilos also gave instructions to the neighbouring cities
ordering them to return the fugitives, so that "ali the troops might gather together
and encamp in orcler to resist the king ofthe Arabs". Finally, the emperor sent one
of his servants, a eunuch, to Ankyra, probably with some troops and the order to
defend the city at any cost before the the caliph 's troops came (Map 6, route D).
Since the protospatharios Theodore Krateros, at the time probably strategos ofthe
Boukellarioi and later one ofthe 42 martyrs ofAmorion, was a eumıch, it is possible
to identify him with this envoy. 68 In any case, the details provided by TabarT are
very significant, and although mentioned already in modem studies dealing with
the battle,69 show that Theophilos was not dismayed at this conjuncture and tried
to continue the fight against the caliph.
Unfortunately for Theophilos, panic spread among the people of the region,
so that when Theodore Krateros an-ived at Ankyra, its inhabitants had already left
the city and fled. Krateros informed Theophilos of the abandonment of Ankyra,
perhaps as the emperor-was already in Chiliokomon or proceeding to the west,
ınarching through Bithynia (Map 6, route F). Theophilos wrote back ordering
him to proceed onward to Aınorion to defend the city. The prisoner, however,
who seems to have accompanied Krateros until the latter reached Ankyra, did not
accompany him to Amorion (Map 6, route G), but sought the refügees of Ankyra
and joined them at the salt mines, where he was captured. 70
The repoıt ofthe prisoner to Malik ibn Kaydar ends here and with it ali direct
information TabarT provicles about the movements ofTheophilos after the battle of

"8
Treadgold ( 1988) 30l. This possibility is not mentioned in PmbZ #7679.
''" See Vasiliev (1935) 157-8 aııd Treaclgold (1988) 300-301.
7" TabarT 111.1243, trans. Bosworth ( 199 1) 106-7.
 Tlıeoplıilos' Defeaı at Aıı:::es emel tlıe Capture <4'A111orioıı iıı 838 293

Anzes. The eınperor is then said in TabarT to have sent envoys to Mu'taşim when he
had already started to besiege Aınorion. but no precise information is given about
Theophilos' whereabouts. This lack of direct infoıınation as to what happened to
the rest oftlıe Byzantine arnıy after Theoplıilos sent his envoy to Ankyra is easily
explained by the absence of any direct witness of events who could recount theın
to the main arıny ofMu'taşim. in fact, the naıTative perspective fallowed in TabarT
(or better, in his source) far the campaign of 838 is, as we mentioned, that of a
person who was in the vanguard of Mu'taşiın's contingent (with Ashnas, 'Amr
al-FarghanT and Malik ibn Kaydar), who either recorded eveıything he personally
witııessed or reported in direct speech the infarınation provided by the prisoners.
The events this narrator neither witııessed nor heard described are absent from
his account. No wonder that the rebellion of Theophobos, which fallowed the
defeat of Anzes and probably farced the retreat of Theophilos to Dorylaion or
Nikaia, is absent from TabarT's repoıi, for no witness to it was available. This
rebellion, however, explains why Theophilos could not do anything effective to
clefend Amorion (see Chapter 12).
With the information provided by the Byzantine prisoner, Malik ibn Kayclar
returned to the vanguarcl of Ashnas, carrying alsa a great nuınber of sheep, goats
and cattle taken froın the Ankyran refugees at the salt ınines. The troops ofAshnas
theıı proceeclecl to Ankyra, where the main army of Mu'taşiın coıning from Nyssa
joined theın on the following day (Map 6, route 7). On the fourth clay, AfshTn also
arrivecl in Ankyra (Map 6, route 8). The two contingents ofthe Arab arıny remained
there some days and then continued their advance against Aınorion, marching
in three contingents led by Ashnas, Mu'taşim and AfshTn (Map 6, route 9).
After seven clays of marching, they arrived in the capital of the Anatolikoi, one
day's distance, from each other, and encircled the city preparing far a siege.71
There fallows in TabarT a veıy detailecl account of Amorion's siege that is not
worth repeating here. 72 We will limit ourselves to singling aut soıne of the main
points relevant far mır argument.

17.3 The 'freachery

As we have seen, the walls of the city were damaged in a ceıiain spot because of
heavy rainstonns. According to TabarT, the governor of the city did not repair the
walls properly, as Theophilof, had ordered, so that when the Arabs were informed
of the weak point in the clefences by a Muslim renegade, they put mangonels
in front of it. With them they were soon able to open a breach. 73 Michael the
Syrian mentions that already three clays of fierce fighting had passecl when

71 TabarTIII.1243-1245, trans. Boswortlı (1991) 107-8.

n TabarTlll.1245-1256, trans. Bosworth (1991) 108-2 l. See Vasiliev ( 1935) 160-77.
7.1 TabarT1!1.1245, trans. Boswortlı ( 1991) 108-9.
29-t Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeop/ıi/os c111d ılıe Ecısı. 829-842

··a breach in the wall was shown to the Arabs". 7.ı Although he does not mention
the renegade, he confinns that the discovery of the breach was crı.ıcial in taking
the city. in fact, this breach was the point through which the troops of Mu'taşim
entered the city after 12 days of siege. 75 However, the Byzantines continued
their strenuous resistance even after the Arabs discovered the breach and it was
only a second betrayal that enabled the Arabs to take the city. This second traitor
was "the commander responsible for the place where the wall breached" and is
named W(a)ndü in TabarT. 76 As his name is translated as "bull" in Arabic, there
is no problem identifying him with the Boiditzes (Bo'ioirÇııç) mentioned in the
Greek sources.77 There can be no doubt that this second traitor existed, but it is a
clifferent matter to follow the Greek sources, mainly of hagiographical character,
in their blackenecl portrait of the man, who appears later in Samarra trying to
convert to lslarn the Greek "martyrs" taken in Amorion.78 Propagandistic aims
and literary embellishment of the Greek sources thus conceal the real motives
behincl Boiditzes' treason, which may emerge only from an attentive reading of
the narrative of the siege.79
it was thus the discovery ofthe weak point in the wall by the first (anonymous)
traitor that, i r tnıe, sealed the clestiny of Amorion, for the second betrayal, that
of Boiditzes, was but the logical consequence of the clesperate position of the
troops under his conımand, who for several days defendecl the open breach in
the walls against repeated assaults by the Arabs and the massive bombardrnent
ofthe mangonels. TabarT says that Boiditzes' soldiers "fought strenuously night
and day, but the whole weight ofthe fighting was on the shoulders ofhim and his
troops alone, and neither Yatis (Aetios) nor anyone else would reinforce hiın with
a single Byzantine soldier". Boiditzes even asked personally for more men but the
rest ofthe defenders refı.ısed to help hirn with a single man andjust ordered hirn
to manage as best as he could.80 Under these circurnstances it is understandable
that Boiditzes negotiated his surrender with the besiegers. That Boiditzes was
even deceived by the Arabs is ınade evident by TabarT, who makes him exclairn,
when noticing that the Arabs had entered the city while he was parleying with

7-1
Miclı. Syr. 535-536, trans. Chabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 98.
75 The number of days is given by Mich. Syr. 538, trans. Chabot (1899-1910) vol. 3,
100. See also for otlıer sources Vasiliev (1935) 170, note 1.
76
TabarTIII.1250-1252, trans. Bosworth (1991) 114-15. The traitor is also mentioned
as Bôdın in Mich. Syr. 536, trans. Clıabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 98 and Bar Hebraeus,
Clıronograplıy 150, trans. Budge (1932) vol. 1, 137.
77
Th. Cont. III.34 (130.11): Bo'i8hÇııç; Gen. III.l 1 (45.70-71): qı pooç iııroıcopıÇ6vı:coç
övo�ta; Log. (A) T/ıeophilos [130] 33 (227.240-241): ırpoıı860q yap iıır6 ı:e ı:ou AEyO�lEVOU
Bor8hÇq ıcai ı:ou McXVLıcoqıa.you.
78
Acıcı Mart. Amoı:, vers. A, 4.37 and vers.t:,.,7 1 .32: Boci:ı8qç. This corresponds to Th.
Cont.1[1.35 (132.11): Boı8iı:Çqç.
7'l
For the distortion ofthe sources see in general Vasiliev ( 1935) 163, note 2.
"" TabarT 111.1251, trans. Boswortlı ( 1991) 1 14.
 Tlıeoplıilos' Defeaı cıı ılıı::es aııd tlıe Captııre ofılıııorioıı iıı 838 295

Ex��:11M�ral /�---�-..--�·­
Amorium S�burb /
(il Trench AB ;' -'
r

@ Trench G
@ Trench L
@) Trench LC
® Trench ST
® TrenchTT
(l)
Trench UU
@ Trench XA/XB
® Trench XOXD
c Wells

?ı:ıoı ..,

100 150 ıııile�

Map7 Amorion, topographical site plan by S. Ayda!. Courtesy of the

Amorium Excavations Project.

al-Mu'taşirn: "What is the ınatter with you? I came because I wanted to hear your
words and to Jet you hear mine, but you have acted treacherously with me!"81
If we trust the Greelc hagiographies, this Boiditzes later converted to Islaın
from Christianity, when he was in Saınana,82 so he cannot be identified as the
first traitor, who was a Muslim held captive by the Aınorians and "who had then
become a Christian and ınarried aınong them". The first traitor seems to be an
otherwise unknown converted Muslim, who, if we follow TabarT, "had hidden
hiınselfaway when the Byzantines had entered the fortress" ofAmorion in order
to make contact with his forıner co-religionists.83 In contrast, Boiditzes was a
Greek commander, a notable ofthe city according to Michael the Syrian.84

81 TabarT III.1252, trans. Bosworth (1991) 115.

8
� Th. Cont. III.35 (132.10) says that Boiditzes "denied the Christ' (ı:ov Xptcrt<'ıv
apvıım'ı.w:voç), i.e. made apostasy. TheAcıa Mart. Anıoı:, vers. A, 4.3 7 and Z, 71.31-32 even
specify that he "initiated in the faith of the Saracens and denied Christ" (ı:mv :Eapaıaıvmv
�rucrı:ııç Kal tjç Xpıcrı:oü nicrı:cooı; e�apvoç). His conversion to Islam in Saman-a was perhaps
unavoidable once he appeared responsible for the massacre of the population at Amorion.
xı TabarT III.1245, trans. Bosworth (1991) 108.
x, Mich. Syr. 536, trans. Chabot ( 1899-1910) vol. 3, 98-9.
296 Tlıe Empemr Tlıeoplıi/os aııd tlıe Ecıst, 829-842

Therefore it is with him that we should identify the "UiwT the patrician" who,
according to Mas'üdT, ''went to hinı (i.e. the caliph) from the city and submitted
it to hiın". 85 Mas'üdT has preserved just a short mention of the siege, but he is a
well-iııformed author and wrote a detailed account of the siege of Aınorion in
another work of his that has since become lost.80 His reference to this Lawr is tlrns
not to be ignored, althouglı it must be reconciled with the n ame Boiditzes/W(a)
ndü preserved by the other sources. Probably Boiditzes was just a nickname ofthe
patrician LawT, acquired in connection with the siege.87 If this is accepted, how
should we then interpret the name LawT? Barbier de Meynard in his translation
of the passage (followed by Vasiliev) interpreted the n ame as Leo, but in fact
Mas'üdT uses other wording for Leo, Liw(u)n, when he refers to this name.88 The
wording of the name refers to the Jewish name of Levi, which makes it possible
to consider that the patrician referred to was in fact of Jewish origin.89 This is not
unlikely at first sight, for the Continuator linked the city ofAmorion with Jews and
the lıeresy ofthe Athinganoi in a long excursus dealing with the origins ofMichael
of Amorion:ıo Genesios mentioned the presence ofAtlıinganoi in Amorion in the
corresponding passage, but oınitted any mention of the Jews.91 However, when
dealing with the treacheıy of Boiditzes, Genesios says that the man "seized upon
tlıe occasion of some seditious quarrel that broke out at that time between the

�5 Mas'üdT, Tlıe Meadows of Go/d I 36, trans. Vasiliev (1935) 332. Mas'üdT also
mentions the patrician Ba1is (surely an error for Ya1is = Aetios, as in Arab B and Y are easily
confused with each other) as the commander of Amorion, so that he must be a different
person from LawT.
86
Vasiliev (1935) 328.
87
In Th. Cont. III.34 (130.15-17) Boiditzes indicates to the Arabs the spot on the
walls where they launch their attack by mentioning that there lay on the top of the towers
"a stone ox (�otfüov) and lion of marble". Vasiliev (1935) 163, note 1 considers that the
reference to the stone ox is "une historiette etymologique" for explaining the name of
Boiditzes. But PmbZ #1O19 considers that the known name of the place at the walls could
have been transferred as surname to the person responsible for its defence. We quote again
Genesios III.11 ( 45.70-71), who uses the term iııı:oıcopıÇ6vı:roç to refer. to Boiditzes' övoµu.
88
See for example Mas'üdi, Kitıib at-tanbflı 129, trans. Cama de Vaux (1896) 230,
where he mentions the emperor Leo the Arrnenian as LTw(u)n five times. There is no ground,
as suggested by Vasiliev (1935) 163, note 1, for seeing Leo the Philosopher in this LawT. The
only connection between Leo the Philosopher and the siege ofAmoıion is n1ade in Log. (A)
Tlıeoplıilos [130] 33-4 (227.237-240 and 227.249-228.250), who refers to a disciple ofLeo
the Philosopher present in the besieged Amorion and later taken captive to Samarra. The same
story is related in Th. Cont. IV.27 (185.15-191.3) but without indication ofthe circumstances
in which the disciple ofLeo was made captive and even referring to the caliphate ofMa'mün.
It seems that the Logothete simply connected the capture ofthe disciple ofLeo with the siege
ofAmorion in order to find a convenient historical setting for this story.
89
In Acta Mart. Amoı:, vers. tı, 42.19-20 the traitor is named "a second Judas"
(oı;u,ı;pov 'Iouoav), but this reference is not conclusive.
,ııı Th. Coııt. ll.3 (42.7-43-17).
''1 Gen. 11.2 (23.84-85).
 Tlıeoplıi/os · De.fecıı cıı Aıı::es cıııd ılıe Capıııre 11/A111orion iıı 838 297

Christian and the Jews".92 We are perhaps pushing the evidence too far i f we try
to connect this quarrel with the problems Boiditzes had with the other sections of
the Byzantine army defending the city, for he was denied any help, according to
TabarT, as we have seen. But it is not inconceivable that the differences anıong the
various religious groups inside the city resulted in confrontation when they were
faced with the impending assault of the Arab besiegers. If the UiwT of Mas'üdT
was in fact Boiditzes and had Jewish origins, the words of Genesios about the
internal quarrel ofthe defenders could not but be right.
We can therefore conclude that if the Byzantine arıny was not able to defend
Amorion when faced by the invaders, it was due first and foremost to the poor state
ofa section of the walls, which was badly repaired before the beginning of the
siege. ünce the breach was revealed and widened by the contimıous bombardnıent
of the nıangonels, the fate of the city was sealed and the second treacheıy by
Boiditzes only predictable, whether a consequence or not ofthe internal quarrels
dividing the population. Certainly, the inhabitants of Anıorion may stili have
cherished hopes ofa rescue froın the siege, because they obviously did not know
that a message ofAetios to the eınperor had been intercepted. 93 But they knew of
Theophilos' defeat at Anzes and probably imagined that the ernperor could not risk
a second pitched battle with the caliph's main army.
This leads us to consider now how inactive Theophilos remained before the
siege ofAınorion and whether he actually offered a treaty of peace to the caliph
even before Amorion surrendered.

17.4 Theophilos' Offer of Peace

At the end ofhis narrative ofthe siege and capture ofAmorion T:abarI inserts this
comment:

The king of the Byzantines had sent an envoy [i.e. to negotiate peace]94 when
Mu'taşim first besieged 'Ammüriyya, but Mu'taşim ordered the envoy to be
made to stay at a watering place three miles from 'Ammüriyya, where the troops
were providing themselves with good drinking water; he would not Jet the envoy
come to him until he had conquered 'Ammüriyya. Only then did he allow the
envoy to go baclc to the king ofthe Byzantines, which he did.95

Nothing is said here about the aims and purposes of this embassy sent by
Theophilos to Mu'taşim when he had just laid siege to Amorion. The precision
of the translators that the envoy was- sent "to negotiate peace" is just a guess,

92 Gen. III.11 (45.71-46.72).

93 TabarT III.1246-1247, trans. Bosworth (1 991) 109-1 O
"• Traııslator's ııote.
''5 TabarT11f.1254, trans. Bosworıh (1991) 11 7.
298 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıi/os cıııd t/ıe Eası. 829-842

although a very likely one. This does not however ınean that Theophilos was
willing to coınply with the deınands of the caliph at any cost in order to avoid
further damage to the Byzantines. We could equally surmise that the eınperor tried
to open negotiations ,vith the Arabs in order to win some time to reorganize his
troops in order to strike back. As a ınatter offact, he ınight have been ignorant ofthe
daınages to Aınorion 's wall and hoped that a long siege would be disadvantageous
to the besiegers. That Mu'taşiın was diffident about the emperor's intention is
perhaps evidenced by the fact that he kept the Byzantine envoys at a place three
miles away from the siege. Thus he prevented them from observing the scene ofthe
battle taking placc in front of the walls of Aınorion and obtaining compromising
information about his army. He kept theın apart for a few days, but we do not know
whether he received them when the city was finally taken, for the text only says
that arter this the caliph allowed them to go back to Theophilos.
The next passage in TabarT, immediately following this piece, is revealing of
the problems the caliph stili had to resolve before returning safely to Samarra:

Mu'taşiın went back in the direction of the frontier region, as he had heard that
the king of the Byzantines intended ta set aut following his tracks ar else aiıned at
hanying the Muslirn forces. He accordingly proceeded along the main highway far
one stage but then retumed ta 'Ammüriyya and ordered the troops ta turn baclc alsa.
He now turned aside from the main highway onto lhe road leading to the WadT al­
Jawr. He distributed the prisoners among the commanders; and ta each one ofthese
!ast he gave a group to guard. The commanders in turn divided them among their
troops. They travelled along a road far about forty miles, a waterless stretch, and
they executed every prisoner who, because of the intense thirst he was suffering,
refused ta keep up with them. The troops entered the desert on the road through the
WaclT al-Jawr, they were struck by thirst, sa that batlı men and beasts kept falling
down, and some ofthe prisoners killecl some ofthe soldiers and escaped.

Mu'taşim had travelled on ahead of the army and now came ta meet the
troops with water that he had brought from the place where he had encamped;
nevertheless, many of the troops died of thirst in that valley. The troops told
Mu'taşim, "These prisoners have killed some ofmır soldiers." So he immediately
ordered Basil al-RümT ta soıi aut those prisoners who were of high rank, and
these were set on one side, then he fuıiher ordered that the rernainder were ta
be taken up the mountains and brought down into the valleys and executed en
masse. These arnounted ta 6,000 men, killed in two places, in the WadT al-Jawr
and in another place. Mu'taşirn pressed on frorn there in the direction of the
frontier zone until he reached Tarsüs. Water troughs made frorn leather had been
set down far hirn around his encampment and ali the way ta the encarnprnent at
'Arnrnüriyya; these were now filled, and tlıe troops drank frorn them, untiring in
their demand for water.96

''" TabarT 111.1254-1255, trans. Bosworth ( 1991) 118-19.

 Tlıeoplıi/os' Defeaı at An::es and t/ıe Ccıpıure cı/Amorion in 838 299

As every strategist knows, no victory can be proclaimed until the withdrawal

of the invading army to its headquarters is successfully completed. Apparently
Mu'taşiın knew of the dangers he could yet face in Byzantine Anatolia. Tabarı
expressly says that he expected attacks and harassment from the Byzantine
troops. 97 This obviously means that no sincere offer of peace had already been
rnade to the caliph and that the Byzantine arrny was stili able to cause trouble
for the Arab troops. This forced the caliph to rnake a diverting rnanoeuvre when
he left Amorion, for he first proceeded along the main route just for one day and
turned back to the city in order to take a secondaıy route the Byzantines did not
expect him to follow. The reason lies in the lack of water and supplies on this
alternative way, a circumstance that made the return of the Arab army something
of a nightmare. Apparently, the caliph avoided the main route from Arnorion
to lkonion, running west of the Lake of the Foıty Martyrs and passing through
Philomelion (Map 6, route I 0a),98 ancl followed instead an eastern route close to
the salty desert southwest of the Tatta Lake (today Tuz Gölü) (Map 6, route 106).99
Many prisoners, an important paıi of the spoils of war for the Arabs, managecl
to take flight or even killecl some of their guarclians, so that tlıe caliph had in the
end no other option tlıan to execute them en masse to ensure a safe retreat for
his troops. ıoıı As we see, there is nothing in the narrative of TabarT that suggests
that Theophilos had given up the war against the invading Muslim army after the
taking of Amorion.
Genesios also mentions an embassy the emperor sent to the caliph before the
taking of Amorion in terms that are perfectly coherent with the version ofTabarT:

[After Amorion fell] the ambassadors were insulted and sent away (for they
had been detained by the enemy during the siege) and the messages that they
brought to the emperor from his enemy consisted of vicious reproaches and
contemptuous threats. 101

Again, 110 indication is given about the nature of the message the Byzantine
ambassadors carried for the caliph. Genesios' account agrees with TabarT's that

97
Lightfoot and Lightfoot (2007) 54: "Time was not on al-Mu'taşim's side, for the
summer was already drawing on, and he must have been fearfı.ıl that Theophilus' routed
troops would regroup and cut offhis !ine ofretreat."
98
According to a short entry in the Syncıxcırium Coııst. 277-80, referring to the life of
John ofPolybotos, when the Arab am1y besieged Amorion, it also plundered the saint's city
(ıcai aim'ı ı:o ITotı.ı'.ı�oı:ov... iox.upilıç 1ı.ncraµı,vov). Polybotos lies on the border ofthe Lake of
the Foıty Martyrs (5 km west ofthe modem Bolvadin), so that it could have been attacked
when the caliph first decided to retreat westward along route I 0a. But nothing certain can be
concluded from this short reference. See also Belice and Mersich (1990) 363-4.
99
Belice (1984) 97-101, 230-31.
ıon For.the place of their execution see Belice (1984) 212-13 s.v. "Pankaleia" and
242-3 s.v. "Wadi 1-Ğauz" (i.e. Wadi al-Djaur).
1"1 Gen. 111.1 1 (46. 75-78), trans. Kaldellis ( 1 998) 60.
300 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeop/ıilos aııd rlıe Eası. 829-842

they were retained by the caliph. And the caliph's insulting answer to Theophilos
after the taking of Amorioıı, although not indicated in TabarT, ,vas predictable.
The Contiııuator, however, presents a slightly differeııt version of events, based
on the same source as Genesios:

Meanwhile, returning to Dorylaion, Theophilos attempted with gifts to make the

otlıer depart froııı thence and returıı to his own country (wü /5ciıpoı,; aürov EKEi0Ev
ı'ı.:rrocrnjcmt Kai :rrpo,; ra oiKEia :rroujcraı :rra,.ıvvocrnjcraı). But the Ameramnounes
paid no heed, guarding in his inner thoughts the sack and pillage of the other's
lıoıne city. Rather, he reviled and called him a slave and coward, sneering and
ınocking at lhe fact that Theophilos had not heeded him earlier but only now
wlıen he stood on the razor's edge. Envoys who had been sent there were also
observers and witnesses of what was goiııg on. 102

This is the only source that mentions the purpose ofthe embassy sent byTheophilos
to the caliph, but I suspect that this is an addition of the Continuator, who liked to
amplify the ııarrative of his sources _in order to present a more detailed account of
events. ıtı3 The harsher tone used to describe the hunıiliation ofthe ambassadors ofthe
icoııoclast emperor follows the same pattem. in any case, there is nothing paıticularly
relevant in the information provided by the Continuator, and, paıticularly, no offer
of peace is mentioned, although we can sunnise that the emperor tried to come to an
agreement with the caliph by sending gifts along with his envoys.
At the enci ofthe ninth century, the Arab writer Ya'qübT includes in his Histoıy
a very short mention of the campaign of Mu'taşim in 838. However, he refers
to an embassy sent by Theophilos to the caliph and provides some interesting
details about it that no other source has preserved. According to Ya'qübT, when
Theophilos was told that the calip)1 was relentlessly besieging Amorion, he set
off on campaign against him with a large army. As the emperor came near to
Mu'taşim's camp, the caliph sent AfshTn against him, also leading a sizeable
force. When both joined in battle, AfshTn defeated the emperor, put him to flight
and killed many of his soldiers. it was then that Theophilos sent ambassadors to
Mu'taşim with the following message:

Tlıose who did to Zibatra what they did, they exceeded my orders. I will rebuild
the city at my own expense with the help of my people. I will restore ali the
inhabitants I took prisoner, I will retum ali the prisoners who are on Greek soil
and I will deliver the men who committed atrocities at Zibatra because of the
wrongdoing of the patricians.104

102
Tlı. Cont.111.33 ( l29.16- l30.l ).
103
Signes Codofier ( 1995) 672-3. The fact that he says the same thing twice (aı'.ırov
eıcei0Ev a:rrocrr�crm = :rrpoç ra oiıcEta :rroııjcrm :rraı.ıvvocrrııcraı) is also a mark of his style for
lhese duplicatioııs abound in the Continuator and are usually absent in Genesios.
1114
Ya'qübT, fJı:ı·tory
- 580-81, trans. Vasiliev ( 1935) 275.
 Tlıeoplıilos · Dt?_/eaı aı An::es cıııd ılıe Capı11re CJfAıııorioıı iıı 838 30 ı

After thisYa'qübI refers to the fact tlıatAnıorion was taken on tlıe 17th of tlıe
Ramadan nıonth of HA 223 , a Tuesday, which corresponds to 12August838, which
was however a Monday. He then closes his account by saying that Mu'taşinı killed
and captured the inhabitants ofAnıorion, includingYatis (Aetios), and that he also
burned everything he found on his way before leaving. No further infoıınation
about Theophilos is found in the work after this point.
Modern historians have taken the infornıation provided by Ya'qübT at face
value and identified the embassy nıentioned by the historian with the one sent by
Theoplıilos to Mu'taşim when he was besieging Amorion. Vasiliev, for exanıple,
says that Theophilos was less hostile after the defeat at Anzes and, oblivious of
his victorious campaign the year before, he sent an embassy to Mu'taşim with the
mission of offering his excuses and making humiliating promises. He tlıen copies
the text ofYa'qübT. 105
As a matter of fact, as we have seen in TabaıTs account, even after Amorion
the caliplı feared further attacks from the emperor so that a defeatist embassy fronı
Theophilos does not fit in well with tlıis evidence. Most important, tlıe information
provided by Ya 'qübT about the campaign of 838 is scanty and inaccurate. it
seenıs that 'the writer nıade a hasty suınnıary of a long narrative, for he nıakes
Theophilos take the field only when Mu'taşim began his siege of Aınorion. But,
as we know, tlıe emperor had left Constantinople well before Mu'taşim entered
Byzantine territory. Theophilos' defeat at Anzes also preceded the arrival of the
caliph's troops at Amorion and was not subsequent to it, as Ya'qübT maintains.
Therefore I would not give too much importance to the idea that Theophilos is said
to write to the caliph afterAnzes out of repentance for the misdeeds at Sozopetra.
it could be that Theophilos wrote to Mu'taşim after his defeat at Anzes, but not
necessarily when the siege of Amorion was already under way. He could have
written to Mu'taşim some months later, when the caliph was already baclc in
Syria. As we will soon see, according to several sources Theophilos effectively
sent a second embassy to Mu'taşiın when the campaign of838 was over, offering
him a lasting peace. Michael the Syrian in particular, who mentions this second
embassy, even says that Theophilos repented then for the misdeeds of his troops
at Sozopetra. ıoG Therefore Ya'qübT, who compresses his account of the campaign
into a minimal amount of information, could have found it more expedient, from
a narrative point of view, to connect the details he had at his disposal about this
Iater embassy directly with the defeat at Anzes, just to show effectively to his
readers its immediate impact on the emperor. We must not forget that according
to Ya'qübT ·the expedition of Theophilos against Sozopetra and the retaliatoıy
expedition of Mu'taşim against An10rion both took place in Hegira 223 and not
in two successive years, as we know was the case. 107 Ya'qübT thus produced a
condensed narrative of events, where the erime (the plundering of Sozopetra

105
Vasiliev ( 1935) 160. See also Rosser ( 1972) 232-3 and Treadgold ( 1988) 302.
11'1' For details, see immediately below.
111' For the dating of tlıe campaign agaiııst Sozopetra in Arnb sources, see Clıapter 16.
302 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 829-842

by the Byzantines) found a deserved and immediate punislıment (the taking of

Amorion), thus moving Tlıeoplıilos to repentance. it is tlıerefore significant that
Ya'qubi only refers to the excuses given by Theophilos to the caliph on account
of his troops' misdeeds at Sozopetra. The historian does not make any mention
of the purposes of the embassy or whether Theophilos sued for peace when he
addressed the caliph. Nothing is said, ınoreover, ofgifts or presents carried by the
ambassadors. It seems that the focus on Sozopetra oriented Ya'qubi's choice of
ınaterial for his short narrative. The Arab historian cared less here about accurate
chronological sequence than about narrative coherence.
There is accordingly no serious evidence suggesting that the eınperor made a
humiliating offer ofpeace to the caliph when the latter began his siege ofAmorion.
On the contrary, the fears ofMu'taşiın and his harsh retreat through a desert region,
as described in Tabari, point to a continued resistance ofthe Byzantines even after
tlıe taking ofthe capital ofthe Anatolikoi.
lt was only after the end of the campaign of 838, with the caliph already back
in Samarra, that Theophilos made him a first serious offer ofpeace, the purpose of
which is described by Michael the Syrian in some detail. This chronicler, who does
not mention any previous embassy of Theophi los, writes that when the eniperor
saw the damage tlıe Arabs had inflicted upon Amorion, "he reproached himselffor
plundering first Sozopetra and realized that he should change his strategy". 108 This
reference to Theophilos' repentance for the indiscriminate plundering ofSozopetra
reminds us ofYa'qübT's account about Theophilos'wish to cornpensate the caliph
for the slaughter done by his troops in the Syrian city. As we have argued, this
is certainly a strong arguınent for connecting the eınbassy mentioned in Ya'qübi
to the one mentioned by Michael the Syrian and for dating both after the taking
of Amorion. But this also confirms that Theophilos could have given excuses
for the misdeeds of his troops at Sozopetra. In fact, as we saw in Chapter 16. 1,
according to Michael the Syrian, "When the barbarians [i.e. the Khurramites] took
it [i.e. Sozopetra], they slaughtered without ınercy the Christians and the Jews.
Their ferocity went so far that they raped and disembowelled the women." 109 This
slaughter against even the Christian population was surely not to the satisfaction
ofTheophilos, who could not rely on the loca! Christians ifhis troops treated them
as enemies. We have also suggested that the caliph won support from aınong the
Annenians for his carnpaign in 838 partly due to the indiscriminate camage ofthe
Khurrarnites in the area during the 830s. Accordingly, some kind of reparation
for the wrongdoings ofhis troops was also in the interest ofTheophilos, who thus
tried to win over the population of the area and compensate them for the harın
inflicted. Ifwe also take into account that Theophilos was facing an uprising ofthe
Persian Khurramites at the very moment the Arabs were invading the empire, we
can conclude that the offer of delivering to the caliph the persons responsible for
the damages at Sozopetra was not necessarily a huıniliation for the emperor, but a

ıııx Miclı. Syr. 536, trans. Clıabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 95.

1"'' Miclı. Syr. 531-2, trans. Chabot ( 1889-1905) vol. 3, 88-9.
 T/ıeoplıi/o.ı· · De/eaı al ılıı::es aııd ılıe Caplııre of"Aıııorioıı iıı 838 303

convenient move for preserving his fame for justice anıong his partisans, that is to
say, his authority over the troops (see the Epilogue for this episocle).
But the account of Michael the Syrian provicles us with ınore cletails for
assessing tlıe eınperor's intentions. Accorcling to the chronicler, tlıe eınperor,
after reconsiclering his strategy, sent Basil, patrician of Charsiaııon, with gifts and
presents for the caliplı. Tlıe ambassador carried two letters witlı lıim. in the first
one Theophilos confessed his fault (again uncloubtedly ıneaning Sozopetra) and
reclainıed Aetios, offering instead to hand over to the caliph the Arab prisoners and
to make peace. in the second letter, however, he included reproaches and threats
in case the caliph did not accept his previous offer for peace. When the caliph Abü
IslJaq (Mu'taşim) receivecl the first letter, he clemanded not only the release of ali
the Arab prisoners, but also the handover ofNaşr the Khurramite, his son (meaning
Theophobos: see Chapter 11) and Manuel. Basil said that this was not possible,
so that the caliph dismissed him. Basil then slıowed him the second letter, full of
threats. When it was read, the caliph was seized with anger and dispatched the
ambassador back to Theophilos along with tlıe presents he had carried.110
The Greek sources afford new details of this second eınbassy tlıat need to be
considered before assessing tlıe text of Michael tlıe Syrian. The Continuator says
that after the taking of Anıorion, Theophilos again sent anıbassadors (ırpfo�ı::tç
oı::urzpouç) to Mu'taşiın offering 200 kentenaria for the release of the prisoners
laken or at least of his relatives (rouç .. . np6ç ysvoç aurq) ır1ı,ıımaÇovraç) and the
officers of the army sent by him to defend the city. The caliph again poured scorn
on this offer saying that he had spent more tlıan 1000 in acts of munificence.111
Genesios has a similar account of the eınbassy, only that the amount of money
offered by Theophilos is of two kentenaria and 100 and that the caliph specified
that he had invested a bit Iess than 1000 kentenaria for the ınilitary caınpaign. 112
As we see, the second embassy of Theophilos was made after the campaign
was finished and probably when the cal_iph was back in Samarra, for only then
could he make an estimate of the expenses he had incurred. The Greek sources
speak merely of a customary release of the prisoners, although the suın offered
was veıy high, perhaps out of consideration for the importance of the persons
retained or because. it included some other compensations (for the damages in
Sozopetra?). Michael the Syrian does not mention any suın of money offered by
the eınperor, but mentions an offer of peace along with the release of the Aralı
prisoners. Both in the Greelc and the Syrian sources it was the caliph who rejected
the offer made by Theophilos, either because the sum offered seemed too low or
because Theophilos was not willing to hand over Naşr and Manuel to the caliph.
It is difficult to reconcile such disparate accounts of this embassy, which is
not mentioned in the Arab sources. But it appears that Theophilos did not make

110
Mich. Syr. 536, trans. Chabot (1889-1905) vol. 3, 96. A similar version in Bar
Hebraeus, Clıroııography 151, trans. Budge (1932) vol. 1, 138.
111
Tlı. Co nt. lll.34 (131.7-16).
11" Gen. lll.12 (46.85-95).
 304 Tlıe Eıııpaor Tlıeop/ıilos aııd ılıe East, 829-842

a humiliating appeal to the caliph, but merely tried to exchange prisoners in the
custonrnıy way. No agreeınent abmıt the price or the compensations demanded
by the caliph was reached, so that war continued and peace was postponed. The
repentance ofTheophilos for the slaughter in Sozopetra does not reveal a weakness
on his part, but only that he was conscious of the importance of propaganda for
winning over the adversaıy: had he reconstructed Sozopetra at his own expense, he
would surely have made good his previous errors. We can therefore conclude that
the emperor had certainly lost the campaign of838, but was prepared to continue
the war. lf our conclusion is right, then the military outcome was not so bad for
Theophilos after ali, despite the problems he had faced that year. Apparently the
Byzantine army continued to have at their disposal enough resources to be a threat
to the caliph, as we will see in Chapter l 8.3. But before considering what happened
during the !ast years ofTheophilos' reign, !et us attempt a briefassessment ofthe
impact ofthe campaign of Mu'taşim on the imperial army by reconsideriııg some
ofthe evidence provided by the sources.

17.5 An Assessment of the Amorion Campaign

The year 838 was without any doubt the annus horribilis of Theophilos' reign.
To begin with, the defeat at Anzes almost cost the emperor his life. Although
Theophilos was able to escape, the army dispersed and many offıcers abandoned
their post, so that even Ankyra was abandoned to its fate before the caliph's army
arrived. Theophilos was apparently not able to reorganize his army and face the
enemy, for rumours ofusurpation forced him to come bacl< to Constantinople. He
could thus not avoid the loss ofAmorion. Moreover, the caliph executed most of
its inhabitants on his way bacl< to the southern frontier. The presence ofimportant
commanders of Theophilos' army among the captives ofAmorion was a severe
blow to his prestige. The destruction caused in the cities, especially in Ankyra
and Amorion, but also in the countryside, must not be ignored either. Lastly, the
Persians rebelled against him after the battle ofAnzes, seriously compromising
•ı,
his strategy ofusing them as a vanguard in his military campaigns (Chapter 12).
.,1'il' In fact, the plundering ofSozopetra with the unjustified slaughter ofthe Christian
,1,
111. population had not only provoked the massive invasion by the caliph but also
alienated some supporters ofthe imperial cause in Syria (Chapter 16).
Ali these setbacks cannot be either denied or minimized: the empire was at
serious risk during Mu'taşim's campaign in 838. However, the consequences for
Byzantium were not so momentous as is generally assumed, for the emperor was
able to react and continue the war against the caliphate. In order to understand
how Theophilos succeeded in recovering from the Arab offensive, we must
carefülly assess the military campaign of Mu'taşim in Anatolia according to the
evidence provided by the sources. it is not only a question of finding the clues
explaining Mu'taşirn's victoıy but also about re-evaluating it, avoiding eveıy
simplistic assessment.
 T/ıerıp/ıilos · De/İ!al al Aıı:e.ı· emel ılıe Caııtııre o/'.•lıııorioıı ;11 838
305

We ımıst also reject any psychological approach to the behaviour of the main
actors oftlıe war as an additional key to uııderstaııdiııg the cvents. Our main narrative
for the campaigıı, the histoıy of TabarT, is exenıplary in this sense, for bare facts
and not humaıı reactions explaiıı the clıain of events. Curiously enounh, modern
historiography has not always followed this pattern and has tencled to �xplain the
consequences of the defeat at Amorion through recourse to the psychology of the
emperor, who after the defeat "teli ili from the iınpact ofthis avalanche ofdisasters"
"never fi.ılly regaiııed his self-assurance", was "depressed", "consoled himselfwitl;
his favourite pastime ofbuilding" and "also developed his intcrest in scholarship as
an indirect result ofthe sade ofAmorion". 113 We must certainly not overlook the fact
that the Coııtinuator aııd Genesios mention that the emperor, affected by tlıc sade
ofAmorion, drank ice-cold water to assuage the heat of his heart and thus became
ili from dysentery. 11-ı But we must approach tlıe infom1ation with pruclence, as the
psychological explanation for Theophilos' heart inflaınmation, naınely that it was
caused by the news ofthe sack ofAmorion, may just be an inference ofthe Greek
source coınınon to both authors. The fact that the Continuator says that Theophilos
died as a consequence ofthis dysenteıy (rıı v6crqı raurn TOÜ Biou yı::vfo0aı eıçcoı:;)115
is a first waming, for Theophilos lived until Januaıy 842, almost four more years.
Perhaps his health felt the effects of dysentery in his !ast years, for he died veıy
young. He ınight have even become depressecl as a result. But we must judge hiın
by his acts, avoiding pushing too far the evidence of his illness. in any case, even
ili, the emperor continued ruling the empire.
We must also try to prevent our assessment of tlıe campaign of 838 being
influenced by the tendentious narrative of the Acta Martyrıım Aıııorieıısiıını,
a collection of hagiograplıical texts written after tlıe death of Theophilos and
extolling the pious cleath of the 42 Byzantine officers taken as hostages by
Mu'taşim in Amorion. As the "42 martyrs" were executed in Samarra in 845,116
ali these hagiographies were written after Theophilos' cleath in 842 and the re­
establishment of icon worship in 843, under the impact of the untimely death of
the hostages. Although a thorough stucly of these texts is stili Iacking, whereby
iııtentions and aims ofthe clifferent authors could be assessed, it is in the nature of
this literary genre to magnify the impact ofthe catastrophe on the empire in order
to provide an aclequate dramatic setting for the later sacrifice of the martyrs. This

113 Treadgold (1988) 304-7. See also Lightfoot and Lightfoot (2007) 57: "The c
ity's
destrnction had a profound effect on Theophilus himself, leaving him a sad and broken
man. The siege of AD 838 can also be regarded as a major tunıing point in Byzantine
history, for the city's fail marked the final lmmiliation oficonoclasm and led directly to the
restoration ofthe veneration ofholy icons in AD 843."
114 Th. Cont. III.34 (131.16-21) and Gen. III.14 (49.70-73).
115
The worcl piou has been onıitted in the modern editions ofthe text, but appears in
the Vat. gr. 167.
· ıır, We do not even have a coıııplete list of their ıı::ımes. See however PıııbZ # 10542
("Aııoııymi 42").
306 Tlıe Eıııperıır Tlıeoplıilns aııcl tlıe Eası. 829-842

is especial ly evident in the la ter versions.117 Moreover, although some old versions
(Version B) stili present Theophilos in a favourable light, most ofthem nıake him
responsible for the disaster and therefore for the death ofthe ınartyrs. This was the
best way to exculpate the iconophile entourage ofMichael III for the failure ofthe
release of the Byzantine hostages!
it is therefore to what the sources teli us that we ımıst cling, ignoring as much
as possible any teleological interpretation of the campaign. TabarT is again a good
starting point, for every detail he provides which diminishes the impoıtance of
Mu'taşim's victory or speaks for the effective resistance of the Byzantines has
no serious reason to be questioned. Had he tried to magnify the importance ofthe
Byzantine resistance to make Mu'taşinı's victory even greater, we should have
expected that each aspect favouring the Byzantines was compensated by another
one crediting Mu'taşim's course ofaction. But this is not the case.
We have seen above that Mu'taşinı's return to the caliphate was hardly a
nıilitary parade, for the caliph followecl a secondary route through the salty desert
in order to avoid any further encounter with the Byzantines, whose nıilitary
strength was apparently stili redoubtable. This cost him perhaps the nıost valuable
part of the booty: the By'zantine prisoners. As we have seen, he was obliged to
execute them en masse for they were killing his own solcliers and taking flight,
putting the whole army in danger. This was a great loss to the caliph in terıns of
money, as he probably paid the troops with the booty obtained froın the sack of
Amorion. In fact, TabarT describes at length how the male prisoners, women ancl
children captives and the extensive spoils of goods and equipment were divided
up and sold among the different sections ofhis aııny. A representative ofthe chief
judge was deputed to see that the division was handled fairly, but he could not
avoid some soldiers pouncing upon the spoils that one commander was in the
process of selling. When Mu'taşim saw the quaITel, he "galloped out alone (i.e.
against the looters) with drawn sword, so that the troops fell back on each side
before hiın and desisted froın plundering the spoils". After this quaITel Mu'taşim
felt obliged to give precise orders for the sale. These instructions are detailed in
TabarT's narrative. 118
Michael the Syrian preserves a very similar repoıt. According to him, the caliph
ordered indeed that 4,000 men be executed, for there were too many inhabitants
in the city. But ınany others were taken as captives, although no number is given.
Michael ınentions precious ınaterials and objects of gold, silver and bronze
distributed aınong the victorious soldiers, but the focus is again on the sharing
of the booty. Apparently the Musliıns pretended to seli the children and woınen
separately from their fathers and husbands, thus provoking tears and laınentations

117 The popular reaction to the catastroplıe could have been otherwise. The faınous
popular Soııg of Armoııris, whose prolagonist sets off to the east in search of his father
Armouris (!),has repeatedly beeıı connected with the taking ofAınorion in 838. Significantly,
its hero is ful I of lıatred and desirous of revenge. See Beck ( 1971) 52-6.
11" TabarT 111.1253-4, trans. Boswortlı ( 199 1 ) 1 16- 17.
 Theop!ıilos · Defeaı aı Aıı:::es aııd !he Capıııre ofAmorion iıı 838 307

in the captives. On lıearing tlıem tlıe caliplı becanıe furious, for tlıe auction had
already begun witlıout his permission. He galloped out against tlıe crowd ancl
killed sonıe tlıree men witlı his own lıand wlıile tlıey carried slaves. Tlıen he
ordered tlıe captives to be assembled in one place and ordered tlıat one part be
given to tlıe officers, anotlıer to the Turks and tlıe tlıird one to tlıe merclıants, but
always witlıout breaking up tlıe fanıilies. 119 Fronı tlıis narrative we infer tlıat tlıe
slıaring of the booty was a cause of conflict and trouble for the Muslinı amıy, for
tlıe financing ofthe expedition was dependent on it (and tlıis explains tlıe presence
of slave-merchants in tlıe a1111y).120 On tlıe otlıer hand, although M iclıael says
that 4,000 men were executed in Anıorion because tlıere were too many people
(probably meaning: too nıany to carry off to the caliphate), we may suspect tlıat
these were tlıe men executed on tlıe way baclc, for they caused muclı trouble for the
soldiers in tlıe retreat. Perlıaps tlıe ambitious troops had carried too many prisoners
and were no longer able to continue tlıe retreat with them.
We must conclude that it was against his will and only clue to the pressure
of clifficult circumstances tlıat Mu'taşinı orclerecl the execution of the prisoners
on his way baclc. Tlıis surely caused furtlıer unrest in tlıe retreating army ancl
probably Mu'taşim had to pay the soldiers to assuage the discontent. We now
understand why the caliph was so infı.ırialed when he lıearcl of the sum of two
kentenaria offered by Theophilos for tlıe release of the Amorion commanclants. As
we saw, the caliph said that he had already spent a thousand kentenaria on acts of
nıunificence.121
The enormous amount of money invested and lost in the expedition may also
explain in part why no further massive expedition against Byzantium was made for
nıany years. Peter von Sivers made a study ofthe then prevailing divide among the
ruling elites of the caliphate between the defendants of commerce and trade ancl
the expansionist party, who aimed at conquering new te1Titories for imposing new
taxes.'22 Mu'taşim seems to have wavered between these extremes, for whereas
he evacuated the military in the Thugür frontier provinces at the beginning of his
reign, the Byzantine offensive of835-837 apparently forced him to undertake the
massive campaign of838. It is perhaps not a coincidence that, despite the apparent
victory before Amorion, the caliph never again marched against Byzantium. Jt was
not only the tensions between Turks, Persians and Arabs, but also the ruinous side

119
Mich. Syr. 537-8, trans. Chabot (1889-1905) vol. 3, 100.
120
Obviously the cash salaries paid by the state from general taxation were not enough
in case of an expediticin. Moreover, K.ennedy (200 I) 128-31, who considers the problems
affecting tlıe regular financing of the Turkish troops in the nintlı century, states that "a
constant theme which runs through tlıe political struggles of this confttsed period was the
need oftlıe troops to secure payment oftlıeir salaries".
121
Th. Cont. Ill.34 (131.7-16).
122
Sivers (1982). The Ietter sent by the caliph Harün al-RashTd to tlıe emperor
Coııstantine VI already enıphasized tlıe iıııportance of the trade between tlıe lwo cıııpires;
see Eid ( 1992) 80.
308 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeop/ıi/os aııd tlıe Eası. 819-841

effects of the caınpaign, that probably deterred the caliph from further militaıy
enterprises on a great scale.m According to Sivers, "After Mu'taşim the comınercial
expansionists steadily gained in strength. During a transitional period extending
from 842-878/227-265 military efforts declined perceptibly and the war against
Byzantium assumed defensive proportions" (p. 82). That the massive war against
the Christian empire was no ınore profitable for the Abbasids was from a Byzantine
perspective certainly not a bad consequence ofthe Amorion canıpaign.
We find in the account ofTabarT other details that point to the Byzantine a1111y
being a fearsome rival for Mu'taşim, who took eveıy precaution when he entered
Byzantine territory in order to avoid being surprised by his rival. The caliph seeıns
to have assembled a lıuge army and entrusted the victory to a detailed ınanoeuvre,
which would encircle Theophilos. The emperor however also had enough soldiers
to divide them into two contingents, for he left the main troops at the Halys and
departed with the rest of the an11y to face the troops of AfshTn coming from the
east. When Mu'taşim heard that the Byzantine emperor had marched against
AfshTn, he tried by eveıy means to avoid the clash, for he apparently feared that
the Byzantine troops would prevail. He thus sent messengers to AfshTn ordering
him to "rernain where he was until a letter should reach him frôın the commander
ofthe faithful", obviously with further instructions, for he apparently did not know
how to proceed for the moment. it is significant that Mu'taşim promised to each
of the messengers 10,000 dirhams if they could deliver the letter, for this reveals
that he considered that an encounter between the Byzantine troops and AfshTn's
contingent would be too dangerous at that moment. 124 In fact, when Theophilos
joined in combat with AfshTn, the Byzantine troops defeated the Arab infantry and
killed many soldiers, although the unexpected intervention ofthe Turkish cavalry
finally reversed the outcome ofthe battle.
That Mu'taşim was afraid of the Byzantine manpower is also evidenced by
the fact that he was always travelling one day's march after the vanguard of
his column, commanded by the Turkish Ashnas, 125 whereas Theophilos did not
avoid a personal encounter with the enemy, albeit this could have cost him his
life. Michael the Syrian makes the caliph exclaim immediat�ly after entering
Byzantine territoıy: "we did not do well in coming here". An adviseı; however,
convinced him to march against Amorion, for it was not fitting for a nıler tike
him to abandan the campaign without achieving anything. 126 Now this anecdote,
although fabricated, might perhaps reflect the anxieties and fears ofArab troops
entering deeply into Byzantine Anatolia.
It is also worth mentioning that the Arab arıny faced serious problems with
provisioning, not only when it retreated through the salty desert, but also when it
marched towards Ankyra. According to TabarT, "Mu'taşim's arıny was reduced to

123 See however Chapter 18.3 for nıinor canıpaigns against Byzantium in 839-841.
1"4 TabarT ili.1239-40, trans. Bosworth ( 1991) 102-3.
125 TabarT I I I. 1237 and 1240, trans. Boswortlı ( 1991) 99 and 103.
1'"
Mich. Syr. 535, trans. Clıabot ( 1889-1905) vol. 3, 97.
 T!ıeop/ıi/os' Defeaı at An::es and ılıe Capıııre n(Aıııorion iıı 838 309

extreme distress because of lack of water and foclcler". 127 Had Malik ibn Kayclar,
a man of Ashnas, not discovered ancl capturecl the refugees of Ankyra at the salt
mines along with "a great nuınber of sheep ancl goats ancl also cattle'', 128 tlıe
expedition could lıave found itself in danger. This is perhaps the reason for tlıe
ınany and lively cletails given in tlıe narrative of the expeclition of tlıe coınınando
unit leci by Malik ibn Kaydar, in whiclı tlıe autlıor oftlıe naıTative (TabarT's source)
seems to have taken part personally.
Even the siege of Amorion was not an easy task for tlıe Arabs despite tlıe
breach in the walls. TabarT mentions lıow the Arabs could not fili tlıe trench in
front of the walls because of the rocks being thrown by the defenclers, so that tlıe
siege towers the Arabs triecl to bring near the walls woulcl not roll well on the
uneven surface and had to be abandoned ancl burnecl. 12'1 Tlıe fierce resistance ofthe
Byzantines at the breaclı of tlıe walls is well clescribecl by TabarT, who says that
the Byzantines coulcl effectively clefencl the spot because the place was narrow and
apparently the numeric superiority ofthe assailants was ofno avaiı.ı.ıo Michael tlıe
Syrian aclcls tlıat the caliplı put his Moorislı ancl Turkislı slaves in tlıe vanguarcl of
the assailants witlı some other troops at tlıe rear ancl orclered them to kili anyone
wlıo turneci his back before the Byzantines.ı.ıı This reveals a lack of ınotivation on
the part ofthe besiegers ancl can be relatecl with the information reported by TabarT
about a conspiracy against Mu'taşim, wlıiclı lıacl founcl support among a sector of
his army cluring the siege of Amorion. 132 We will cleal with this question in Chapter
l 8.1, but for now it suffices to say that the conspiracy intendecl to put' Abbas, the
son ofMa'ınün, on the throne.
In any case, although the bloody fight finally ınoved the comınander Boiclitzes
to betray the Byzantines, the resistance continued until the very enci: when the
Arabs enterecl the city, a detachınent of the Byzantine arıny "went along to a big
church situated in one comer of'Ammüriyya and fought there fiercely, but the
Musliıns troops bumed the church over them, they burned to death to the !ast
man". The patrician Aetios, general of the Anatolikoi, resisted in his tower for a
while even after this. 133
Finally, although Aınorion was taken, TabarT does not say a word about its
destruction. He did not say anything about Ankyra either. Although many sources
mention the destruction of Amorion, perhaps the most reliable, for the details
given, is Michael the Syrian. At the end of his report of the siege he says that
Mu'taşim, after admiring the building ofthe churches and palaces ofthe city, set it

127
Tabarı III.1240, trans. Bosworth (1991) 103.
128
Tabarı III. 1243-4, trans. Boswortlı (1991) 107.
129
Tabarı III.1247-8, trans. Bosworth (1991) 111.
· ııo TabarT III.1248, trans. Bosworth (1991) 111.
131
Mich. Syr. 536, trans. Chabot (1889-1905) vol. 3, 98.
m Tabarı 111. 1249-50, trans. Boswortlı ( 1991) 112-13.
133
TabarT Ill. 1252-3, trans. Boswortlı ( 1991) 1 15-16.
310 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos c111d tlıe Eası, 829-842

on fire. 13-ı Later, in the next chapter of his work,Michael adds this important piece of
information: the Arabs abandoned the city ·'without having been able to demolish
its walls, except for a little section". 135 The caliph probably considered that it was
better to return to Samarra as soon as possible than to risk a further encounter with
the Byzantines. Modern archaeologists have identified a destruction layer they
tend to connect with the sack of Amorion in 838, thus confinning that the city was
seriously damaged as a result ofMu'taşim's campaign. However, only the houses
made of ınud-brick and timber collapsed, while the larger stone-built structures
apparently survived the catastrophe. Coins provide evidence of a break in the
occupation of the city, for there is a marked decline in the number of ninth-century
issues after the reign ofTheophilos, but Amorion was not cornpletely deserted and
experienced a new revival after some years, although the archaeologists have not
been able to provide a dating for this new pimse of settlement. 136
Considering ali this evidence together, we can perhaps come to the conclusion
that had it not been for the defeat at Anzes and the ensuing crisis it triggered
(desertion of the officers, rebellion among the Persians ete.), the caliph would
surely have had rnuch ınore difficulty attaining his declared target of taking
Amorion. it is therefore to this battle that we nıust look when considering the
causes of the Byzantine defeat in 838. John Haldon 's balanced assessınent of the
strategic irnpoıiance of the battle is worth reproducing here in its entirety:

The battle of Anzes was itself strategically important, of course, for had the
emperor won, he might well have been able to force the caliph to alter his plans
or withdraw before he was able to reach either Ankyra or Amorion. But it was
also iınportant in being the first encounter mentioned in the sources between
Byzantine troops and central Asian Turkish warriors, who were now being
employed on a large scale by the caliph as a reliable and totally loyal ınilitary
force, upon whom he could depend both for his own political security and as an
effective fighting force.

The evidence suggests that archery had declined considerably among eastem
Roman soldiers as a discipline of real tactical importance since the sixth and
early seventh centuries. The use of the bow did not disappear entirely, since
there always seem to have been some mounted archers and provincial infantry
troops probably including some soldiers armed with bows. Nevertheless, the
limited evidence makes almost no mention of archery, the standard armament
for the middle Byzantine soldier consisting of sword, lance, shield and helmet,
sometimes including also a lorikion or body-armour of some type.

ıl-1 Mich. Syr. 537, trans. Chabot (1889-1905) vol. 3, 99-100.

ııs Mich. Syr. 538, trans. Chabot (1889-1905) vol. 3, 101.
13" Lightfoot. Karagiorgou, Kocyiğit, Yaman, Linscheid and Foley (2007) 383-4 and
lvison (2008) 490.
 Tlıeop!ıi/os · Defeat aı ılm:es aııd ı!ıe Capıure cıf"Aıııurioıı iıı 838 311

Tlıe evidence froın tlıe easterıı wars fouglıt by tlıc eıııpire as well as tlıat froın
llıc Balkaııs slıows lhat tlıe eııenıies of tlıe Roman Eınpire relied upon tlıe saıne
paııoply - indeed, the sources mention tlıe sliııg as often as tlıey mention tlıe
bow. And as the battle of Anzes appears to slıow, tlıe Byzantines experienccd
great difficulties when confronted by effective arclıery, especially in the form of
the powerful composite reflex bow wielded by the steppe nomads. The reason
is almost certainly to do with tlıe facı tlıat this type ofweapon was not native to
the empire's lands, and ınilitary and tactical organizatioıı was not up to enforcing
regular training and practice of tlıe sort possible in the coııtext of !ate Roman
military structures. 137

Apparently, the intervention ofTurkislı horse archers in the battle ofAıızes was
decisive for the Arab victory. Their reflex bows succeeded in halting the Roman
advance and gave the withdrawing Arab forces time to regroup aııd couııterattack.
Kennedy, basiııg his work on conteınporary Arab sources, also stresses the
importance of the feigııed retreat by Turkish nıouııted archers, for they could fi re
as effectively backwards and forwards and shoot while their mounts 1!1oved in
any direction at high speed, thus causing heavy losses to their persecutors, as was
probably the case in Anzes. 138 Had not the heavy rain made their bow useless, it is
entirely possible that Theophilos would not have escaped capture by the eneıny,
who used tactics and skills unknown to the Byzantines.
But the participation of Turkish soldiers in the caınpaign of 838 was
not only iınportant froın a strategic and militaıy point of view. It was also a
political experiınent, as the detailed study of Matthew S. Gordon has recently
deınonstrated. 139 Already Ma'ınün, sensitive to the changing nature ofthe fidelities
ofhis troops, had backed the Turkish personal guard which his brother Abü Isl)aq,
the future caliph Mu'taşim (son ofa Turkish slave woınan, as we saw in Chapter
17.1), had developed around hiın since 815. Ma'mün's idea was to ınake ofthese
Turkish warriors one of the main supports of his power. The process began not
earlier than 819, when Ma'mün arrived in Baghdad and established an alliance
with his brother, who had remained in the capital during the civil war. From this
moment on Abü Isl;ıaq "was expected to direct the talents of his mounted slaves
to the needs ofthe empire". The guard retained its standing as a private force, but
was increasingly involved in the affairs of the state. 140 When Abü Isl)aq succeeded
his brother as caliph with the name of Mu'taşim, some of the most important
Turkish coınmanders began to take part in the militaıy campaigns he launched. In
particular, many Turkish officers played an importaıit role in the final expedition
against Babak commanded by Afshın in 837, although as a horse guard they were

137
Haldan (2001) 85-6.
138 K.ennedy (2001) 120-24.
13"
See also K.ennedy (2001) 118-24.
1�" Gordon (2001) 25-6, 44-5.
312 Tlıe Emperor T/ıeop/ıilos aııd ı/ıe Eası, 829-842

poorly suited to the mountains in which Babak was fighting. 141 To make this shift
of power to the Turkish guard effective, Mu'Laşim even departed from Baghdad
and made nearby Samarra the seat ofhis power in 835. There he settled.the Turkish
soldiers along with other elite troops created to serve him, tike the Maghariba or
Arab slaves of Egypt. This was thought to put an end to the influence the Abna',
i.e. the descendants of the Khur1isanis who brought the Abbasids to the throne (and
who included both Iranians and Arabs), had enjoyed so far.142
The next step, the definitive one for making a regular amıy out ofa personal
guard, was taken during the campaign ofAmorion in 838. The caliph turned to
the Turkish guard for his canıpaign against the Byzantines, assuıning personally
tbe overall comnıand of the army. Tbe success or the failure of this enterprise
would surely contribute to the change of political model. If the caliph won, he
would certainly develop the new model and fuıther transfer power and authority
to the newly created Turkish army. This was in fact what happened over the next
several years, although Mutawal<l<il, Mu'taşim's son and successor (847-861),
was already trying to control tlıe increasing influence ofthe Turks in SaınaıTa. 143
But everytlıing was stili unsettled in 838, as tlıe caliph advanced against
Anıorion, knowing perhaps that not only the destiny ofthe Byzantine capital, but
also his own future, was at stake in this military campaign. That his fears were not
unfounded is proved by the conspiracy against him by some partisans ofthe Arab
leaders ofthe Thugür (frontier lands) and tlıe Abna' during the siege as described
by TabarT (see Chapter 18.1). The conspirators could not endure the pre-eminent
position Turks like Ashnas enjoyed in the caliph's anny. Their secret plan was to
kili Mu'taşim and put on the throne his nephew 'Abbas (the son ofhis brother al­
Ma'mün and perhaps even his designated heir), for 'Abbas defended the traditional
rights of the Abna' against the new Turkish guard.144 The conspiracy failed as it
was detected by Mu'taşim, who executed 'Abbas on his way back to Samana.
But its mere existence is further proof of the fragile equilibrium prevailing in
Mu'taşim's army during the campaign of838. This was one additional reason for
the caliph to huny back to Samarra and not linger in Anatolia.
Ifwe finally take into account the rumours that connected Theophilos with the
conspiracy of'Abbas (to be considered in Chapter 18.1), we can safely conclude
that although Mu'taşim retumed victorious to Samana in 838, he ran many risks
during his campaign. His victory reinforced Abbasid centralism for a while and
put an end to the disintegrating period ofthe civil wars. However, he was on the
brink oflosing his power because of conspiracy and did not stop the emperor in
his attacks on the caliphate, as we will see in Chapter 18.3. Theophilos deserves a
more charitable verdict than he has received for having survived ali the enors and
failures ofthe campaign of838.

141 Gordon (2001) 75-6.

142 Gordon (2001) 37--41, 50-63.
14·' Gordon (2001) 41, 80-83.
144 Gordon (2001) 47-9.
 Chapter 18
After Amorion: Theophilos' Last Years

18.1 The Conspiracy of'Abbas

The Arab sources give ımıch importance to the conspiracy of 'Abbas, the son of
Ma'mün, against the caliph Mu'taşim in 838. Many pages ofthe lıistoıy ofTabarT
are devoted to explaining how the conspiracy took forın during the expedition
against Amorion. 1 When his father Ma'ınün died in 833, 'Abbas, despite the
protests of some of his followers who hailed hiın by the name of caliph, gave his
allegiance to Mu'taşim, Ma'mün's brother. He was probably trying to avoid a new
dispute over the caliphate that would reproduce the civil wars ofthe 820s. H owever,
disaffection grew over time between the followers of' Abbas, wlıo represented the
Arab leaders of the Tlnıgür (he was the goverııor of these military frontierlaııcls)
as well as the Khurasanis and Abna' of Baghdacl (the traditional supporters of
the Abbasids), and the new military commanders promoted by Mu'taşim aınong
the Turkish soldiers, who felt a personal conımitınent to the new caliph.2 Thus a
conspiracy coalesced around 'Abbas that aiıned at killing Mu'taşiın and his most
!oya! generals AfshTn and Ashnas.
The coup was ready by the time Mu'taşim crossed the Cilician Gates into
Byzantine territory, but 'Abbas declined to act before conquering Amorion, for he
did not want to spoil the campaign. But when Mu'taşim came baclc to Cilicia, after
taking Amorion, the conspiracy had already been discovered by the caliph, who
however did not make any move at first against 'Abbas and his supporters because
of the high number of commanders involved. However, Mu'taşim finally forced
'Abbas to confess ali his plans after a copious meal in his tent. After 'Abbas had
given the caliph the names of the commanders who had secretly entered into his
plot, Mu'taşim began to pursue .them relentlessly. All of them were arrested and
mistreated. The gruesome tortures they suffered are minutely reported by TabarT.
All the conspirators died as a result of these abuses, including 'Abbas himself,
who clied at Manbij, a city on the Euphrates. The Boole of the Soıırces says that
some seventy commanders, were executed. 3 It was certainly a slaughter which
significantly weakened the caliph's aımy for a while. When the caliph came to
Samarra, 'Abbas was publicly called "The Accursed üne."

1 TabarT III.11164, 1249-50 and 1256-68, trans. Bosworth (1987) l, 112-13 and
121-34. See also Ya'qübT, HistoıJ' 581-2.
" See Chapter 17.5 for an assessment of the increasiııg inf!uence of the Turks in
Mu'taşim's aııııy.
-' Book oftlıe Soıırces 398.
314 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeoplıi/os and tlıe Ecısı, 829-842

'Abbas' conspiracy had mainly to do, as we said, with the opposition to the new
Turkish mililary commanders promoted by Mu'taşim. But it also had ramifications
in Byzantium, since 'Abbas apparently also held some kind of negotiations with
the emperor. This is clearly stated by Michael the Syrian. He reports that when
Mu'taşim was informed about the conspiracy, he detained 'Abbas' secretary and
his physician, a Nestorian. Both disclosed to him the details of the conspiracy,
namely the persons involved, "the treaty signed with Theophilos, the emperor of
the Romans" and the agreement made with the inhabitants of Baghdad, who were
to take the city and massacre his enemies as soon as 'Abbas were proclaimed
caliph. Moreover, after 'Abbas died of torture and hunger, the caliph wrote a
letter proclaiming: "Everyone might know that 'Abbas, son of Ma'mün, has been
disclosed as an enemy of our empire and that he was ready to surrender ali the
teITitory of the Taiyaye [Arabs] into the hands of the Romans. Therefore, !et hirn
be accursed by eveıyone!''4
The Annenian version, which was based freely on the Syrian original,
developed this account and made of the "surrender of the territory of the Arabs"
a promise by 'Abbas to embrace Christianity in exchange for the support of the
Byzantines. This is of course to be ruled out,5 so that we must look elsewhere for
the causes of the grave accusation made against 'Abbas by his uncle Mu'taşim.
Probably 'Abbas wanted only to guarantee some kind of agreement with the
Byzantines before killing Mu'taşim, for he could not risk an open confrontation
with the Turkish military at Samarra without having his back covered against
any possible Byzantine campaign. A secret deal with the Byzantines was surely
grounds enough to be accused ofbeing a traitor to lslam. But what matters for us
here is what 'Abbas could have offered to Theophilos in exchange for peace.
That there was indeed a deal is confirmed by Mas'üdT, for he says that when
'Abbas was proclaiıned caliph by his supporters, "he was in correspondence
with the emperor".6 This is an important remark, for it appears as an independent
testimony to the account of Michael the Syrian. However, no clue is given about
what the intentions of'Abbas could have been. To come to a conclusion a general
perspective is perhaps needed.
As we mentioned in Chapter 17.5, there prevailed a division in the Abbasid
nıling elite between the defenders ofcoınmerce and the partisans ofwar as a way
offinancing the Abbasid state. Peter von Sivers rightly remarks that the instigators
of the conspiracy of 'Abbas were army leaders of the frontier lands "who had
been given less generous suppoıt by the caliph than those ofthe generals ofnative
Iranian or central Asiatic origin and consequently ended up with the dregs of the
spoils". But he then adds:

.ı Mich.Syr.538,trans.Clrnbot(l899-1910)vol.3, l01.
See Vasiliev (1942-1944) 204-7.
'' Mas'üdT, Tlıe Mecıcloıı·s of Gole/ 136-7, trans. Vasiliev ( 1935) 332.
 ı!f;er A111orio11: Tlıeoplıilos 'lası }ear.ı· 315

During al-Mu'taşinı's reign tlıe 'Abbasid nıling class was guite obviously
torn betwcen fiscal and commercial interests. Tlıc caliplı lıinıself vacillated
but eventually tlırew his lot witlı tlıe fiscal expansionists wlıen tlıe Byzantines
mounted a military challenge against lıim. Tlıe propoııents of conıınercial
expansion had stroııg interests in a limited, defensive war aııd ımıst lıave
observed tlıe coııspiracy witlı deliglıt, if indeed tlıey were not directly belıiııd
it. Altlıough the coııspiracy failed, the commercial party ııevertheless eınerged
triumplıaııt over its fiscal rival: it succeeded in forciııg tlıe departure of the
military e:ı:paıısionists fronı tlıe Tlıugür. For the time beiııg the war of attritioıı
was iııternıpted.7

Was 'Abbas really a supporter ofcommercial interests as Sivers suggests? We

are not sure about it, but his prolonged command often years in tlıe frontier lands
of the Thuglıür, from the time Ma'mün appointed him in 828 until his death in
838, perhaps made him sensitive to the advantages ofa commercial understaııding
with the Byzantines. He was not the only person in the Thughür who was ready
to come to an agreement with the enemy, for sonıe of the coııspirators during
the Amorion campaign declared tlıat tlıey considered it easier to go over to the
Byzantines than to obey the orders of Mu'taşim 's commanders.H it is perhaps from
this perspective that the friendship betweeıı 'Abbas and Manuel the Armenian,
referred to in the Byzantine sources (see Chapter 5.4), makes sense. As a man
of the frontier, 'Abbas had learnt to understand his rival and to hear complaints
about the central government in Irag. This could have been presented to the
Byzantines as an occasion for a diplomatic approach to the son ofthe caliph. The
move could have started as early as in 831-832, when Theophilos wrote to the
caliph Ma'mün proposing an agreement between the two powers that could not
but favour commerce and trade:

I have written to you inviting you to make a peace agreenıent and as one desirous
of the advantage ofa truce in military operations, so that you may remove the
burdens ofwar from upon us and so that we may be to each other friends and a
band ofassociates, in addition to the accruing ofbenefits and widened scope for
trading through commercial outlets, the release ofthose who have been carried
off into captivity and the security oftlıe higlıways and heartlands of the realms.9

This offer, rejected by Ma'mün, was not necessarily evidence ofTheophilos'

weakness, as it may appear, but rather an attempt to create divisions among the
Abbasid ruling elite between the opposed tendencies of the fiscal expansionists
and defenders of trade and commerce. The obsessions of Ma'mün with the

7
Sivers (1982) 80.
8
TabarT III.1249-50, trans. Bosworth (1991) l 12-13.
9
Tabari III.1109-10, trans. Boswortlı (1987) 195, probably taken froııı lbıı Tayfür
284-5, trans. Keller ( l 908) vol. 2, 128-9.
316 T!ıe Eıııperor Theoplıilos cmd ı/ıe Eası, 829-84:!

Byzantine Eınpire and his apocalyptic fears perhaps hindered any approach during
his lifetime (see Chapter 22), but as long as 'Abbas remained in charge at the
frontier, the emperor could have hoped for some kind ofrapprochement.
Although it was Mu'taşim, and not 'Abbas, who was hailed as caliph at the
death of Ma'mün in 833, the new caliph seemed initially to avoid war against
Byzantium. But under the pressure of the increasingly bold military actions of
the Byzantines in noıihern Syria and western Armenia between 834 and 837,
Mu'taşim decided to lead for the !ast time a massive campaign against Byzantium.
After it was over and Amorion remained plundered, it must have appeared to the
Byzantines that some new diplomatic iınpulse was needed if they really wanted
to prevent further massive attacks against their territory. Military actions were
of course not excluded, as we shall see below, but they were complemented by
an intensive diplomatic exchange that was unparalleled thus far. New allies were
looked for in the ınost distant regions to fight the Abbasids.

18.2 Diplomacy in the West ...

On the other side of the Mediterranean, the Cordoba emirate of'Abd al-Ral;ıman
was first contacted by the Byzantines after the defeat ofArnorion. A very interesting
letter from the Umayyad emir of al-Anclalus to the emperor Theophilos has been
preserved in the Mııqtabis of the Andalusian historian Ibn ijayyan (988-1076),
whose only rnamıscript seemed lost for decades after Levi-Provençal consulted it
in the 1930s. 10 However, the exemplar has been recently acquired by the Spanish
Real Acadeınia de la Historia, where it is now deposited, from the legacy of the
Arabist Emilio Garcia G6ınez.11 We now have an excellent facsimile edition,12 a
partial edition with Spanish translation, 13 and a complete Spanish translation with
commentary on this important text.14
Ibn I:Iayyan has preserved three different accounts of the embassy of
Theophilos. The first is a lengthy literary re-creation of the embassy made by
the Andalusian poet Ghazal and a certain Yal).ya al-Munayqila to the court of
the emperor. 15 The account is apparently based on the personal experiences of
the poet, who expresses his disgust at making such a long journey to the distant
lands of a Christian sovereign. Despite his protests, .the emir 'Abd al-Ral).man
obliges him to do so, providing Ghazal with generous financial support for the
journey and money for his family during his absence. A long series of anecdotes
interwoven with poems follows, making a vivid and witty report ofGhazal's long

10 Levi-Provençal (1937).
11 For the circumstances of the recovery of the tost manuscript see Marin (1999).
ı, Vailve Bermejo (1999).
13 Vallve Bennejo and Ruiz Gire la (2003).
1•1 Makki and Corriente (2001 ).
15 lbn f:layyan, Muqtcıhis, 158v-l 63v, trans. Makki and Coıı-iente (2001) 228-44.
 -�fier ılııwrioıı: Tlıeoplıilos · Lası )eurs 317

jouıııey, as expected from his literary skili. We do not lıave an official report, but
a succession of iınpressions conceived to entcrtain tlıe reacler. Leaving aside tlıe
poeıns preceding his departure and following his return, wlıiclı ::ıre not especially
infonnative for our concern here, the scenes recorcled at tlıe imperial court ::ıre
intended to slıow Ghazal's wit in front of the iıııperial pair. Thus, for exaınple,
when he is to enter the tlırone rooın through ::ı very low door, which could be done
only by kneeling, he avoids the humiliation oftlıe proskynesis by turning his back
to the emperor who was waiting for him. Or when he is rebuked by Theophilos
for stealing a golden cup from the inıperial table ancl hiding it under his ınantle,
he feigns being disappointed by the ıneanness ofthe Byzantine customs coınparecl
with those observed at the table ofthe caliphs, who allow the anıbassaclors to keep
for themselves table service items; Theophilos has no other option than to present
his guest with the cup. These aııd similar aııecdotes (clealing for exaınple with
circuıncision or the drinking of wine) have a literary or folkloric backgrouncl 16
and are effective in presentiııg the witty Anclalusiaıı prevailing over the pompous
cereınonial of the Byzaııtines.
The narrator takes evideııt satisfaction in presentiııg Gha:ı:51 as victorious in
froııt ofali the challeııges he coııfroııted . lıı this literary accouııt the embassy turns
into a propaganclistic tool for the benefit of the Muslinı anıbassaclor, wlıo acls
as a representative of the Corcloban Umayyacls. As a consequcnce, we get much
precious iııformation about tlıe clistaııce and cliffidence towarcl tlıe Byzantines
felt by the western Muslims and learıı very little about the actual objectives of
the embassy or their impleınentation. The account says only that Glıazal and his
companion departed from Byzantium for Cordoba in HA 225 ( 12 November 839
to 30 October 840); 17 that he was rewarded with valuable presents by the Byzantiııe
emperor; 1 8 that he delivered a "secret message" to the emperor; 19 and that the
empress helped Ghazal in persuading the emperor to grant "ali the objectives that
were clifficult" to attain.20 These !ast indications are so general that they must be
approached with prudence. A first warning about the reliability of the account
comes from the mention oftlıe young prince, son ofthe imperial couple, who pays
a visit to the poet ancl offers him a wineskin. Considering the date, only Michael III
could be referred to, but as he was bom in 840, he must have been a baby ofsome
months when Ghazal was in Constantinople.
There is however an important cletail that has reınained unknown until now. it
is the mention ofa previous ambassador to Constantinople. Ghazal recommends
him again for the mission in a long qasida written for the occasion, for he says
that the mail has enough experience as he dealt with Christians as a youth, was

16 See for that Signes Codoiier (2001). For instance, the anecdote of the golden cup

appears in the Alexander romance of Pseudo-Kallisthenes, ed. Tlıiel (1974) 85 (eh. 11.5).
17
Ibn f:fayyan, Jvhıqtabis, 162r, trans. Makki and Corriente (2001) 239.
18 Ibn f:fayyan, Muqtcıbis, l62r, trans. Makki and Corrieııte (200 l) 24 0.
1•
[bn l;layyaıı, Mııqtahis, 160v, trans. Makki aııd Corriente (2001) 236.
211
lbn l:layyan, Muqıahis, 161 r, trans. Makki aııcl Corriente (2001) 237.
318 T/ıe Eıııpemr Tlıeoplıilos and ılıe Eası, 829-842

wealthy and leamed, and had had contact with persons of some standing. 21 This
information suggests that the Byzantine embassy to Cordoba was perhaps sent as
a response to a previous one coming from the Andalusian emir.
The second account preserved by lbn f:Iayyan is a short item copied later in the
ıv/ııqtabis and transmitted by the Cordoban historian I:Iasan ibn Mubammad ibn
Mufarrij al-QubbasT (959-1038). 22 There, it is said that Theophilos sent a letter
to the emir 'Abd al-Ral)ınan "taking the initiative of re-establishing diplomatic
relations" with the Umayyads, intemıpted since the rise in power of the Abbasids.
Theophilos apparently recognized the rights of the Cordoban emir to the caliphate
and urged him to recover theın by fighting the Abbasids. it is said that 'Abd al­
Ral)man was pleased with the message sent by the emperor and showered attentions
on his ambassador. He then sent in turn two ambassadors bade to Constantinople,
the poet Ghazal and Yabya al-Munayqila. Both etfectively travelled to the emperor
and, after some experiences, happily retumed to their homeland having signed "a
pact of friendship" between the two powers.
The third account is transınitted by 'Isa ibn Abınad al-Razı (888-955), one
of the first Arab historians born in al-Andalus. it is copied imınediately after the
one transınitted by lbn fvlufarrij al-QubbasT. it also contains a short sumınary of
the embassy whereby we are informed that the Byzantine ambassador Qurtiyüs
(probably K.aprnpoç) arrived at Cordoba in HA 225 with magnificent presents
and a letter from Theophilos demanding that the emir establish diplomatic
relations. The emperor is said to have "neglected the dishonour of taking the
initiative" in such a matter and to be "the first Christian sovereign" who sought
to deal officially with Cordoba. Theophilos apparently extolled in his letter the
importance of the Andalusian emirate and accompanied it with valuable presents.
The emir responded to the presents as was fitting and wrote to the emperor a reply
which was sent to Constantinople by "his two master astrologers" Ghazal and
Yabya al-Munayqila.
After that, the complete text of the original letter sent to Theophilos follows.23
ln it the emir 'Abd al-Rabman refers first to the former friendship between the
Umayyads and Byzantines as the cause that moved him to respond to the eınbassy
of Qurtiyüs. He thus confirms his wiH to seal a pact of friendship between the
two powers. After this short preamble, the emir gives a minute rendering of ali
the points mentioned in Theophilos' letter. 'Abd al-Ral)man declares first to have
understood what Theophilos wrote to him condemning the Abbasid usurpation of

21 lbn I;l.ayyiin, !vlzıqtabis, 158v-159r, trans. Maldci and Corriente (2001) 229-
3 1. The name of this ambassador is not easy to ascertain because the text seems to be
comıpted at this place. The translators suggest Ibn AbT Tilbah, but this could have been a
nickname.
22 Ibn I;Iayyiin, Mııqtabis, l80r, trans. Makki and Corriente (2001) 294.
23 Ibn I;Iayyiin, !vfııqtabis, 180r-18l v, trans. Maldci and Corriente (2001) 294-8; for
an edition oftlıe texl oftlıe letter froın 'Abd al-Ral)nıiin witlı a Frenclı translation see Levi­
Proveııçal ( 1937); for a coınıneııt on İl see Sigııes Codofier (2004a) 199-208.
 l!{İl!I' ,·/ıııorioıı: Tlıcoıılıilos · Lası )hırs 319

tlıe caliphate in 749 ancl the slauglıter of the Uıııayyacls in 750. He also obviously
joins hiııı in his conclenınation of the Abbasicl caliphs Ma'ınün and Mu'taşiııı,
who are presentecl as lıeretics aııcl bacl nılers oppressing their people ancl are
disrespectfully ca!lecl by the names of their ıııothers. Tlıen tlıe emir ınentions
the vows made by Theophilos regarding tlıe swift enci of Abbasid rule and tlıe
re-establishment of tlıe Uınayyad caliphate "as is proclaimed by tlıe books, the
prophets declare, is conferred by tlıe consensus (of tlıe doctors) and arguınent
concedes" (see also Chapter 22 for a conınıent on this passage). Theophilos is said
to urge the caliph to ınarch against tlıe Abbasids and to proınise to conıe to his aid,
"as the friend does with the friend". 'Abd al-Ral)ınan then says that he has read
and understood everything the enıperor told hinı about the "concluct of Abü tfnfş
and his men, who nıigrated froııı our countıy", for they seized a part of tlıe enıpire
ancl declared loyalty to tlıe Abbasids. Tlıe sanıe goes for tlıe emirs of Africa, who
according to Tlıeophilos' !eller "lıave parted from lbn Marida [Mu'taşinı], paying
no furtlıer obedience to lıinı and foeling weariness of his dynasty".
Tlıe Corcloban then agrees to make an alliance between the two powers as
was custonıaıy for tlıeir forenınners. 'Abd al-Ral)man adcls that tlıe caliplı Abü
Ja'far (754-775) has already been adequately rewarded for lıis iniquity against tlıe
Unıayyads and is sutTering endless torments by sentence of Gocl. Regarcling the
project to canıpaign against tlıe Abbasids and the impencling enci of their clynasty
and re-establishment of the Umayyads, the emir replies that he is waiting for that
accorcling to the will of God. He is conficlent that with His help he will succeed
in putting Syria and al-Anda!us under the same banner, for news is continuously
coming to his ears announcing that the revenge of the Unıayyads will fail upon
theın and "tlıey will die in a bad hour at the hands of the people of the West". He
then mentions that the Andalusian followers of Abü 1:Iafş are only the "dregs of
the populace and depravecl wanderers" who acted on their own behalfwithout any
support from Cordoba and were forced to submit to Mu'taşim by the proximity
of the Abbasids. 'Abd al-Ral)man hopes that Theophilos is strong enough to
banish theın from the part of the enıpire they have taken and only if he succeeds
in recovering the east will he help Theophilos in this task, in the interest of botlı
of theın. The emir finishes tlıe letter mentioning the sending of two ambassadors
baclc to Theophilos along with his envoy Qurtiyüs. He closes witlı the following
sentence: "Write to us through their agency on the matter you wrote to us about,
as well as on good news from you and the good health we wish you, in order to
consider whatever both (ambassadors) bring from your part, as they carry it, if
God wills it"
Only the dating connects this diplomatic correspondence between Cordoba
and Constantinople with the campaign of 838 and the sack of Amorion, for the
Byzantine ambassador Karteros could already have an-ived at Cordoba in 839.
However, the chronology is not quite clear, for HA 225 is indeed mentioned as
the year when the envoy of Constantinople arrived at Corcloba, but also when
Ghazal departed from Constantinople baclc to Cordoba. lf we give credence to tlıe
aforementioned qasida of Glıazal, even a first embassy to Tlıeoplıilos coulcl lıave
320 Thi! E111pemr T/ıeoplıi/us cmd ıhe East. 819-841

coıne to Constantinople preceding the diplornatic exchange we are considering

here. in any ense, whether the correspondence between Constantinople and
Cordoba was initiated as a direct result of the caınpaign of 838 or not, the sack
ofAınorion probably led Theophilos to conduct an unprecedented diplomatic
initiative in the Islamic west, either making the first advance without any previous
contact being ınade, or just profiting from the arrival of a first eınbassy from
Cordoba to Constantinople, previous to the one led by Ghazal.
The purpose of the eınbassy must have been ambitious. If the rights of the
Umayyads to the caliphate were now upheld by Theophilos and wishes for its
re-establishment expressed, it was certainly not just because he wanted to flatter
his coıTespondent, but because he expected to gain something from a common
alliance. This could appear unrealistic for we are considering the facts ex eventu
and know tlıat long life stili awaited the Abbasid caliphate. However, as we shall
consider in Chapter 22, many prophecies announced the end of the Abbasid
caliphate at this time and even Ma'mün seeıns to have given credence to them.
These prophecies are ınentioned by 'Abd al-Rabman in his letter. Accordingly,
we cannot exclude that some kind of expectations about an impending end of the
Abbasids fostered the correspondence between the two powers and even laid the
foundations for a pact offriendship. However, this does not ınean that Theophilos
expected direct intervention from the Andalusians in the east. The two specific
scenarios expressly mentioned in the letter, Crete and Africa, speak ciearly of the
limited scope ofthe alliance.
About Crete 'Abd al-Rabınan had apparently Iittle to say, for he declares he
has neither ascendancy over the Andalusian Cretans nor the capacity for military
intervention in the area. Thus only promises are given for the case of a future
re- establishment of the Uınayyad caliphate in the east. 'Abd al-Rabman showed
himself to be unconcerned about the fate of the Andalusians who took Crete,
and this would have been welcomed by the Byzantines, who tried to avoid new
emigrants coming to Crete to reinforce theAndalusians already settled there, and
perhaps also wanted to know first hand the causes behind their arrival in the east.
The Continuator wrote historical excursus about famine and overpopulation in
al-Andalus as a cause for the emigration oftheAndalusians to the east. This report,
albeit somewhat badly summarized and with confused geographical notions,
appears to be based on some loca! source directly acquainted with what was
actually happening.24 It is possible that the Byzantines got this information during
Kaıteros' embassy to Cordoba in 839. lf this Karteros was the same person as
the homonymous admiral who unsuccessfully tried to recover the island from the
Andalusians during the reign of Michel II,25 then his interest in recovering Crete
does not need to be explained. We know through the De administrando imperio
that Byzantine envoys or ambassadors on rnissions to foreign lands wrote this
kind of historical or ethnographical report. The parallel case is perhaps provided

24 Tlı. Cont. 111.21 (73.13-74.6). See Signes Codofier (2004a) 196-8 and Clıapter 13.3.
25 For Karteros and tlıe date of the expedition see Signes Codoiier (1995) 323-8.
 A/ier ,lıııorioıı: Tlıeoplıilos · Lası )ecırs 321

by Petronas during his mission among the Klıazars at probably the sanıe time, as
we shall see in Chapter 19.
But what theıı of Africa? Appareııtly the question about A frica renıai ns
unanswered by 'Abd al-Ral)man. But ifwe pay close attention to his text, the emir,
when replying to Theophilos' proposals, does mention indeed that (1 translate
literally) "concerning the matter of this wickedness of Ibn Marida [Mu'taşim],
you urged against him to ınake an attack on what !ay before him (al-klıuriij ifa ına
qiblahu)". Levi-Provençal rendered the passage as "an attack against the borders
of his lands".26 It appears that an attack against the Aghlabids of Africa could
have been referred to, for Africa lay "before" the main lands of the caliphale in a
hypothetical march eastwards from al-Andalus. Such an attack seemed realistic
from many points ofview and would have been welcome to the empire.
As a matter of fact, since the 820s Byzantium had been greatly affected by
tlıe Arab invasion ofwestern Sicily, exactly at the saıne time as tlıe Andalusians
took hold of Crete. Since the capture of Palermo in 831 at the begiııning of tlıe
reign ofTheophilos, the Byzantines had not beeıı able to recover tlıe city and
were on the defensive againsl the repeated attacks ofthe African and Andalusian
warriors. However, only the arrival ofAlexios Mousele to Sicily in 837 (for hiın,
see Chapter 7.2) reveals for the first time a direct interest of Constantinople in
redressing the situation on the island. Eviclence of the seconclary importance
of Sicily until this time and even during the whole reign ofTheophilos lies in
the absolute silence of the Greelc authors on the continuous warfare there in the
830s ofwhich we are informed only through Arab sources.27 it appears tlıat since
the rebellion of Euphemios during the reign of Michael II the interest in Sicily
dwindled to a loca! matter.
Things perhaps changed in 838 with the taking and plundering by the Arabs of
the city ofBrindisi, a Longobard possession which !ay to the north ofthe Byzantine
ten·itory at the heel ofthe Italian peninsula. It was a bold action by the Arabs, who
in previous years had increasingly raided south Italy and even sealed a pact with
the important city ofNaples, whose dukes theoretically acknowledged Byzantine
sovereignty but in fact acted in their own interest, trading (probably with slaves)
with the Muslim foe.28 With this attack on Brindisi the danger of fürther Arab
inroads into the Adriatic Sea first became evident. it was a serious warning for
the Byzantines, who realized that the Arabs could eventually take hold of parts
of the Italian peninsula before even completing their conquest of eastern Sicily.
Moreover, not only was the communication of Byzantium with southem ltaly
and Sicily ·seriously threatened, but also the traditional influence of Byzantiuın

26 For the passage and the traııslatioıı see Levi-Provençal (1937) 19 and 22. Makki
aııd Corriente (2001) 297 translate tlıe passage as follows: "En cuaııto a lo que dices del
ınalvado Ibıı Maridah, incitandonos a salir coııtra el."
27
Vasiliev (1935) vol. l, 127-37 and 143-4.
28
For a lıistoıy of Byzantine Italy see Gay ( 1917), Falkenlıausen ( 1978), Guillou et al.
( 1983), Kreutz ( 1991) and Cosentino (2008)..
 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Ecısı, 829-842

over Sardinia and the Balearics could also soon come to an end. Sardinia was
in föct a strategic island in tlıe ıniddle of the western MediteıTanean base, whiclı
remained in close contact with Byzantium until tlıe very beginning ofthe eleventh
century, even using the Greek alphabet to write its loca! dialect. 29 The Balearics,
close to the eastern coast of the lberian peninsula, had never been captured from
the Byzantines by the Visigoths. They remained de facto independent before the
Muslims and probably in the orbit ofByzantine political oikoumene to which they
were connected through Sardinia (see Map8).30

•·-·-·-=- Maritlnıe borders of the lnfluence

area of the Byzantine Empire
1SOlm

)00 JOQ sıxımıı�,

Map8 West and central Mediterranean Sea, c. 838

As we see, a long chain of "Byzantine" outposts beginning in the Italian heel

and ending in lbiza was in danger if the entrance to the Adriatic was not secured
against Muslim inroads. After the increasing difficulties Byzantium had in
defending its westem areas ofinfluence, in848-849, only some years after the death
ofTheophilos, 'Abd al-RalJman attacked for the first time the Balearics in order to
annex them to the emirate.31 Although the expedition ended without results in the
long tenn, it anticipated the final assault and conquest ofthe islands at the end ofthe
ninth cenhıry, soon after the fail ofTaormina in Sicily.32

'9
For 'Byzantine' Sardinia see Corrias and Cosentino (2002).
3° Far the links ofByzantiun1 with the Balearics see Signes Codoiier (2005).
ıı Amengual i Batle ( 1991) 463-7.
Signes Coclofier (2007a).
 A/ier A111nriıııı: Tlıeoplıifns · Lasr leor.ı· 323

An alliance with tlıe Byzantines against tlıe Aglılabids was also convenient
for tlıe Spanislı Umayyads, wlıo lıncl always been interested in controlling the
Nortlı African coast ancl tlıe straits. Conversely, a powerful emirate in Africa witlı
a bridgehead in western Sicily could isolate tlıe Umayyad emirate in tlıe west
Mediterranean basin from tlıe rest oflslam. Tlıe same conjuncture was reproduced
in the first half of the tentlı century with tlıe emergence of the Shiite Fatimite
caliphate in Nortlı Africa. This situation then led to the conversion ofthe Umayyad
emirate into a Sunni caliphate and to a naval alliance with the Byzantines. it was
around 956 that tlıe Byzantine aııd tlıe Umayyad fleets converged off the Africaıı
coast to fight the comrnoıı foe.33 Now, ifwe read attentively the letter of' Abd al­
Ral)mfüı, Tlıeophilos appears to suggest to the Umayyad that the Aghlabids might
change sides aııd ally with them, for he notices that the African emirate no loııger
pays obedience to tlıe Abbasids and is dissatisfiecl with their rule. Tlıis early crisis
betwee11 the Aghlabicls and their Abbasicl master, as expressecl in the letter, appears
suspect to some scholars, but there is no reason to question the autlıenticity of
the letter in this regarcl.3•1 The possibility ofturning the Aghlabicl emirate frorn its
ficlelity to Baghclacl might perhaps not have appearecl so reınote in tlıe eyes ofthe
conternporaries.
That Tlıeophilos was interested in an alliance against the African Aghlabicls
is further eviclencecl by otlıer sources. As early as 838, Tlıeophilos had sent an
ernbassy to the court ofLouis tlıe Pious, who received it at lngelheim 011 18 May
839. 35 The Anna!es Bertiııiani report oııly that the Greek aınbassaclors, Theodosios
metropolitan of Chalkeclon and the spatharios Theophanes, proposecl an alliance
of friendship between the two powers and congratulated the Frankish emperor 011
his latest victories. 36 Although the Annales remai11 silent about the objectives of
the embassy, it is not hare! to guess that they were somehow connected with the
Muslim invasions, either in Sicily a11cl/or in Anatolia.
Theophilos had alreacly sent another embassy to the Frankish emperor Louis I
in 833,37 but the ambassaclor arrived at the worst possible moment, for Louis' son
Lothair had just leci a revolt ofthe three eleler sons ofthe emperor ancl take11 the place
of Louis, who had been cleposecl. The Byzantine ambassador, Markos, archbishop
of Ephesos, coulcl only deliver some presents to Lothair but was not even able to
meet personally the deposecl Louis. He returnecl to Constantinople "referring to

ıı See Stern (1950), Halın (1991) 392-6 and Signes Codofier (2004a) 237-9.
H Signes Codofier (2004a) 204-5.
35 MU!ler (2009) Regest 438. See Chapter 20.1 for dating tlıe departure oftlıe enıbassy
from Constantinople.
36 Anııales Bertiniani 19-20 (anno 839), trans. Nelson (1991) 42-3. Treadgold (1988)
309 and note 425 wrongly applies to tlıis embassy the information provided by Byzantine
historians about a second eınbassy sent in 841 (for which see below). For the problem
see Sigııes Codofier (1995) 575-82. See also Shepard (1995) 41-4 for a nıore accurate
rendering oftlıe details.
17 fvl[jller (2009) Regesl 429.
324 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos cıııd ılıe Ecısl, 829-841

tlıis almost unheard-of tragedy" (traguediam reportantem pene inauditam).38 Again,

nothing is said about the motives of this early enıbassy. However, since it should
have departed from Constantinople in the summer, it had probably to do with the
invasioıı of Ma'mün, who entered Byzantine territory on 9 July 833 leading the
largest arıny asseınbled until then during his reign (see Chapter 14.7). it appears
that Theophilos was looking for sonıe help against the Arab invasion of 833 when
he sent his eınbassy to Louis. Nothing precludes us from thinking the saıne about
the eınbassy of 839.
Nevertheless, the iııcreasing attacks of the Muslims in Sicily and ltaly
in the !ast years of Theophilos' reign were by tlıemselves grounds enough
for a Byzantine embassy to the west. In fact, the Arabs took Taranto from the
Longobards in 839 and continued their raids deep into the Adriatic. Theodosios
Baboutzikos,39 Theodora 's brother-in-law and brother of Constantine Baboutzikos
(taken captive at Amorion),40 was sent by Theophilos to Yenice in 840 to prepare
a naval offensive against the Arabs, as is expressly stated by Latin chronicles.41
The offensive, directed against the Musliın leader Sabas at Taranto, failed, for the
Venetian fleet was defeated and its crew captured by the Muslims. After that, the
invaders even plundered the Dalınalian coast and Ancona in retaliation for the
Venetian expedition.42 At the saıne time, a number of small forts in western Sicily
surrendered to the Arabs.43
This escalation of the conflict explains a new embassy to the Frankish couıt,
which set offfrom Constantinople in 841, when the emperor was already Louis' son,
Lothair.44 Several Latin sources refer to this embassy and paıticularly to the intention
ofthe Byzantine emperor to marry a daughter ofhis to the son ofthe emperor, king
Louis ofItaly. When the embassy was received at Treveris by the Frankish emperor
in 842 {probably in the summer), Theophilos was already dead. Nevertheless, a
betrothal between his daughter and Louis of Italy was apparently agreed, for the
Byzantines demanded the fulfilment ofthe wedding some years later.45
Again, nothing is said in these sources about supposed military objectives
against Muslim raiders coming from Africa. However, Byzantine historians this

38 Astronomus, Vita Hlııdowici 636. See also Aıınales Bertiniani 7 (anno 833).
39 PnıbZ #7874 and PBE s.v. "Theodosios 41". For the embassy see McCormick
(200 I) 226-8, 920 and Shepard (1995) 46-58.
40 PıııbZ#3932 and PBE s.v. "Konstantinos 30".
41
Andreas Dandolo, Clıroııica 175 (Muratori) and 150.21-23 (Pastorello); John the
Deacon, C/ıronic/e 17.37-41.
42 Andreas Dandolo, Clıronica 175 (Muratori) and 150.24--31 (Pastorello); John the
Deacon, C/ıronic/e 17.41-18.6; Clıronic/e ofSa/erno 508-9.
43 Vasiliev (1935) vol. l, 177-83 and Treadgold ( 1988) 320-21 and note 441.
44 Müller (2009) Regest 443.
4;
Aııdreas Dandolo, C/ıronica 175 (Muratori) and 151.2-4 (Pastorello); Contiııııatio
coııstaııtiııopolitaııa 343; Aımales Berti11iaııi 28 (aııno 842) and 43 (anno 853); and Lothair's
edict oftlıe year 842, edited in Beyer ( I 860-1874) vol. 1, 77-8 witlı the number 69, where
tlıe enıperor meııtioııs tlıe reception of tlıis eınbassy in Treveris.
 ,,Uier ılıııorio11: Tlıeoplıilos · Lası leaı:ı· 325

time provide complementary iııformation about the eınbassy. 46 The Continuator

mentions tlıat Tlıeoplıilos sent the patrician Tlıeodosios Baboutzikos on an
embassy "to tlıe king of France" (-ıı:poç TOY pııya <Dpayyiaç) after the defeat of
Amorion demanding military forces (cnpan:u�ıarn eı<:c:t ... aini:ıv yc:vvaı:a TE ı<:ai
1ı:oı,uav8prn-ıı:a). He adds that the emperor would have campaigned anew agaiııst
the Saracens if his envoy had not died unexpectedly, "for his deatlı prevented tlıat
this army arrived at tlıe capital" ( eı<:c:ivou TE yap � aıı:opirncrıç TOY aTprm:ıv eı<:dvov
ıı:poç T�V paaı1ı.c:uouaav e1ı.8dv ou ıı:c:-ıı:oirııcc:). Tlıe death of tlıe emperor because
of dysentery is said to have prevented tlıe fulfilment of the project. Genesios
also links this embassy with the defeat of Amorion and mentions Theodosios
Baboutzikos as the ambassaclor to tlıe king of France. He then specifies that the
objective of the embassy was "to recruit a large anny as an auxiliary force for
lıinı and that some of his officers plundered some of tlıe cities and lancls of the
Sarracenes that lay between Libya and Asia" (mu Km' emKoupiav auv8fo0aı
auTq':ı ıı:01ı.uav8prnıı:ov CTTp<ıTEWLU, ıcai nvaç uıı:ocrTpanıy{ı)V aUTOU xcopfüv TE ıcai
ıı:6tı.E(J)V nvaç Iapaıcııvııcfüv TCOV �ıc:rnl;u AıPuııç ıcai Aaiaç Km:aA.ıı'fo-aa0aı).
lf we combine the accounts of the Continuator and Geııesios, then Theophilos,
after the defeat at Amorion, would have deınandecl tlıat tlıe Frankislı emperor sencl
western soldiers to Constantinople to fıglıt tlıe Muslims eİlher in Asia (Syria?)
or in Africa (Egypt?). As Baboutzikos was not the ambassador İn 839 and tlıe
embassy failed because of the death both of Baboutzikos (alive in 840 wlıen he
was sent to the Venetians)47 and of the emperor, there is every reason to identify
this embassy witlı the one that was received at the Fraııkish court in 842. Had death
not prevented the fulfilment ofTheophilos' project, it woulcl have brought about a
substantial change in the relations between the Christian powers facing the threat
oflslam. But were these indeed Theophilos' plans or are the Byzantine chronicles
(dependent on a common source) exaggerating the purpose ofthe embassy?
Additional evidence may be gained from a small fragment ofpapyrus, coming
from the abbey of Saint Denis and preserved today in Paris, which contains
the final part of an original letter sent by a Byzantine eınperor to his Frankish
colleague. The Greek text, damaged on its margins, is difficult to read. However,
there the Byzantine emperor clearly urges his addressee to carry out some plans of
his, so that his proposed "restoration" (aıı:oıcaı:aaı-aaıç) would "arrive at the Iimits
of the Christians" (dç ı:a nepaı:a T&v xpıaı:ıavcov cp0avn), the foes be destroyed
(ö1ı.ovı-aı) and the friends rescued (oi <pi1ı.oı crcoÇovı-aı). The addressee is said to be
able "to issue orders" (eyı<:c:Ac:uc:ıv) to "our son the king" (�µö:ıv ı:eıcvcp ı:q:ı pıyi) for
implementing these plans, for he was appointed by God as his tutor (eıı:iTpo-ıı:oç).48

46 Th. Cont. III.37 (135.1-15) and Gen. IIl.16 (50.13-18).

47 It is significant that the Latin sources do not mention the name of tlıe Greelc
ambassador in 842, thouglı they do in 839 aııd 833. This could confirm tlıe indication in tlıe
Continuator that Baboutzikos died before meeting the Frankislı emperor.
48
See Dölger (1950) and Ohnsorge (1955) for the edition of the fragment and Müller
(2009) Regest 413 for furtlıer bibliography.
326 Tlıe Emperor 71ıeoplıilos aııd ı/ıe Eası. 819-841

Although the Muslims are not named, a campaign against them is implicit in
the text, which is full of references to God's favour. More difficult to ascertain is
what the text meant by a restoration that should reach "the limits ofthe Christians".
Nevertheless, it is clearly the Christians living outside the Christian states (and
accordingly under Muslim rule) to whom this restoration applies. Sicily could
have been a target, for the Christians living in the western paıt of the island were
subjects of the Musliın lords coming from Aghlabid Africa. But did the Sicilian
Christians represent in fact the limits of Christianity? Or is it the Christians
living in Syria or Palestine who are referred to here? From the point of view of
a Byzantine, the second option would perhaps be the expected one. This would
make an identification of the Saint Denis letter with the text sent by the Byzantine
embassy of841-842 more likely, considering what the Byzantine historians wrote
about Theophilos' objectives.
Franz Dölger suggested that the Byzantine emperor was Theophilos and the
addressee the emperor Lothair, who was urged by the Byzantine to convince
his son, Louis king of ltaly, to participate actively in a military campaign to the
borders of Clıristianity. Tlıe fact thal tlıe "son" was addressed as "king" and not
as "emperor" led Dölger to suggest a period in which the Frankislı emperor had a
son nıling as king in ltaly. Michael McCormick has recently called into question
this view,49 arguing that a co-emperor could also have been treated as a king by
the Byzantine emperor, who did not even shrink froın using the Greco-Latin
word "rex" far emperor Louis the Pious in 824, if we accept the Latin inscriptio
preserved, addressing Louis as "glorioso regi Francoruın et Langobardoruın, et
vocato eorum imperatori".50 McCoıınick further argued that the finding of the
original piece ofpapyrus in the abbey ofSaint Denis made much more sense ifwe
adınitted that this embassy was the one received by Louis the Pious in 827 at nearby
Compiegne,51 rather than the one led initially by Baboutzikos and departing from
Constantinople in 841, for this was received by Lothair at Treveris. This was alsa
the embassy carrying the famous manuscript ofthe work ofPseudo-Dionysios the
Areopagite, alsa preserved in the abbey (cod. Par. gr. 437). Finally, McCoıınick
mentions that in 827 count Bonifatius, prefect of Corsica appointed by Louis the
Pious, led a military campaign against the Aghlabid coast, landing between Utica
and Carthage. He defeated the Muslims in several encounters before he sailed
back to Corsica. 52 Tlıis campaign might have been the consequence ofthe petition
addressed to the eınperor asking him to attack the Muslims, for Bonifatius acted in
cooperation with the Sardinians, close allies ofByzantium.
McCormick's interpretation is appealing, although nane of the sources of the
embassy of827 mentions that the two powers agreed on a military campaign against

4" McConnick (2005).

50 Letter to Louis tlıe Pious 475.31-32.
51 Müller(2009) Regest413.
Astroııoınus. Viıa Hlııdoıı•ici 632.
 r!fier Amorioıı: Tlıerıp/ıilos 'Lası )ear.ı· 327

the Arabs. Only the ratification of the pact of 824 is expressly referred to.53 This
argumeııt ex silentio certainly does not invalidate McCormick's hypothesis, but it
does not confimı it either. On the other haııd, although the landiııg of Bonifatius
in Africa with Sardinian support nıight have perhaps required the acquiescence
of Constantinople, the aınbitious restoration of Christian power alluded to in the
letter ofSaint Denis tallies better with the embassy of841-842, if we believe the
Byzantine sources. It was only the unexpected deaths of the ambassador aııd the
emperor that prevented the fulfilment of these plans. Moreover, an appeal to the
Franks for ınilitaıy help appears better ınotivated in 841, given the critical situation
in Sicily and the Muslim raids in the Adriatic, than in 827, when the usurpation
of Euplıemios had just begun and Byzantium could hardly yet have assessed its
lasting consequences.54 It appears therefore that the continuous fighting against the
pirates, who had been raiding the Balearics, Corsica and Sardinia since the veıy
beginning of tlıe centuıy,55 was the real cause of tlıe alliance of count Bonifatius
with theSardinians to attaek the African base. in fact, the L(fe of louis the Pioııs
says that it was after Bonifatius could not fınd (Muslims) pirates in his patrolling
ofthe seas that he decided to land in Sardinia and to denıaııcl the support of the
island for an expedition against Africa.5<•
Therefore the besl argument in support of McCormick's clating is the fact
that the piece of papyrus with the Byzantine letter was preserved for centuries
in Saint Denis, near Coınpiegne, where Louis received the embassy of 841. If
the letter of Saint Denis had been sent in 841, we would need to explain how it
could have made the journey from Treveris, where the Byzantine eınbassy was
received in 842, to the French abbey. However, it is not to be excludecl that a
person linked to the abbey and present at the reception of the Byzantine embassy
at Treveris could have later brought the document toSaint Denis. DanielSonzogni,
who recently published a detailed study of the archive of the abbey, was of this
opinion. 57 Certainly, evidence is lacking about how documents arrived at Saint
Denis, but this does not mean that this important abbey collected them only from
the immediate area. 58

53 Aııııales regni Frcıncorıını 174: "propter foedus confirmandum".

54 The letter was expedited in May from Constantinople, for �Lriıcp is stili readable in
the lower end ofthe papyrus ofSaint Denis. Accordingly, it should have beeıı sent in May
827 ifwe follow McCormick's suggestion.
55 See Manzano Moreno:(1998) 215-20 and Signes Codofier (2004a) 177-82.
56
Astronomus, Vita Hlııdowici 632: "dum pyratas maria pervagando requirit et non
invenit, sibi Sardorum insulam amicorum appulit".
57 Sonzogni (2003) 172-5.
58 See also Fried (2006) for St Denis as the centre where the Donatio Constaııtini was
forged c. 830-833. Hilduin, probably the author of the forgery and abbot of St Denis since
815, was appointed by Louis the Pious his personal chaplain c. 819-822, remaining close to
the emperor until his death, except for the period between 830-831, during the war between
tlıe emperor aııd his sons. He could have easily had access to the imperial chancellery, as
he had lıelped to complete tlıe Carolingiaıı Reiclısaııııalen. Moııtinaro (2011) has suggested
328 Tlıe Eıııpemr Tlıeoplıilns aııd tlıe Eası, 829-842

Be this as it may, a project for a common campaign of Franks and Byzantines

against the Muslims was envisaged by Theophilos in his last years, if we believe
\Vhat the Continuator and Genesios say about the emperor's !ast embassy. The
embassy to 'Abd al-Ral)man confirms that Theophilos was devising an overall
strategy for the Mediterranean with the ambitious aim of establishing a new
balance of power and putting the Abbasids on the defensive. it seems probable
that Theophilos did not content himself with sporadic naval attacks against the
Muslim raiders coming from Aghlabid Africa, such as the ones Venetia made with
his help after the capl1ıre of Taranto. He conceived more ambitious projects and
tried to connect in some \vay the west and east in a common policy against the
Abbasids. However, his premature death prevented him from further developing
his plans. in any case, to label Theophilos' project as a crusade against lslam, as
Dölger and Ohnsorge did some time ago, is unfounded, especially considering that
Theophilos approached the Umayyad emir of Cordoba as a potential ally against
the Aghlabids and Abbasids. The dealings of the Neapolitans with the Muslim
merchants also prove that the lines between Islam and Christianity were not so
clear-cut at the time.

18.3 ... and War in the East

After the massive campaign of caliph Mu'taşim against Ankyra and Amorion in
838, neither the Arab nor the Greelc sources mention any further military clash
between the Abbasids and the Byzantines for the final three years in which
Theophilos remained in power, for the emperor had already died on 20 Jamıary
842,59 some days after Mu'taşim did, on 5 January 842. This iade of military
records is not necessarily proof ofthe non-existence of any military at the time,
but perhaps just a consequence ofthe absence ofeither the caliph or the emperor
at the expeditions that could have taken place during the years 839-841. in fact,
it was the presence of either or both ofthem in previous campaigns that explains
the many accounts and details we have at our disposal for the years 830, 831, 832,
833, 835, 837 and 838, ofwhich enough has been said in earlier chapters.
Nevertheless, Michael the Syrian has preserved some short accounts about
military operations on the Byzantine-Abbasid border for this period, which are
worth considering here, for he is our only source for them. The reliability ofthe
account ofMichael the Syrian is very high because his source is the chronicle of
the Jacobite patriarch Dionysios ofTeli Mahre (818-845), a direct witness ofthe

instead that the letter was in fact a request for military aid against Robert Guiscard sent by
Alexios Komnenos to the French king Philip I on 6 May 1081 and considers that it was
the abbot Suger, schoolmate and later regent of Philip's son Louis VI, who is to be held
responsible for the presence of the papyrus in Saint Denis. The dating, as it appears, goes
agaiııst the previous consensus ofscholars and paleographers, and is highly questionable.
;,, Th. Cont. 111.41 ( 139.4-6) and Gen. III.22 (54.10-12).
 /!fİer Amorioıı: T/ıeop/ıi/os · Lası lecırs 329

events. Michael expressly mentions that Dioııysios' chroııicle is his main source
of the accounts until the cleath of Theophilos ancl Mu'taşiııı. He eveıı copies the
colophon ancl final cliscourse with which Dionysios closecl his work.''0
The first military action Michacl transmits is a summary account of an
expeclition into Byzantiııe territory leci by Abü Sa'Tcl, who had beeıı appointed
govemor of Mesopotamia (JazTra) ancl Syria after the execution of 'Abbas, the
son of Ma'mün, in 838. Abü Sa'Tcl's army was cliviclecl in two contiııgents, one
commanclecl by himself ancl the other by the general BashTr with the people of
Mopsuestia. Although the contingent of BashTr took maııy Roman captives, the
Khurramite Naşr ancl his men encounterecl aııcl clefeatecl them, releasing the
prisoners. Nevertheless, the general Abü Sa'Tcl finally succeeclecl in killing Naşr,
who is presentecl by Michael as the leacler ofthe Khuıı-amites. The main focus of
the accouııt is on Naşr, whose saltecl heacl is sent to tlıe caliph.61
This attack, which followecl the major expeclition of 838 against Amorion,
probably happeııecl in 839.62 it proves by itself that caliph Mu'taşinı exertecl
pressure against the Byzaııtines even after the massive campaign of the previous
year, but now not through personal expeclitions, as had been the case far the years
830, 832, 833 aııcl 838, but on a lesser scale, through Syrian ancl Mesopotamian
contingents.
Seizing booty appears as a main objective of the campaign. The account of
Michael the Syrian cloes not name any cities or fortresses in Byzantium being
taken as result of the incursion, so that it appears likely that the invacling armies
ravagecl just the countrysicle. Treaclgolcl's suggestion that they penetrated as far
as the Boukellarioi thema is not warranted by the sources and only basecl on a
clubious identification ofa river mentioned by some Arab poets as the place where
the encounter with Naşr took place (see Chapter 10.1).
Finally, although the Byzantines were heavily clefeatecl in 838 and Theophilos
faced an usurpation in Constantinople and the rebellion of the Persians, they did
reasonably well in 839 to face the invasion ofthe Abbasid govemor ofthe military

60 Mich. Syr. 538-44, trans. Chabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 104-11.

61 Mich. Syr. 536-7, trans. Chabot (1899-1910) v9l. 3, 96.
62 Treadgold (1988) 321-2 and note 433 pleads far a dating in 840 as he considers
that in 839 the Persians in Sinope were stili rebelling against the emperor (see alsa Chapter
12). His dating cannot be nıled out, but there is no reason to exclude the possibility that the
rebellion ofthe Persians ended.Iate İn 838 or even early in 839, before the summer campaign
began in which the Khurramite Ieader Naşr took part. On the other hand, Treadgold excludes
the idea that Naşr was present in the campaign and died at the hands of the enemy (as is
expressly stated by Michael the Syrian), far he identifies him with Theophobos, wlıo was
executed in Constantinople at the end of Theophilos' reign. However, as we know tlıat
Naşr was not Tlıeophobos, but probably his fatlıer or in any case a military commander of
tlıe Khurramites (see Chapter 11.2), the possibility remains open that he resumed military
functions at the frontier after the rebellion finished and Tlıeoplıobos retumed to the capital,
where he renıained far tlıe rest ofTlıeoplıilos' reigıı playing a symbolic role as leader of
tlıe Persians.
330 The Empemr Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 829-842

lands of the frontier, for Naşr even defeated the contingent of Bashır before being
killed with his men. No other conseguences of the campaign are nıentioned.
Obviously, the Byzantines were on the defensive for the moment, but the Arabs
did not venture another massive campaign against them.
hı another chapter of his work, Michael the Syrian lists further ınilitary actions
between Byzantines and Abbasids after Amorion. 63 First of ali a naval action of
the "Romans" against the port of Antioch, Seleukeia, is ınentioned. Michael says
that the Byzantines "sacked the merchants, took prisoners and sailed away in their
ships". The caliph ordered a fortress to be built in the ıniddle ofthe port to avoid
fı.ıture attacks. 6-ı Again, no further conseguences ofthe naval expedition are to be
noted. However, the landing on the Syrian coast ofsoldiers ofthe fleet ofthe thema
ofthe Kibyrrhaiotai sent a clear message to the Arab rnlers: the Byzantines did not
contenl theınselves with waiting for the annual expedition but were disposed to
strikc back ifthe occasion arose.
We do not know when this attack took place, for Michael mentions it after
the cxecutioıi of 'Abbas in 838, saying that the events at Antioch happened "at
this time". As the previous caınpaign of Abü Sa'ıd could have happened in 839,
this perhaps provides a temıinus post guem. However, we ınust not discount the
possibility that this event was ınisplaced in the chronicle of Michael the Syrian, as
happened in certain cases.<•5 A further look into the following narrative is needed
in order to obtain ceıiainty on the dating.
The next item preserved by Michael the Syrian in his account appears in the
right chronological seguence. lt refers in some detail to the abuses ofMinkajür, the
governor ofAzerbaijan, against the Arınenians of his territory. Afshın, the victor
over Babak in 837 and over Theophilos in Anzes in 838, is said by Michael to
have been his uncle and to have even counselled him how to act. üne Armenian
merchant, whose goods Minkajür coveted, is killed and his head sent to the caliph
as if it were that of Biibak's son-in-law, who apparently tried again to incite
Azerbaijan to revolt against Abbasid rule. Then Minkajür attempts to steal goods
from an Arab resident in Armenia, who however succeeds in infonning the caliph
about the governor's mismanagement. Mu'taşim orders Minkajür to be put in
prison, where he denounces his uncle Afshfn for inciting him to rebellion against
Baghdad. The caliph is said to have killed Minkajür and deposed Afshın from
his post as govemor of Jibal. These events are well known to Arab historians and
are to be dated in 839.66 This would mean that the previously mentioned naval
expedition against Antioch also took place in 839. The reason for not linking it
with the expedition ofAbü Sa'ıd, which also happened in 839, as we saw above,

63
Mich. Syr. 539-40, trans. Chabot (1899- 19 10) vol. 3, 101-2.
6 -ı This attack has not been preserved in Bar Hebraeus, Clıronograp/ıy 152, trans.
Budge (1932) vol. 2, 139, who follows closely the narrative of Michael the Syrian for this
period.
6;
See Chapters 13.1, 15.5 ancl 16.1 for misplaced second versions of given events.
''" See for example the account ofTabarT 111.1301-2, trans. Bosworth ( 199 1) 175-8.
 ı!fier A111orioıı: Tlıeop/ıi/os 'Lası Jeaı:� 331

is perhaps to be coıınected with the fact that the Seleucid year used by Michael
always begins on the first of October. If the expedition of Abü Sa'Td took place
in spring/suınmer 839 (1150 of the Seleucid era), the retaliatoıy naval attack on
Antioch could be dated to autumn 839 (1 151 of the Seleucid era). Towards the end
of 839 Minkajür was taken to Samaıı-a to be executed. If we want to date the naval
attack against Antioch in spring/summer of 840, after the execution of Minkajür,
then we must suppose that Michael did not respect the relative sequence of events
within each year.
The following item preserved by Miclıael is dated to tlıe year 1152 of the
Seleucid era, from October 840 to Septeınber 841:

In the year 1152, Abü Sa'ıd entered tlıe land of tlıe Romans and took prisoners
there. Tlıe Romans went out in his pursuit in Cilicia. Tlıey worsted him and
brought bacl, the prisoners.

Another short piece follows inımediately:

Abü Sa'ıd entered again the land oftlıe Romans aııcl came back in great disarray.
Tlıe Romans arrived and took t(aclatlı [Adata], Mar'aslı [Germaııikeia] and tlıe
laııd of Melitene.

It would appear that this double defeat took place in 841, for the next notices
mention the conspiracy of AfshTn against Mu'taşim, his imprisonment and his
death, events that are to be dated to the years 840 and 841.67 However, it could alsa
be that the first expedition recorded in the year 1152 took place Iater in the year
840, for example in October. Therefore we cannot discount the possibility that the
two raids of Abü Sa'Td were put together to unify the narrative, and not because
they took place one after another during the same season of campaigns. In fact, the
imprisonment and death of AfshTn, whom Michael refers to in a single account,
took place during the years 840-841. Finally, as there was an exchange of Ietters
between Mu'taşim and Theophilos after the campaigns of Abü Sa'ıd (see below),
it would be convenient to date the first campaign to the year 840, for otherwise we
would not have time enough in 841 for two militaıy campaigns and the ensuing
diplomatic dealings between Constantinople and Samarra: by the end of January
842 both the caliph and the eınperor were already dead.
In any case, the Byzantines appear victorious against two successive
expeditions · ıed by the governor of Mesopotamia and Syria. Even more, in the
first encounter they cross the frontier and enter Cilicia. Apparently they did not
take prisoners on this occasion, as was the case in 831 (see Chapter 14.2), but

67
TabarT III.1303-13, trans. Bosworth (1991) 180-93 for a lengthy account of the
conspiracy and imprisonment ofAfslıTn, recorclecl under HA 225 (12 November 839 to 30
October 840). AfshTn's cleatlı is lıowever meııtioned by TabarT IIJ.1314-19, trans. Bosworth
(1991) 195-201 uncler HA 226 (31 October 840 to 20 October 841 ).
332 Tlıe Eıııperur Theop/ıilos aııd ılıe Easl. 829-842

just freecl the Roman captives and brought them back. in the second encounter,
however, the Byzantines went fuıiher to the east ancl took the important cities
of Adata ancl Germanikeia, plundering the land of Melitene. They thus came to
the sarne location as the victorious campaign of 837 ancl went even further to the
soutlı of Sozopetra (see Chapter 16). The rnassive campaign of Mu 'taşim in 838
had therefore not prevented the Byzantines from attacking the same region as in
837. Moreover, contrary to what happenecl in 837, the Byzantine attack of841 did
not provoke any further retaliation from the Musliıns, for the next note recorded
by Miclıael the Syrian refers to the dealings leading to an exchange of prisoners
betweeıı Tlıeoplıilos ancl Mu'taşim.
Miclıael the Syrian refers to Theophilos sencling gifts to Mu'taşirn and asking
for an exchange of prisoners. This time, Mu'taşim, who had refused tlıe payment
offerecl by Theophilos after Amorion, accepted the gifts and gave him back even
more presents. However, he declared that he coulcl not accept an exchange on the
same level for Byzantine and Arab prisoners, for tlıe Jatter were for a Muslim more
valuable than the Clıristians. He proposecl tlıerefore to Theophilos: "if you sene!
me tlıe Taiyaye [Arabs] without clemancling anything in exchange, we are able to
bestow upon you double their nurnber ancl outdo you in everything". No answer
from Theophilos to tlıis offer is copied. The chronicle just aclcls that Mu'taşim sent
50 carnels loaded with presents ancl conclucles by saying: "Peace was restored
between the two kings."68
it has usually been considerecl that Theophilos rejected this ofter from the
caliph.69 Treadgold for example argued: "though the ernperor understandably
declined to act on the caliph's suggestion that he free his prisoners without
guarantees, this exchange of presents was taken by both rulers as a sign that a
truce existed between the two powers".70 In fact, the captives taken in Amorion in
838 were not delivered to the Byzantines on this occasion, for they were executed
on 6 March 845, some months before a massive exchange ofprisoners took place
in September of the same year at the river Lamos in Cilicia.71 But it is unlikely
that the prisoner exchange did not take place because ofa refusal ofTheophilos.
It seems that Mu'taşim was willing to come to an understanding with Theophilos
conceming the exchange ofprisoners, but he did not want to appear to be bowing
before the demands ofthe emperor, who had made his offer after twice defeating
the expeditions rnade by Abü Sa'Td into Byzantine territory and even plundering
Adata, Gennanikeia and the land of Melitene. It would have been humiliating
for Mu'taşim to accept Theophilos' offer in such a circumstance, for it would
have represented a recognition of the failure of the objectives conceived for the
Amorion caınpaign. Ifthe caliph had actually been disposed to reject it, as in 838,
then he would not have presented an alternative. Certainly it was too risky for

68
Mich. Syr. 540, trans. Chabot (1899-191O), vol. 3, 102.
6"
See Müller (2009) Regest 441 with bibliography.
70 Treadgold ( 1988) 324.
71
Mliller (2009) Regest 448.
 i/fıer A111orioıı: Tlıeoıılıilos 'lası lecır.ı· 333

Theophilos to free the Arab prisoners in advance, for the caliph might not fülfil
his part of the agrccment. But it is also doubtful tlıat peace could have prevailed
between the two powers with just an exchange of gifts.
I think lherefore that peace was restored, as Michael expressly says, because
there were high expectations of a prisoner exclıange. Negotiations probably
continued to attain tlıis goal. A fonnula was needed whiclı could satisfy both
rulers, and possibly Theophilos would have complied with the caliph's intention
in some way, for he surely appreciated what really underlay the diplomatic answer
fronı Mu'taşim. However, the emperor was probably dead (20 January 842) when
the answer came froın the caliph. Mu'taşim, too, had died some days ear!ier
(5 January 842). Tlıings would have to be dealt witlı anew by the new rulers.
it was probably the refusal of Theodora to meet the demands of the new caliplı
Watlıiq that led him to execute tlıe 42 ınartyrs of Amorion in 845, thus forcing the
aforeınentioned exchange of prisoners later in tlıe same year. But these events take
place after the reign ofTheophilos.
The military balance of the reign of Theophilos was not as negative, as is
sometimes suggested, since tlıe emperor succeeded in redressing the situatioıı
· caused by the sack of Amorioıı in just a couple of years. lf we consider the last
campaigns along with the diplonıatic activity we lıave analysed in section 18.2
of this chapter, we can present a moderately positive assessment ofTheophilos'
reign. üne coıısequence of it was that never again would a caliph personally take
to the battlefield against Byzantium.
 SECTIONV
The Khazar Flank:

The khaganate of the Khazars was of the utmost strategic iınportance for tlıe
Byzantines for several reasoııs. First ofali, it controlled tlıe routes to the southern
Caücasus, tlrns playing a central role in the geopolitics ofthe area. We considered
in Chapter 2.3 the possible suppoıi the khaganate Ient to the rebell ion ofTlıonıas
the Slav, wlıose soldiers canıe to a great extcnt from areas directly under Khazar
control. Again, tlıe campaigııs of the Arabs against Byzantium in tlıe 830s that
we considered in Chapters 13-17 could not have laken place witlıout lıaviııg
previously secured the ııeutrality ofthe Klıazars.
Secondly, the Byzantiııe poss·essions in Crimea, whiclı were in a certain sense
the empire's door to the steppes, were bordered by the Khazars, who represented
a major piece in the puzzle ofnations who competed for doıninion of tlıe regioıı.
In particular, the historical eınergence ofthe Magyars and Varangians/Rus during
the first decades of the niııtlı century represented a new challenge to Byzaııtine
diploınacy that could not be dealt with without considering Khazar interests. Thus
references to the peoples Iiving to the west of the Khazar khaganate and their
relations with them and tlıe Byzantines will be addressed in Chapter 20.
Finally, the Khazar Empire lay at a crossing of trading routes linking the
Russian steppes with Central Asia and was therefore disputed territory with both
Christians and Muslims competing for its control. This circumstance explains the
multicultural component ofthe khaganate.
The main concern of the initial part of this section, Chapter 19, will be to
set the famous Byzantine embassy to the Khazars leci by Petronas Kamateros in
Theophilos' reign in its historical context, for this will allow us to understand
betler Theophilos' policy in this area and the founding of a new theına in
Crimea. We will suggest an early dating for this embassy against the prevailing
communis opinio. We hope this will make more understandable the consequences
of the later embassy of the Rus to Constantinople that happened in the reign of
Theophilos·(Chapter 20.1) and the ensuing conversion ofthe Khazars to Judaisın
(Chapter 20.2).
 Chapter 19
The Embassy to the K.bazars and the
Building of Sarkel

19.1 The Dating ofthe Embassy ofPetronas Kamateros (I)

Both the Continuator and the De adnıinistrando imperio (henceforth DAi) of

Constantine VII have preserved a very iınportant accouııt ofa nıission undertaken
by an envoy of the eınperor Theophilos to the iane! oftlıe Klıazars. The text in the
version of the DA! runs as follows:

Aıı:6 oe ıcaı:w0Ev ı:ciiv �tEpciiv .6.avoüpwıç ıı:oı:a�wu ı:ı1ç .6.icrı:paç avı:im:pa ıi

nr11:Çtvaıda ıı:apepxEı:m, ıcal ıcarnıcpaı:Ei ı'ı ıcaı:ouda aimiıv �lEXPl ı:ou :EapKEA.,
ı:ou niıv XaÇap(J)V ıcacrı:poıı, ev cµ ı:açEciıı:aı ıca0eÇovı:aı ı:ptaKOCTlOl, ıcaı:a xpovov
evaUacrcr6�LEVOl. "Ep�tılVEUETCll oe ıı:apa auı:oTç ı:6 IapKEA. 'iicrıı:pov 6crıı:inov',
Öıı:Ep EKı:icr0ıı ıı:apa crıı:a0apoıcavoıoaı:oıı neı:pwva, ı:ou eıı:ovo�taÇo�lE\/OlJ
Ka�taTllPOU, ı:6v pacrıJı.fo 0E6<pııı.ov ıı:p6ç ı:6 ımcr0fjvaı auı:oiç ı:6 ıcacrı:pov
ı:ouı:o ı:ciıv XaÇapwv alı:rıcraµevwv. 'O yap xayavoç f:KEİVOÇ ıcal 6 ıı:ex XaÇapiaç
ELÇ TOV UUTOV pamıı.fo 0EO(j)IA.OV ıı:pfopEIÇ EVCl7COCTTEt/ı.ClVTEÇ, 1Cı:tv0fjvaı ClUTOİÇ
ı:6 ıcacrı:pov ı:6 :EapKEA. nı:fıcravı:o, oTç 6 pamıı.Eiıç, ı:fi ı:ouı:wv aiı:ııcreı ıı:eıcr0eiç,
ı:6v ıı:poppıı0svı:a crıı:a0apoıcavöıöuı:ov IIEı:pwva �ıEı:a XEtı.avöiwv Pamıı.ııcciıv
ıı:ıı.w"fµwv a.ıı:foı:ELA.EV ıcai xeıı.avoıa ı:oü ıcaı:eıı:avw ITa<pıı.ayoviaç. Kal ö� 6 auı:6ç
ITeı:pwvaç �v Xepcrciıva ıcaı:aıı.apo:ıv ı:a µev XEtı.avoıa Etı.17CEV EV Xepcrciıvı, ı:6v
öe ıı.a6v Eicrayayo:ıv ELÇ ıcaµaı:epa ıcapapıa, a�ıı.0ev ev ı:qi ı:6m:p ı:oü Tava"iooç
ıı:oı:aµou, EV qı ıcal ı:6 ıcacrı:pov eµEA.A.EV ıcı:icraı. Kal eıı:eıö� 6 ı:6ıı:oç 1ı,i0oııç OUK
ElXEV rcp6ç ıcı:imv ı:ou ıcam:pou ETCLTI)OEtOUÇ, ıca�ıivıa nva rcoırıcraµEVOÇ ıcal.
Pfıcrcra.AOV ı\v auı:oiç eyıcaucraç, µEı:' aıhciıv ı:ııv ı:ou ıcacrı:pou ıcı:imv eıı:oıfıcraı:o,
eıc µııcpciıv nvwv ı:ciıv eıc ı:oü rcoı:a�tou ıcox1ı,ıoiwv iicrpwı:ov epycwa�tEvoç. Oi'iı:oç
oi'iv 6 rcpopprı0Eiç crıı:a0apoıcavöıöiiı:oç ITeı:pwvaç �tEı:a ı:6 ıcı:icraı ı:6 ıcacrı:pov
ı:6 :EaplCEA rcp6ç ı:6v pam1ı,fo 0ıı6cp!A.OV Eicre1ı,0ciıv, Elrcev auı:qi, ön· "Ei 0EAUÇ
ÖAWÇ ı:6 �ç Xepcrciıvoç ıcacrı:pov ıcal ı:ouç EV auı:fi ı:6ıı:ouç ıcııpiwç eçoumacraı ıcai
ı:ouı:ouç �n'ı �ç oijç eıcı:6ç yevfo0aı xeıp6ç, rcpopaUou crı:paı:rıyov i'.ötov, ıcal µıı
ı:oıç eıceivwv ıca-ı:arcıcrı:eucrnç rcpwı:euoucri ı:e ıcai iipxoucrı." Msxpı yap 0EO<plAOU
ı:oü pamMoıç ouıc �v crı:paı:rıy6ç a.rc6 ı:föv evı:Ei10Ev a.ıı:ovtEA.A.O�lEVOÇ, &.n' �v
Ô ı:a ıı:avı:a Öıotıcföv Ô A.EyO�LEVOÇ ıı:protEUO)V µETU Kat ı:CİJV eıı:ovoµaÇo�tSV(!)V
ıı:aı:spwv ı:fjç ıı:61ı,ewç. Tou oi'iv pacrıMwç 0eoıpiı..ou ıı:p6ç ı:auı:a Pouı..Eucra�tevou
ı:i:ıv 6 oeiva eçarcocr,eiA.aı crı:paı:ııyi:ıv ii ı:i:ıv 6 öeiva, ucrı:epov &.ıı:ocrı:a1ı,11vaı
338 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası, 819-841

;ı:poü:pıvı::v ,O\' ;ı:poppq8tvm crna8ap0Km·öı8cirov nı::,p(J)vciv (iı.:; ıiv ;ı:dpı/ rou

,ôıı:ou yı::yovôm Krıi niıv ıı:panHhwv olİK cı.vı::mcr,��ıova, öv Keti ıı:pcıırncrıı:a86.pıov
,ı�uicrw;, ;ı:poı::Bı:ı.ı..ı::rn cr,pa,qyôv, Kai Bis Xı::pcr&va ıi.;anfornıı..ı::v, ôpicraı; ,ov
TÔTB 7l:J)(ı)TBIJOVW KUİ ;ı:6.vms Üil:BLKElV auniı, ıiç ou KUİ pexpı Tl]V cni�ıı::pov
ıirrı::Kpa,ııcrı::v cı.ıı:o niw ıivrı::u8ı::v ı::iç Xı::pcriiıva ıı:popanweaı crrpetTl]YOUÇ. 'AU'
rıürıı �ıı';v ıi TOU IapKB/, TOU KO.CTTJ)OU KTİCTIÇ m0forııKcV.'

in Jenkins' translation:

Fronı llıe lower reaclıes oftlıe Danube river, opposite to Distra, Patzinakia stretches
aloııg, aııd İls inlıabitaııts control tlıe territory as far as Sarkel, the city of tlıe
Khazars, in which garrisoııs of300 men are posled and annually relieved. Sarice!
aıııong them ıııeans "white lıouse" and it was built by the spatharokandidatos
Petronas, surııamed Kaınaleros, when llıe Klıazars requested tlıe eınperor
Tlıeoplıilos that lhis city slıould be built for tlıem. For the then clıagan and the
pech of Khazaria sent envoys to this same enıperor Theophilos and begged tlıat
lhe city of Sarkel nıight be built for tlıem, and tlıe emperor acceded to their
requesl and seııt to tlıeın tlıe aforesaid spatlıarokaııdidatos Petronas witlı ships
of war of tlıe imperial navy, and sent also slıips of war of tlıe captain-general of
Paplılagoııia. Tlıis sarne Petronas arrived at Clıerson and left the ships of war at
Clıerson, and, having eınbarked his men on ships ofburden, went offto that place
on the Tanars river where he was to build tlıe city. And since the place had no
stones suitable for tlıe building oftlıe city, he made soıııe ovens and baked bricks
in tlıeııı and witlı these he can·ied out the building ofthe city, making mortar out
of tiny shells froııı the river. Now this aforesaid spatharokandidatos Petronas,
after building the city ofSarkel, went to tlıe emperor Theophilos and said to him:
"Ifyou wish complete mastery and dominion over the city ofCherson and ofthe
places in Cherson, and not that they slıould slip out of your hand, appoint your
own military govemor and do not trust to their primates and nobles." For up till
the time ofTheophilos the emperor, there was no ınilitary govemor sent from
here, but ali adıninistration was in tlıe hands ofthe so-called primate, with tlıose
who were called the fathers ofthe city. The eınperor Theophilos took counsel in
this rnatter, whether to send as ınilitary govemor so-and-so or such-an-one, and
at last made up his mind that the aforesaid spatharokandidatos Petronas should
be sent, as one who had acquired local experience and was not tinskilled in
affairs, and so he promoted him to be protospatharios and appointed hirn military
govemor and sent him out to Cherson, with orders that the then primate and
everyone else were to obey hinı; and fronı that time until this day it has been the
rule for ınilitary govemors in Cherson to be appointed from here. So much, then,
for the building ofthe city ofSarkel.3

1
Editors t e�mı::ıpa t
De administrando imperio 42 ( 182.18-184.55).
Moravcsik aııd .leııkiııs ( 1967) 183-5.
 Tlıe E111bassy ıo ı!ıe K!ııı::ars emel ı!ıe Bııildiııg o{Sarkel 339

The account of the Continuator is very siıııilar. However, it alsa preserves

some interesting additional details ancl is worth quoting in ful!:

Tep o' sm6vn E!cl rrpoı; rov ıcar' &.nıı}ı.(f)\I rr6Aqıov Ol r' Ayapııvoi Kai
6 0s6<pı1ı.oç ei;s1ı.06vrı::ç sftı::tvav arcpaıcrot m.tvrı::1ı.wc; aAA�Aouç Kararcrooı'ıµsvm,
ıwi rcpoç rııv eaurwv ercavforpı::<pov. Kara ÔE rov aı'ırov Kaıpov ö TE xayavoç
XaÇap[aç KUİ 6 ITex rcpoı; rov C(UTOKparopa 0ı::6<p!AOV ilrcqmov rcpı::crpwraı:;,
ro ıcacrrpov örcı::p oüm l:apıecıı. KUTOVOftaÇı::raı aüroiı:; KncrOıjvaı açaıroUflB\/Ol,
örcsp Epflll\lBUBraı flEV /ı.WKOV OIICT]flC(, fon oE Kata rov Tavaıv rcoraft6v, öı:;
rouı:; re ITarÇtvaıdraç evrsii0sv Kal aurnuı:; ôtı::[pyct rouı:; XaÇapouç EKET0EV, ilv0a
ıcai XaÇaprnv TUÇBWTUl ıca0ııÇovraı rptaKOCitol Kata xp6vov EVC(A/ı.C(CiCiOflEVOl.
'nv rfi ainıcrıo:t ıwi rcapaıcıı.�crıo:ı rcctcr0dı:; 6 0ı::6<pııı.oı:; rov crrca0alpoıcavöıôarov
flıo:rpcovci.v roii ErcovwtaÇoftııvou Kafıarı::pou, µsra xıo:ı,avfüwv pucrııı.tıcorcıı.oiııw)v
ıwi roii ımrı::rcavcıı rijı:; flmp1ı.ayov[aı; arcfom1ı.ıo:v, siı; rcııpac; rııv roı'ıı:mv ahııcrtv
KBABUCiUÇ urcayaydv. "Oı:; afta TC[l nıv Xspcrwva ımraıı.aPsTv ı:fo; flE\I ftaıcpaı; vıjaı;
EICELO"E rcou rcpocropfllCiflÇ Erci rıjı:; xepcrou ıcaı:e1ı.mıw, rov oe AClOV EV crrpoyyı'ı1ı.aıı;
ı::icrayay(ı)V VflUCiİ µexpı roii Tcıva"iooç örnptpı'w0q, sv0r1 Kal rııv rc61ı.tv EÔEl rouroıç
oiıcoôoftı;ıv. "Ercsıoıı ıı.i0oıv 6 ı:6rcoç ıirc6pct, EK µl;v rföv µu,pföv ıcaxıı.ııı@v rou
rcoraflOU acrpımrov, EK OE ı:ijı; ı'.ırcoKBlflEVllÇ yıjı:; mııı.ov Eyıcaı.'ıcrr.tı; ÖlCI. l(C(fll\1(1)\1,
ımi Picraıı.ov EpyacraflEVOÇ, nıv 6ptcr0dcrav aunT> oouıı.Eiav ft6yıı; µev, ErcEpa[ou
oE ota rco1ı.uxstp[aı:; ıı.afmpoıı:;, ıcai rcpoç ı:ııv pcı.Cil/ı.EUOlJCiC(\I ercavforpc<pı::v. 'Eöiôou
oe ıcai nı::pi ı:ıjı; Xı::pcr&voç ı:qı prwtıı.ı::T yvci)fuıv ı:ı:: ıcal pouıı.ııv, oıı:; siı; rcsıpav
ı:&v av0pwrccov ı'jıı.0sv ıcai ı:&v ı:6rccov 6fıoii, ciıı; «Oüıc ii1ı.1ı.rnı; apçsıı; ı:�ı; xo:ıpaç
UU!OJV KUL TWV Türc(J)V 0/ı.OCiXBPOJÇ � Ci!J)UTllYOV 71:J)OXBlp!ÇüflBVOÇ !ÖlOV, a'lı.tı.' OU
TOlÇ EKBtVO)V apxoucri TB ıcal npmrEUOlJCil ımramcrı:sı'ıwv craur6v». Oufü; yap
ouo' �fııhı::p6ç 71:0) �ç EKBivwv rcpovoouµsvoı:; Eçarcscrı:Elı.lı.8!0 crrparııy6ç, aıı.ıı.'
6 ıı.ı::y6µsvoı; nproı:wmv µsı:a ıcai ı:&v nmııpwv niı:; n6ıı.ı::roı; ra rca.vra �v oıoııccôv.
'Erci ı:ouı:q:ı 6 pacrııı.ı::uı; 0s6<ptıı.oı; ouıc aıı.ıı.ov CJ.lı./ı.CJ. ı:ov ı::ipıwevov ITı::rpwvci.v, <lıı; EV
nı::ipçı ıcpivaı; -roii ı:6rcou, npmı:oarra0a.pı6v ı:ı:: faifuıas ıcai crrpanwov Eçarcforsııı.ı::,
ı:6v ı:6ı:s npwrwovı:a ıcai ı:ouç aUouı; 0ı::crrciaaı; U71:ElK8lV rJ.VBVOOlO.<JT(J)Ç auı:qı·
EÇ ÖTOU 71:Bp ıcal µexptı:; l]flWV Eıcpa.rııcrsv a.11:6 ı:&v evrı::ü0sv siı; Xepcr&va
rcpop&.uweaı a-rpaı:rıyouı;. Oüı:w flEV oi'iv � TE ı:oü l:apıceA oiıcooofl� EyEVETO ıcal
ıı rcpoı; ı:ouı; Xepcrroviraı; ı:&v EVTeii0ev arcocrı:oıı.ıı crı:paı:ıw&v.4

In ottr translation:

In the i'ollowing year both the Hagarenes and Theophilos went out to war
against one another but, frightened of one another, they remained completely
inactive and returned to their own countries. At this same time the Klıagan and
the pech of Khazaria sent emissaries to the emperor Theophilos requesting that
the fortress called Sarkel, which means "white dwelling" should be built up for
tlıeııı; this latter is on tlıe river Tanais, whiclı separates the Pechenegs on one

< Tlı. Coııt. 111.28 (122. 16-124.5).

340 T/ıe E111pemr Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ılıe Eası. 829--842

side and the Khazars themselves on the other, where three hundred men of the
Khuzars are garrisonecl with pcrioclic rcplaccment. Theophilos ceded to their
request and cııtreaty aııd dispatched the spatlıarokaııdidatos Petronas, son of the
ınaıı called Kamateros, with clıelandia of tlıe iınperial fleet aııd tlıe katepan of
Paphlagonia, commanding that they slıould carry out the Klıazar's request. ünce
arrived at Cherson, Petronas brouglıt up the long slıips and left tlıeın on land;
and embarking his forces in round boats he crosscd over to tlıe Tanais where he
was to build tlıe city for them. Because the place was lacking in stone, he baked
in furnaces lime from pebbles of the river and mud from the underlying layers
of' earth. thus producing brick, aııd acconıplished tlıe task assigııed hinı, albeit
witlı difficulty, but in conspicuous fashion witlı a ımıltitude of labourers; aııd he
returııcclto tlıe iınperial city. Concerııing Clıerson he gavetlıe eınperor advice
and counsel, in so far as he had experieııce of batlı men and places, that "You
slıall not rule over their land ancl territories entirely unless you appoint your own
general, without trusting yourself to tlıeir rulers or chiefs." For no general of
ours had ever beeıı sent out to look out for tlıeir aftairs, but the so-called clıief
was iıı charge of everytlıing togetlıer witlı tlıe fatlıers oftlıe city. Tlıereupon, tlıe
eıııperor Theophilos dispatclıed as general none other llıan tlıe aforementioned
Petronas, judging lıinı to lıave experience of the place; and bestowing on him tlıe
dignity of protospatharios, he ordainecl tlıat tlıe clıief aııd tlıe others slıould yield
to him uııequivocally; fronı which time to the preseııt day the custom prevails that
generals are promoted fronı here for Cherson. Thus canıe about the construction
of Sarkel and the dispatching of generals from here for tlıe Clıersonites.

As we see, no exact dating for the event is provided by either text, except, of
course, for the mention ofTheophilos as the reigning emperor. This is especially true
for the passage in DAi, where the histoıy about the building ofSarkel and the sending
of strategoi to Cherson is mentioned in a chapter that deals with the geographical
description of the lands bordering the Black Sea from the Danube on the west to
Abasgia in the east. lt is on occasion of the mention of the geographical borders of
the Patzinakia, on whose eastern border the !<hazar fortress Sarkel !ay, that the story
was inserted as a kind ofdigression. As the editors already noted, the story about the
mission ofTheophilos' envoy Petronas in Sarkel and Cherson has a different source
than the rest of the chapter.5 We can even smmise that a contemporary witness
of events, perhaps the envoy proper, was the ultimate source of the infonnation
collected here. But we do not know whether the compiler ofDAi had access to this
source directly or only through a summary.
Constantine Zuckennan tried to prove that the embassy ofthe Khazars arrived in
Constantinople in 839.6 Since the event is said by the Continuator to have taken place
"in the following year" (rqı 8' emôvn sreı) and it comes after a long excerpt about
John the Grammarian where his consecration as patriarch on 21 April, a Sunday, is

Gyula Moravcsik in Dvorııik et al. ( 1962) 153-4.

" Zuckemıaıı ( 1997a) 210-12.
 Tlıe Eıııbassy ıo tlıe Klıa::cırs aııd tlıe Bııi/ıliıır; n(Sarkl'I 3-11

mentioned, he concluded that the embassy should lıave arrived in Constantirıople

in the year following the appointment of John. As it is 110\\' geııerally admitted tlıat
John was appointed patriarch in 838,7 Zuckernıan accordingly coıısidered that tlıe
embassy must be dated to 839. The campaign ofTheophilos liııked to tlıe embassy
should also be ofthe same year. Zuckeııııan thought in fact: "The situation described
in Theophanes Continuatus fits perfectly in 839, the year after both Byzantium (in
837) and the Arabs (in 838) have scored a major victoıy."
Things are however not so sinıple as that, and, pace Zuckcrınan, it is certainly
not "deconstructionism for its own sake" to reject his chronological sequence.8
To begin with, the Continuator does not mention the year in which John the
Gramrnarian was consecrated. This is certainly not proof that he did not kııow it,
for he usually does not give the year of the events but just the sequeııce. 1-[owever,
the omission of the year is not proof either tlıat the Continuator knew it. in fact, tlıe
appointment of the Grammarian is mentioned after tlıe exile of Manuel among tlıe
Arabs and his return to Constantinople througlı tlıe agency ofJohn tlıe Gramnıarian,
who went to Baghdad as ambassador in order lo contacl Mamıel and offer lıim
imınunity from tlıe emperor. We know tlıat these events took place in 830 (see
Clıapter 5 .3-5 ). Obviously, tlıe consecration of John took place after tlıis date, but its
ınention after Manuel's retuııı from exile is due, not to a chroııological arraııgemeııt,
but to tlıe previous mention of John as ambassador. it is likely tlıat since tlıe
Continuator did not know the exact year of John's consecration, he considered it
advisable to ınention it at this point, after Jolm's ernbassy to Baghdad. it is also not
to be discounted that the Continuator considered that John was appointed patriarclı
earlier in the reign ofTheophilos.9
in any case, I think I have proved elsewhere that the Continuator tried to make a
chronological narrative out ofthe dispersed and mostly undated pieces ofinfomıation
he got from his sources, so that we cannot trust his chronological sequences a priori,
unless fürther evidence is provided. ıo The present case does not appear to be an
exception. In fact, the embassy ofTheophilos dated by Zuckerman to the year 839
is followed by the campaign against Sozopetra of 837 (see Chapter 16)11 and the
campaign ofAmorion of 838 (see Chapter 17).12
There are even furtheı' reasons not to date to 839 the campaign of Theophilos
connected with the building of Sarkel. Despite Zuckerman, the emperor did not
personally lead any army after 838. The sources, mainly Michael the Syrian,

7 Treadgold (1979b) 178-9.

8 So Zuckennan (1997a) 212, note 9 when rejectiııg my argurnents as put foıward
in Signes Codofier (1995) 543 aııd 546-7. I will recapitulate here some of my conclusioııs
from tlıeıı, but will add new oııes.
9
For more argumeııts for an earlier patriarclıate of John c. 832 seeChapter 21.3(ııote
58) and Chapter 24.l (note 28).
10 Signes Codofier (1995) 668-9.
11 Tlı. Cont. III.29(124.6-125.15).
" Tlı.Coııt. lll.30-36(125.16-134.21).
342 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıenplıilo.ı· emel ılıe Eası. 829-842

when recording military encounters in eastern Anatolia after 838, do not mention
tlıe presence of tlıe emperor, as was tlıe case with his previous canıpaigns (see
Clıapter 18.3 ). Tlıis excludes a dating in 839 for any campaign Theophilos could
lıave comınanded against tlıe Arabs. A ınore likely dating would put it in 832, for
tlıe results of tlıis caınpaign seenı to have been indecisive (see Chapter 14.3-5).
However, soıne figlıting did take place on that occasion, despite the indication of
the Continuator that both am1ies "renıained completely inactive". We may certainly
discard this inclication as an inaccurate ancl summary rendering of the campaign of
832, but more evidence would be required to make suclı a conclusion valid.
However, the problem is that a close chronological connection between this
unclatecl campaign and the embassy of Petronas is not waıı-anted. Indeecl, the account
of tlıe Continuator about tlıe ınission to Sarkel seems to !ıave been taken from a
source eli fferent from the 11a1Tative oftlıe irresolute campaign ofTheophilos against
the Arabs. If we pay attention to the phrase connecting the report about Petronas'
mission to the previous caınpaign, we note first the vague dating "at this same time"
and then the reference to the embassy of the Khazars to the iınperial court. For the
Continuator, as a historiaıı, it was the embassy that was to be connected witlı the
previous caınpaign, as his focus was on (sequential) facts, not on a geographical
(timeless) description, as in the case ofthe DA!. However, it seems that the account
of the source usecl both by hiın and the DA! was nıore of an ethnographic than of
an historical nature. in fact, it appears that the source was first conceivecl as a repoıi
about the Sarkel fortress, which was therefore the main subject ofthe narrative.
This explains the curious way in which the Continuator describes the ainıs
of the K.hazar anıbassaclors conıing to Constantinople, for he writes that they
requested "that the foıiress called Sarkel, which means 'white dwelling', should be
built up for them". In reality, the ambassadors did not request the building of"the
fortress called Sarkel", but just ofa fortress, whatever the name that would be later
bestowed upon it. Moreover, the exact place where the fortress should be built had
perhaps not even been chosen when the ambassadors arrived in Constantinople.
If the Continuator anticipates in his narrative the name of the to-be-built fortress
(even along with its etymology!), it is surely because this information headed the
excerpt he usecl as a source and he did not want to neglect it. This means that
the Continuator's source had Sarkel as focus and that the historical account was
collected to provide a background to the place name. This kind of report tallies
well with the aims and scope ofworks tike De thematibııs or DAJ, where we find
numbers of historical digressions and etymologies for explaining place names.
Accordingly the connection between the embassy ofthe Khazars and the previous
campaign ofTheophilos against the Muslims could have been an inference ofthe
Continuator ancl must be approachecl with some care.
Finally, we must consider the relationship between the passages ofthe Continuator
and DAI. We certainaly cannot discount the idea that the Continuator based his text
directly on the chapter fronı DAI. 13 However, some scholars have argued for a lost

ı.ı Sevcenko ( 1992) 190, note 56.

 Tlıe E111hassy /o ıhe Klıcı:::cırs emel ılıe Buifdiııg ıı/'Sarkef 343

common source for botlı. 14 in fact, since tlıe excerpt on Sarkel was surely written
on behalf of Theophilos and \Yas probably preserved in tlıe iıııperial chancelleıy,
it is likely tlıat the Continuator had access to it before ali the materials for the DA!
were conıpiled in tlıeir final foıın in the !ast years oftlie reign of Constantine VII.
Moreover, ifwe follow the convincing analysis made by Jaınes Howard-Johnston,
it appears that Chapter 42 of the DA! with the account of the building of Sarkel
belonged to a group ofchapters (called by him "the noıilıern dossier") put together
around 900 aııd just copied at a later stage by Constantine VII without substantial
changes. 15 There is therefore a strong probability that the Continuator boıı-owed the
account not from DA! but from a commoıı source.
in conclusion, neitlıer DA! nor the Contimıator provides us with a date for the
embassy of Petronas to the Khazars. This may appear as a negative result, but
allows us to reconsider the whole nıatter anew. The possibility that the embassy took
place at the beginning ofthe reign ofTheophilos must agaiıı be takeıı into account,
. especially because the campaign of 832 is the one which resembles nıore closely
tlıe campaign the Continuator linked with Petronas' enıbassy, whatever his reasons
were for doing so. 11'
lftlıe Klıazars were backing the revolt ofTlıoınas the Slav cluring tlıe civil war
under Michael fi, as we suggested in Chapter 2.3, it woulcl have been in the iııterest
of the Byzantines to seal an alliance with thenı, not only for the benefit of their
possessions in Cherson, but also because this would facilitate ınilitaıy expeditions
into the western Caucasus. In fact, the campaigns of the Byzantines in western
Annenia, especially the one led by Theophilos in 835 in Sper and Theodosiopolis
and the "Abasgian" campaign of 836 (see Chapter 15.2), would have been
conducted much more easily had there been a previous understanding with the
Khazars. Although the Khazars had regular cornmercial contact with the Abbasid
caliphate and imitated their dirhams when striking their own coins, 17 they continued
to preserve their independence and their religion. it is significant that the Persian
general Aflısın thought of fleeing to the Khazars when he noticed that Mu'taşim
suspected his fidelity. 18

19.2 Against Whom was Sarkel Built?

Although neither DAI nor the Continuator says a word about the motives behind
the Khazars' request to the Byzantines to construct a fortress, it has long since
been recognized that the position ofthe fortress at the western bank ofthe river
Don was conceived to defend the river and obstruct its crossing to peoples coming

14
Bury ( 1 906) 569-70 and Moravesile(! 936) 519.
15
Howard-Johnston (2000) 324-6.
16
For tlıe connections of Petronas to Theodora 's faınily see Clıapters 4.2 and 7. I.
17
Kovalev (2005) and Brook (2006) 79-8 I.
1�
TabarT 111.1305-6, trans. Boswortlı (1991) 182-3.
344 T/ıe Emperor Tlıeoplıi/os cıııd ı/ıe Ecısı. 829-841

from the west. 19 But who were the peoples whose advance to the east the Khazars
tried to prevent?
The Rus and the Magyars (Hungarians) have traditionally been considered the
most likely candidates and recent research has reached a consensus on the Magyars.10
The reasons are diverse, but one of the most conclusive is the fact that the Rus
followed fluvial routes coming from the north and proceeding to the south, so that
a fortress like Sarkel was of no use against them, whereas it seemed appropriate
against the advance ofthe nomad Magyars coming from the west.21 Also important
is the explicit testimony of lbn Rusta, an Arab geographer of the very beginning
of the tenth century, who writes: "lt is said that the Khazars in the past had build
frırtifications arouncl themselves for protecting themselves against the Magyars (al­
mcıjgh[a]rıtıı) and other peoples acljacent to their land."22 lt appears then that Sarkel
was constructed to curb Magyar expansion to the east.
Ifthis is true, then the Khazars lost control ofthe steppes west ofthe Don in the
same measure as the Magyars took possession of them. The Magyars, who seem
to be closely related to the Khazars,13 appear at the beginning of the ninth century
occupying territories between the Dniester and the Don. Although literaıy sources
before this centuıy do not mention the Magyars as such,24 it is probable that they had
already settled in this area at the end ofthe seventh centuıy, filling the void left by the
Bulgars in their march to the west and the Balkans.25 They acted for a time as allies
ofthe Khazars and fonned an integral part oftheir khaganate. However, about 800
people from three rebellious tribes of the Khazars, called Kabars, left the Khazars
and joined the Magyars.26 From this point on, the resulting confederation, under the
name ofthe Magyars, acted as an independent state from Khazaria.27
The building ofSarkel against the Magyars may also make sense ifwe consider
that the Khazars confronted an even worse threat coming from the east, such as the
opening of a commercial route directly linking the lands of northem Russia and
Islam. This new route avoided Khazar lands and passed through the Khwarizm and
the Volga Bulgars. This was the main factor behind the decline ofK.hazar power in

19 Zuckerman ( l997b) 55.

20 See for example Shepard ([995) 24, Krist6 ([996) 16, 17, 127-9 and 132,
Zuckennan (] 997b), Kovalev (2005) 235, Petrukhin (2007) 246-8 and R6na-Tas (2007)
272-5. However, Howard-Johnston (2007) 174-5 stili argues that the K.hazars developed
a new system of forward bases designed to extend K.hazar authority beyond the core
teıTitories of the khaganate, therefore stopping Rus expansion.
21 Zuckennan (1997b) 55.
22 Ibn Rusta 143.1-3.
23 R6na-Tas (2007) 270-72.
24 Krist6 (1996) 7-17.
25 R6na-Tas (2007) 273-4 considers that the Magyars (or would it be better to speak
of"Proto-Magyars"?) migrated at this time from the K.uban region to the territory between
the Dnieper and the Lower Damı be. See DAi 38 for the original land of the Magyars.
11'
D.4139.
" R6na-Tas (2007) 274.
 Tlıe EıııbasJ:F to tlıe K/ıazars c111d tlıe Buildiııg o(Scırkel 345

750 1000km

250

Rus and Khazars during the

reign of Theophilos
Key
1. Black Bulgars
2. Byzantine Crımea

KHWARIZfı.if'--.__

l<HURASAN

Map9 Rus, Magyars and Khazars during the reign ofTheophilos

the tenth century, as Noonan has recently demonstrated, as well as a decisive cause
far the conversion of the Bulgars to Islam.28 But the struggle had been ongoing
since the eighth centuıy. Interestingly enough, we even have repoıis ofan Abbasid
attack on the Khazar kingdom coming from Urgench during the reign ofMa'mün,
that is to say, before 833.29 Under these circumstances, the new collaboration with
the Byzantines in the west may alsa have provided an alternative to Khazar trade
in view ofthe increasing threat ofthe Abbasids in the east.

19.3 'fhe 'flıema of the Klimata and the lP'rovince of Gottlıia

The Khazars, who continued to control Crimea, found it difficult to defend without
the help of the Byzantines,' who held the city of Cherson. In fact, it was only
through the Kerch strait that the Khazars could keep in contact with their Crimean
lands, for the Magyars had barred access to the isthmus that linked the Crimean
peninsula to the Pontic steppe. Constantine Zuckennan rightly argued that this
might have been the reason that the Khazars were in contact with the Byzantines.

"8
Nooııan (2000) and (2007) 234-40. See alsa Vaissiere (2000) far tlıe presence of
ınerclıants ofCeııtral Asia in Klıazaria.
0'' Nazmi (1998) 70-73.
346 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeop/ıilos and tlıe Ecısı. 819-842

The empire helped them to construct a fortress against the Magyars at the Don and
got in exchange the possibility of reinforcing its military presence in the Criınea,
thus alsa checking Magyar infiltration in this area. The fight in the Criınea in
the 86Os between the Magyars and the Khazars, as attested by the Slavic Life
of Co11stanti11e,30 is the final confirmation that Criınea became one of the most
disputed areas between the two powers of the steppe.31
The project of converting Cherson into a thema with its own strategos,
suggested by Petronas Kamateros upon his retum to Constantinople, surely
needed the consent of the Khazars. it appears that it was put in force, for a new
thema of the Klimata is already attcsted in the Taktikon Uspenskij, dated 842-843,
inınıediately after the death ofTheophilos. There, a patrikios and strategos of the
Klimata (rca-rpiKtoç Kai crı::paı::ııroç ı::&v lüıµa.ı::ü)v) is naıned in last place after the
other strategoi ofthe themata.32
The new thenıa may have comprised Cherson and neighbouring areas, perhaps
even the city of Bosphoros, controlling the straits of Kerch. The Arab geographer
Ibn Rusta wrote at the beginning ofthe tenth century: "The Magyars ... make raids
against the Slavs and bring them prisoners along the coast until they arrive with
them to a port ofthe lands ofthe Rum, which is called K.arkh."33 Ifthe identification
of Karkh with Kerch/Bosporos is coıı-ect, this would be eviderİce that by the end of
the ninth century the Byzantines had extended control to this important city, key to
the straits, where the archaeologists have detected the presence of Khazars during
the period.34 It is however difficult to know when the empire took hold ofthis port
(already in Theophilos' time?) and whether it did so permanently.
The Gotthia that appears in a list of ecclesiastical provinces dated by its editor
Jean Darrouzes to the ninth century could perhaps be related to the creation ofthe
thema of the Klimata. 35 In this list an eparchia of the Gotthia (ercapxia foı:0iaç;)
referring to the Crimea is mentioned twice, first with the number 38 (37 for the
editor) in its right place and then with the mımber 37 (47 for the editor) at the very
end ofthe list.36 The bishopric sees included in the eparchy in number 37 are eight:
the metropolitan see of Doros (identified with Mangoup near Cherson)37 and seven
further bishoprics not mentioned elsewhere.Number 47 includes only the first two
of these bishoprics, Chotzirön and Astel (6 Xoı:Ç{prov and 6 A.crriJ1ı.), which are
situated in Khazaria: the first probably refers to the K.hazars proper and the second
is undoubtedly their capital Itil. Among the other five bishoprics mentioned in
number 37, two ofthem have ethnic names, perhaps refeITing to the Magyars: the

30 Life of Constaııtiııe 8, trans. Dvomik (1969) 359-60.

31
Zuckerman (1997b) 67-73.
n Oikonomides (1972) 49.
33
Ibn Rusta 142.18-143.1.
3-ı Zuckennan (1997b) 68.
ı; Shepard (1998) 19-20.
J<• Darrouzes (1981) 20-33 (study) and 230---45 (edition), esp. 241-2 aııd 245.
.11 Alekseenko(l996)272-3.
 The Emhassy ıo ılıe Klıcı=ars emel ı/ıe Bııi/diııg ()fSarke/ 347

bishops "of the Onogouroi" ( ô "Ovoyovpcov) and "of the Ounoi" ( ô Oüvcov). The
other three are Chouales (ô Xoualrıç, that is Khwalis on the Lower Volga, where
the Khwarizmian elements of the Khazar state were settled),38 Rhctech (ô · Pı::rey,
not identified) and Tarnatarclıa ( ô Ta�tarapxa, at the peninsula of Taman facing
Kerclı).39
It is difficult to draw any conclusion froın the names included in this Iist, for we
are not sure about its exact date and intention and do not even know whether the
ecclesiastical province of Gottlıia was ever actually established:0 Marie-France
Auzepy suggestecl that the eparchy of Gotthia with its Khazar bishoprics could
lıave been conceived by the lsaurian emperors at a time when Klıazaria and the
empire had excellent relations as a result ofthe marriage ofConstantine V with a
Khazar princess. An evangelization of Khazaria was perhaps the ultimate goal of
this province.41 The existence oftwo Iists in the information edited by Darrouzes
may perhaps reflect some kind of continuity for this project. The presence of
the "Hungarians" in the list ınay also point to a ninth-centuıy clating, unless we
suppose that the Magyars were.still acting as representatives ofthe Khazar power
to the west of the Don and close to Cherson, in which case an eighth-century
dating seems more likely. Thus we do not know whetlıer Theoplıilos may have
given new iınpulse to the project because ofhis restored alliance with the Khazars,
although this possibility ımıst be taken into consideration. In fact, it ınakes sense
that the creation ofa new thema was not only impleınented with a reinforcement
of the military presence in Crimea, but also followed by measures aiıning at the
evangelization ofthe nomadic nations ofthe area. Unfoıtunately, no evidence has
been preserved that could be adduced in support ofthis hypothesis.42

38 The inhabitants ofthis area have been identified with the Jewislı chalisioi (Xa'.Ucnoı)
mentioned by Joannes Kinnamos, ed. Meineke (1836) 107 and 247 among tlıe peoples
fighting in the.Hungarian army. See also Pritsak (1978) 262.
39 The city is also mentioned in DAi 42.11, 92, 95, 97 and 53.493 and has been
identified witlı the Tmutarakan ofthe Old Russian sources, placed in the Taman peninsula
facing Kerch. See Moravcsik (1958) vol. 2, 297 and Shepard (2009) 431-41.
,ıo Shepard (2009) 424-5 stresses that "tlıere never ceased to be some sort of
ecclesiastical organization on the Black Sea's nortlı coast" from tlıe sixth century.
�, Auzepy (2000) 206-7.
.,� For tlıe Life ofJohn ofGotthia, who diecl before the reigıı ofTlıeoplıilos, see Huxley
( 1978), Auzepy (2000) and Howarcl-Johnston (2007) 169-70.
 Chapter 20
Rus, Slavs and Bulgars in the Steppes

Althouglı the Magyars may have been the dominant power ofthe steppes between
the Don and the Dniester during the reign ofTheophilos, there were other peoples
or nations in the area who played some role in the confrontation of the major
powers. First ofali there were the Rus, the Scandinavian warriors who canıe from
the Baltic and established in what is today northern Russia. They had made an
alliance with the loca! Slavs and other tribes in the north and were forcing their
way through fluvial routes into the international markets of the south, bordering
the Black Sea. As we simli see, recent archaeological research seems to establish
that they followed a route through the Volga and tiıe Don and were accordingly
on good terms with the Khazars, for Arabic silver travellecl via these rivers to
their territory. But the emergence of the Magyars probably put an end to this
understancling between the two powers.

20.1 The lEmbassy ofthe Rus and the Dating ofthe Embassy ofPetronas
Kamateros (II)

The LatinAnnales Bertiniani inform us that on 18 May 839, Louis the Pious received
at Ingelheim a Byzantine embassy which was accompanied by some erriissaries of
the king ofthe Rus, who according to the text was called "chaganus" by his people.
These Rus are said to have an-ived earlier in Constantinople for reasons offrienclship,
but being unable to retum home had accompanied the Byzantines on their embassy
to the Frankish emperor. The Byzantines showed Louis a letter from Theophilos
in which he requested Louis to grant the Rus assistance to travel home through his
realm, "because barbarous and most savage peoples ofexceedingly great ferocity
had taken the roads through which they had arrived to him at Constantinople"
(qııoniam itinera, per qııae ad illııın Constantinopoliın venerant, inter barbaras
et nimiae feritatis gentes imnanissimas habııerant). Theophilos "did not want to
make them retum by the same way, in order to avoid any risk that they might mn"
(qııibııs eos, iıe forte pericıılııın inciderent, redire nolııit). 1 Unfortunately for them,
the German emperor discovered that the so-called Rus were in fact Swedes and,
considering them spies, retained them at his court.
Zuckennan suggested that the Rus would have an-ived in Constantinople c. 837
and departed from there to the west in the company of the Byzantines before the

1 Amıales Berliniani 19-20 (anna 839), trans. Nelsan (1991) 42-3. Far this embassy
see alsa Chapter 18.2.
350 Tlıc E111pemr Tlıeop/ıilos a11d ılıe Eası. 819-842

capture of Amorion by the Arabs in August 838 (see Chapter 17 .3 ), for the A nnales
Bertiniaııi report tlıat Theophilos informed the Frankish eınperor "of the victories
he had been awarded by God in his fight against foreign nations" (de victoriis quas
adversııs extercıs be/lando geııtes caelitusfııerat assecutus).2 For Zuckennan, this
message must have referred to Theophilos' victorious campaign of 837 against
Sozopetra and could hardly have been sent after August 838. Accordingly, if the
Rus could not return home it was because some disruption in the routes leading to
their lands had taken place. Zuckennan further supposes that the Rus had already
an-ived in Constantinople in 835 and links the problems preventing their return
with the Byzantine caınpaign of836 in the area to the noıth of the mouth of the
Danube. in fact, according to the chronicle of the Logothete,3 the descendants of
the Macedonians captured by Krum in 813 and deported "beyond the Danube"
(ırepa.v wu ırora.�wu LiavouPiou), rose in arıns against their masters and tri_ed to
return home during the reign ofTheophilos. The emperor sent a fleet to take them
back to Constantinople. However, the Bulgarians did not allow them to cross the
Damı be and march through Bulgaria to Byzantium and even called the Hungarians
for help when the exiles apparently tried to march to an unnamed point in the 1101th
where the imperial fleet was waiting for them. They finally succeeded in going
aboarcl the ships but only after clefeating the Hungarians, who baITed thern access
to the landing place ofthe Byzantine ships.
The clating of the episode is controversial. Moravcsik argued for 8374 ancl
Treadgold for 836,5 as they considered that the events coincided with the renewal
ofthe second decade ofthe peace treaty signed between Byzantium and Bulgaria,
which they dated alternatively to 817 and 8 l 6. However, there is no evidence
at all ofa renewal of the treaty in these years, whereas both Byzantine literary
sources and Protobulgarian inscriptions refer to many military clashes between
Byzantines and Bulgarians in Thrace during the period, affecting even major
cities like Thessalonike and Philippopolis.6 The chronology of all these events is
disputed; even the name and regnal dates ofthe Bulgarian khans is anything but
assured. Finally, it does not help the argument that the future emperor Basil, one

2
Shepard (1995) 41 thought that the victories referred to were won by Louis, so that
the Byzantines just congratulated the Frankish emperor on them. Zuckerman (1997b)54,
note 1 O rejects this interpretation, probably rightly, although the wording of the passage
is somewhat confusing. lt must not completely be ruled out that Theophilos may have
presented the withdrawal of Mu'taşim's army after the capture of Amorion as a victory
against the Muslims, who did not reach their final objectives after ali. lf the embassy had
already departed from Constantinople in spring 838, it appears strange that a whole year
passed before Louis received it in May 839 at lngelheim.
' Log. (A) Miclıael imi Tlıeodora [131] 10-13 (236.78 -237.111).
ı Moravcsik( l961 )74-5.
Treadgold ( 1985).
'' Besevliev ( 1980) 289-8.
 Rus. Slaı·s emel 811/gars iıı ılıe Sıeppes 351

of the Macedonians rescued from their captivity among tlıe Bulgarians, is said by
tlıe Logothete to be 25 years old at the tinıe.7
Be this as it may, the point for us is that during the reign of Theophilos
the Bulgarians appear as allies of the Magyars, who are named successively
"Hungarians" (Oüyypoı), "Huns" (Oüvvoı) and "Turks" (ToupKoı) by the
Logothete. Considering the difficulties the Byzantine fleet had in reaching a
landing point to the north ofthe Danube, it seems unlikely that the Rus could have
reached Constantiııople sailing along the western coast ofthe Black Sea.
Zuckerman arguecl that the Rus aıTived in Constantinople in 835 or 836 through
the Khazar territory using either the Don or the Dnieper route and that they could
not returıı this way due to the occupation by the Magyars ofthe area between these
two rivers. 8 There are however, sonıe problems with this hypothesis.
First, if we assunıe Zuckerman 's suggestion to be right, then the Rus ımıst
have been on good terİ11S with the Khazars at the time of their embassy to
Constantinople, for otherwise they would not have been allowed to pass freely
through Khazar territory. However, ifthe Rus had then beeıı allies ofthe Khazars,
they woulcl not lıave met any problems returning to their lands tlırouglı Cherson
ancl tlıe Don route, although the Hungarians had in the meantime invadecl the lancl
west of the Don and blocked the Dnieper route. 9 But this was certainly not a real
option for the Rus, wlıo even preferred to negotiate with tlıe German enıperor a
way bade to their lancls in Scanclinavia, despite knowing that he was not exactly
foncl of the Swedes living on the northern fringes of his empire. It thus appears·
tlıat tlıe Rus may have broken by then or at least loosened their alliance with tlıe
Klıazars. But is there any evidence for this supposition?
Accorcling to the Annales Bertiniaııi the king of Rus present at Ingelheim
claimed the title of"khagan", in what appears to be a clear challenge to the Khazar
donıinance ofthe steppes. The "khagan" title was indeed consiclered equal to that
of enıperor in early medieval diplonıatic practice and its use by some princes of
the Rus in the area around lake limen and later Novgorod could mean that he
had already advanced claims on it before his aınbassadors departed from their

7
For details see Treadgold ( 1988) 290-92 and especially note 397 for the identification
ofthe Dniester as the river where the Byzantine Ianding took place, against Zuckennan wlıo
thinks that it was rather the Dan11be, the only river mentioned in the sources.
8
Zuckerman (1997b) 54-55. He dates the rebellion ofthe Kazhars and their alliance
to the Magyars to 870 (ibid. 63), whereas R6na-Tas (2007) 2 74-5 argues for 800. This
great chronological difference is explained by the laclc of any assured literary mention of
the Hungarians before the reign ofTheophilos and the difficulties provided by the confused
account ofDe adnıinistrando imperio 38-9, where no absolute dating is given.
9
The Arab geographer Ibn Khurradadhbih, writiııg in the second half of the ninth
century, refers (p. 154) to the Rus following the Tanais river (Don) and crossing the Khazar
lands on tlıeir way to Byzantiuın. According to Konovalova (2000) 397-400, 406-7 his
testirnony reflects tlıe situation prior to the eınbassy oftlıe Rus to Tlıeoplıilos.
352 T/ıe Eıııperor T/ı(!oplıilos aııd tlıe Ecıst, 829-84]

lands to Constantinople. 10 it was perhaps the rule over the Slavic tribes in the
steppes which was then at stake. The control that the Khazars had exerted so far
in the Middle and Lower Dnieper region over the Slavonic agricultural colonists
providing them with corn had suddenly disappeared with the independence of
the Magyars, who occupied this area. 11 A new status quo was needed and the Rus
could have sent their embassy to Constantinople to explore an understanding with
the empire. The title of"khagan" adopted by their king conveyed a clear message
to the Byzantine court: the Rus were from then on ready to handle matters for
themselves, without direct backing ofthe Khazars. 1" it is thus understandable that
they followed a new route to Constantinople, for their former allies, the Khazars,
would not have allowed them to use the Don, much less the Volga.
it thus appears likely that the embassy of the Rus' "khagan" on its way to
Constantinople first followed the route of the Dnieper. This does not mean that
they had settled in this area by then, since no Scandinavian complexes dating to the
ninth century have been discovered in the Upper or in the Middle Dnieper region.

1" Golden (-1982) discusses at lengtlı tlıe meaning and legitimacy oftlıe klıagan title and
condudes at p. 87 tlıat tlıe Rus could not have boırnwed or adopted it "witlıout having met
tlıe cornmonly recognized criteria that gave legitimacy to the bearer ofthis title", whiclı he
sees in the personal family ties with tlıe ruling Klıazar lords. Otherwise, this would have been
considered usurpation. More recently, Petruklıin (2007) 255-7 argues that the title cannot
be used as evidence for the existence ofa "Russian khaganate". However, its historicity
is proved beyond any doubt by Zuckerman (2000) 97-100, who rejects former theories as
speculative. See Franklin and Shepard (1996) 27-50 for the location of the khaganate in
Riurikovo Gorodishsche ("Riurik's fortress") at the northem border ofthe limen Lake, close
to later Novgorod. New argurnents for this thesis in Zuckerman (2000) 106-14.
11 P etrukhin (2007) 248.
12 The Life of George ofAıııastris §43, cornposed by Ignatios Diakonos before 843,
mentions a raid ofthe Rus in Amastris tlıat took place after the saint's death c. 806. According
to its editor Vasi!' evskij the raid is to be dated in the period ofthe second iconoclasm, since
Ignatios wrote the text before 843. The majority of scholars rejected Ignatios' authorship
for almost a century, until Sevcenko (1977) 122-4 definitely confirrned Vasil'evskij's
hypothesis with new argurnents. Treadgold (1988-1989) argued for a dating of the Rus'
raid to 818-819, preceding the creation of the themata ofPaphlagonia and Chaldia by Leo
V. More recently Zuckerman (2000) 100-102 (see there for further bibliography) suggested
that the Rus' raid could be precisely dated to the beginning of the 830s. Unfortunately the
Life says only that the Rus began their plundering in the "Propontis" and then marched
againstAmastris, apparently devastating the stretch ofthe coast lying in between. The text
says nothing about the route they followed from the north or whether they were stili allies
of the Khazars at this time. Doubts have even been raised about the identification of the
"Propontis" mentioned in the Life, for it could refer to the sea ofAzov and the Crimea: see
Vernadsky (1949) 8-9 and Treadgold (1988-1989) 136-7. Under these circumstances any
dating remains tentative. However, it would not be risky to think that the first emergence of
the Rus in the sources as plunderers ofthe Byzantine seashore shortly preceded their first
official embassy to the capital, or even served as preparation for it: a display of military
force usually serves to encourage diplomatic dealings.
 Rus, Slavs and Bıı/gars i11 ılıe Steppes 353

it was only arter the settleınent of Oleg in Kiev in 882 that the Rus appeared here
and colluded with the Magyars. 13 For the Rus the Dnieper was for the moment
just a ııew route to reach Cherson, 14 from where they could easily cross to the
southern coast of the Black Sea. in fact, the ports of the Criınea enjoy direct
access to northern Asia Miııor, especially to tlıe facing harbour ofSinope, and the
crossing can take just one day between the spring and early autumn. 15 Moreover,
ifConstantinople was the goal ofthe ambassadors, it is logical to assuıne that they
relied on tlıe Chersonites for the crossing. However, the new route would not easily
have been practicable in ali places. Ifthe Rus had travelled along the Dnieper to its
ınouth, they would have surely faced the Magyars. Moreover, froın the Dnieper's
rnouth, the easiest route to Constantinople ran along the east Thracian coast and
the Danube delta, territories disputed between Magyars and Bulgarians and where
even the inıperial fleet, as we saw, met problerns. it tlıus appears likely tlıat the
Rus followed an alternative route to Cherson, perhaps leaving the Dnieper at the
so-called ford ofKichkas, the point where tlıe river turns abnıptly westward, and
then taking a land route to the Byzantine cities ofthe Crinıea. This inland route is
indeed nıentionecl in the De adıııinistrcıııdo imperio as the one usually followed by
the Chersonites on their way to Russia. 16
Whatever route the Rus followed on their ernbassy to Constantinople, there
renıain soıne chronological problems to be clealt with, firstly whether the above­
mentionecl Khazar ernbassy is to be consiclerecl a consequence of the one sent in
837-838 by the Rus' "khagan". The chronology suggestecl by Zuckeıman (and
generally acceptecl until now) would inevitably Iead to this conclusion, for he
dated the Khazars' mission to the year 839. Nevertheless, as we have seen above in
Chapter 19. 1, no eviclence can be gained from the sources in support ofthis dating.
Moreover, as Shepard has rightly argued, the contacts with the Rus continued well
after the embassy of837-838, as is evidenced by the presence ofByzantine coins
of Theophilos at clifferent points in the Scandinavian lands. Most impoıiant, in
Hedeby (near Kiel) a Ieacl seal of"Theoclosios patrikios, basilikos protospatharios
and chartoularios of the vestiarion" has been found, which undoubtedly belonged
to Theodosios Baboutzikos, the Byzantine ambassador to Yenice and the Frankish
empire during the years 840-842 (for his embassy see Chapter 18.2). 17 Whatever
the circumstances were by which the seal arrived in Hedeby, it clearly reveals
that diplomatic contacts between Byzantium and the Rus were pursued at a high
Ievel after the embassy of 837-838. Now, we must reconcile this fact with the

13 Petrukhin (2007) 246-54.

14 The "northem arc" according to McCormick (2001) 562--4.
15 Zuckerman (1995) 213 and Shepard (2009) 422-3. See Noonan (2006) 49: "The
surface currents of the Black Sea flow north-south from the Crimea to Sinope, assisting
sailors on this crossing while the currents off cape Karambis to the west flow south-noıth.
it is significant that Sinope founded its owıı colony of Kytoros just west of Karambis."
11' DA/9.65-67.
17 Slıepard (2005 J 46-58.
354 Tlıe Eıııperor Theop/ıi/os and tlıe Eası. 82CJ-842

supposition that the Khazars became allies of the Byzantines exactly at the same
lime, as Zuckerman suggestcd.
it has been said that if the Rus had been challenging !<.hazar authority in
the steppes, as the use of the title of"khagan" by the Rus' king clearly proves,
they would not have been welcomed by the Byzantines. who had sealed a close
alliance with the Khazars at the time. 18 Obviously, the Byzantines could have dealt
sinıultaneously with both powers, but they risked offending the Khazars, stili the
major power in the area, by dealing with the more distant Rus on equal ternıs.
it thus appears possible that the eınbassy of Petronas and the negotiations for
the building of Sarkel date from the beginning of the reign ofTheophilos, as we
suggested above. Sarkel would have been conceived as a barrier against Magyar
expansion. However. things may have rapidly deteriorated and the Magyars
gained the upper hane! in many regions to the west of tlıe Don, threatening even
Crimea. it is significant tlıat when Petronas Kamateros caıne back from Klıazaria,
he counselled the emperor to send a general to Cherson and adjacent regions, in
order to avoid that "they should slip out of his hancl" (mumu,; �uı r�,; a�,; eıcro,;
yı:;vfo0m xı:;ıp6,;).ı'' Not only Khazaria to the east ofthe Don, but also the Byzantine
possessions around the Crimea were threatened by Magyar expansion. And the
Khazars were apparently not able to furnish the Byzantines witlı the military help
tlıey needed to defend it. The weakness of the Klıazars could have been noticed
at Constantinople after the mission of Petronas and motivated the exploring of
new alliances, tike the one witlı the Rus, who may have begun at the time their
ınarauding in the Dnieper area.
The Byzantines ınay have created a ınilitary thema in Cherson and an
ecclesiastical province with the support or assistance ofthe Khazars, as we argued
above, but they were at the same time willing to contact new emerging powers in
the region just in case the crisis ofthe khaganate progressed and their fonner ally
could not be of any use regarding their interests in the area. The Byzantines, who
had witnessed the rise and fal! ofso many empires ofthe steppes, could not watch
passively tlıe diminishing influence ofthe Khazars to the west ofthe Don without
putting in force an alternative plan. This has been the usual procedure of iınperial
diploınacy since the time of the Romans, as the nuınerous examples compiled in
the De admiııistrando imperio easily demonstrates.
The Rus, who travelled to Constantinople via Byzantine Cherson, would have
observed with interest the reinforcement ofthe militaıy presence ofthe Byzantines
in the Crimea as a result of the mission of Petronas Kamateros. Byzantium
appeared to theın as an unexpected new agent in the area who could help free theın
froın the Khazar yoke and open new trade routes to the Black Sea. Altematively,
the Byzantines, who ınay have realized for the first time the seriousness of the
Magyar threat as a result ofthe naval expedition sent to the mouth ofthe Danube c.
836-837 (ifwe accept this dating as valid), could have considered the Rus useful

ıx Petnıkhiıı (2007) 247 aııcl ııote 1.

1 '' De udı11i11isıruııdo i111periıı 42.42.
 Rus, Slars aııd B11/gar.1· in ılıe Sıeppes 355

allies against tlıe Magyars, for tlıey could attract to tlıeir side nıaııy local Slavoııic
tribes of tlıe steppes. as was alreacly tlıe case in tlıe laııds to tlıe no11lı uııcler tlıeir
coııtrol. Fiııally, tlıe use oftlıe Rus as nıerceııaries in tlıe Byzantine arnıy was also
a welcome possibility forTlıeophilos, wlıo was nıakiııg an appeal for tlıe supply of
troops after tlıe clefeat ofAnıorion. in fact, oııly a few years later, in tlıe reigıı ofhis
son Miclıael III, "Russiaıı" soldiers were already eııteriııg tlıe Byzaııtine service
as imperial guards. 20
Tlıis last possibility has some consequeııces for tlıe clate of the arrival of tlıe
Rus to Coııstantinople. According to Zuckernıan, tlıey would lıave aıı-ived tlıere
well before tlıe defeat of Amorion in 838, for according to the Aıına/es Bertiniaııi
Tlıeoplıilos infornıed tlıe Frankislı enıperor of his previous triunıplıs and even
demanded of Louis and his people to thaıık God for tlıem, for He was tlıe giver of
ali victories ("datori victoriarunı omniunı"). No mention therefore is made of tlıe
clefeat ofAmorion in 838, as woulcl be expected iftlıis had already taken place.
If Zuckerman 's inference is correct, this would not exclude tlıe Rus departing
fronı Constantinople to tlıe west in summer 838, shortly before tlıe taking of
Amorioıı by Mu'taşinı. But tlıey could even lıave cleparted atleıwards, wlıeıı
Tlıeoplıilos was a:lready preparing a cliplonıatic offensive in tlıe west to counteract
tlıe etfocts oftlıe crushing clefeat at Amorion (see Clıapter 18.2). Tlıat Theoplı ilos
clicl not nıeııtion tlıe defeat to his Frankislı colleague slıould not surprise us. Tlıe
Byzantine emperor, who not just aimcd at a renewal of tlıe alliance with Louis
but badly neecled it, could not but stress the military potential of his armies, as
is made evident through his previous victories. The defeat at Amorion, probably
already known to the western emperor, therefore went unmentioned, and is also
significantly silenced in the coıı-espondenceTheophilos entertained with 'Abd al­
Rabman of Cordoba after 838. To excuse oneself for recent setbacks was surely
not the most advisable tactic for an anıbitious embassy (we could follow here the
well-known maxim "excusatio 11011 petita, accusatio manifesta") and perhaps the
lengthy account ofthe Byzantine civil war made by Michael II,Theophilos' father,
in his Letter to Loııis acted as a deterring factor for the emperor, who now triecl to
ınake good previous errors in his dealing with the western emperors.
The embassy ofthe Rus to Constantinople in 838 could thus be regarded as the
consequence of the new balance of power, which was slowly taking form in the
steppes. However, this new alliance brought collateral clamage, as it could not be
expected that the Khazars would regarcl the approach ofthe Byzantines to the Rus
without any reaction.

20.2 When did the Khazars Convert to Judaism?

The date ofthe conversion ofthe Khazars to Judaisın is a highly controversial issue,
whiclı has triggerecl a significant amount of studies witlıout creating a consensus

"' Gen. IV.10 (63.65-67). See Blöııdal aııd Beneclikz (1978) 32-3.
356 T/ıe Eıııperur Tlıeııplıilos c111d ılıe Ecısı. 829-842

among scholars. 21 Byzantinists tend to place the conversion in the 860s according
to thc accouııt of the Ltfc of Coııstantine, where the future apostle of the Slavs
debates in 861 with the supreme leader of the Slavs about the respective merits
of Judaism, Christianity and lslanı, thus apparently confirming that no definitive
conversion to Judaism could yet have taken place at the time.22 Most of the Arab
sources, dating from the tenth century, alsa seem to confinn the conversion of
the Khazars to Judaism only from the end of the ninth century, but not before. 23
As a matter of fact, both Greek and Arabic sources of the ninth century reınain in
general silent about the circunıstances of the Khazars' conversion to Judaism, as
ifthis had never taken place.
However, other versions of the Khazars' conversion to Judaisnı have been
preserved that date it much earlier. This is prominently the case of the so-called
aııonymous Khazar letter from the Gen izah ofCairo and the reply of Khazar king
Joseph to l;lasday ibn Shaprüt (c. 915-970), the famous Jewish courtier of the
Umayyad caliph 'Abd al-Ral:ınıaıı ili. Both texts, written in Hebrew, have been
preserved as f ragments from an eleventh-century codex that probably contained
copies oflbn Shaprüt's diplornatic correspondence. 14 As lbn Shaprüt corresponded
witlı tlıe Byzantine emperor Constantine Vll between 949 and 955/5 it would be
possible to date his correspondence with tlıe Khazars to these years, for it was only
with the acquiescence of Constantinople that he contacted the Khazar rulers. In
any case, the Khazar letters refor to a conversion ofthe Khazars to Judaism at the
very beginning of the seventh century, in the context of the persecutions against
Jews begun during the reign ofthe emperor Heraldeios (610-641). The letter of
Joseph even dates the conversion to precisely 340 years before Joseph 's time. This
early dating is untenable and has been not accepted by scholars, but it undoubtedly
reflects the official version of the conversion as presented by the Khazar ruling
elite by the middle of the tenth century. 26 Then, the conversion must have bee_n
considered not very recent at the time. These letters also serve to document what
could have been an early penetration ofthe Jews in the territories ofthe steppes.
in fact, the question ofconversion could have been posed for the Khazars only
after the Umayyad general Marwan broke through into the I<.hazar core lands on the
Volga in 737 and forced the khagan to convert to lslam. 27 It appears that this forced

11 A detailed overview of tlıe Arabic, Hebrew and Greelc sources in Dunlop (1954)
89-170, 194-6.
11 See Zuckerman ( 1995) and Shepard ( 1998).
13 See Pritsak (1978) and Golden (2007) 141-50 for a complete list ofArabic authors
dealing with Khazar conversion, whereby the not always duly considered problem oftheir
sources is briefly approached in each case.
14 See Pritsak (l 978) 272-6, Zuckerman ( 1995) and Golden (2007) 145-7 for details
about these two letters and fürther bibliography.
15 Signes Codofier (2004a) 224-30 and 243.
"' See Golb and Pritsak ( 1982) 130-32 foran alternative version.
:ı Golden (2007) 137-8.
 Rus, Slal's aııd Bulgars in ılıe Steppes 357

conversion had no pernıanent consequences, although lslam coııtinued to exert

a presence among the Khazars after that date. But the invasion could have beeıı
important in another sense, for it perhaps obliged the Khazars to define themselves
against the two nıajor nıonotheistic religions of their neighbours. They may have
chosen Judaism as a result, not only because this religion provided a neutral status
between Byzantiunı and !slam, but also because it secured conımercial relations
with other lands with a Jewish presence. in fact, conversion to Judaism by non­
Jewish peoples was not unprecedented at the tiıne.28
We ınust certainly nıle out that the population ofthe Khazar khaganate converted
to Judaisnı in its nıajority; at least at the start ofthe process ofthe conversion. The
process nıay have indeed been slow and followed different stages, as suggested
by Oıneljan Pritsak soıne time ago.29 in a multicultural and nıultiethnic eınpire as
the Khazars' was, it would have been too risky to uııdertake a forcible conversioıı
ofal! its inhabitants without putting in danger the fragile consensus on which the
rule ofthe khagans ultinıately depended. There is no nıaterial evidence connecting
the rebellion ofthe Kabars and Magyars against the khaganate (see Chapter 19.2)
with the conversion to Judaism but it appears as a consequence of the instability
ofthe Khazars' power, based on a precarious equilibrium between clifferent tribes.
The Khazars may have begun a process ofrapprochement to Judaism as early
as the second half of the eighth century, but it was probably not aimed at a ınass
conversion of ali their subjects to the new religion. The Khazar rulers may have
initially intended to give some kinci ofofficial status to Judaism inside their state
in order to gain independence in respect of the neighbouring major powers. To
put it in other words, the adherence to Judaism of the Khazar ruling elites was
perhaps rnore a consequence ofthe need for an authoritative religion, which could
represent their state abroad, than of a sincere conversion. in fact, most of the
conversions in the steppe peoples grew out of political considerations as a result
ofgeo-strategic constellations.30 It would be a long time until the "intemalization"
of the new religion and its transformation into a sign of identity for the Khazar
Empire, as described by Peter Golden, took place.31
The ımıch-debated institution ofa dua! kingship in the Khazar Empire can be
connectedwith this representative function ofJudaism in the khaganate.According
to Pritsak, between 799 and 833 the khagan Iost his military-political function,
which was transferred to the beg, but remained a sacral figure.32 He established
799 as terminus post quem because in 798-799 the khagan stil! appeared leading
the armies ofthe Khazars in a campaign againstArab-held Darband on the Caspian
sea. The year 833 was established as terminus ante quem, for Pritsak dated to that

28 Golden (2007) 152-3.

29
Pritsak ( 1978).
30 Golden (2007) 123-30 for a short typology of the processes of conversion among
nomadic peoples.
31 Golden (2007) 157-8.
32 Pritsak ( 1978) 278-80.
358 Tlıe Eıııperor T!ıeoplıilos aııd tlıe Ecıst, 829-842

year the enıbassy of Petronas Kamateros to the Khazars, where the khagan and the
bcg appenr as their conımon represeııtatives, as we have seen. This date was later
ınodified to 838 as a result of the new dating of the embassy. Although we know
alrnost nothing about how roles were shared between the khagan and the beg,
modern research has proceeded beyond the evideııce to suggest that the conversion
to Judaism was proınoted by the beg whereas the khagan represented for a time the
old traditional religion.J 3 This sharing ofroles may appear illogical from the point
of view of modern nation-states, but for ınulticultural empires it was perhaps an
intelligent way of integrating ali 'the subjects under their sway. In fact, a siınilar
shariııg of roles was practiced even by the imperial couple in a well-developed
state like Byzantiuın at different tinıes, for exaınple with Justinian defending the
Chalcedonians and Theodora the nıonophysites under (never officially declared)
mutual unclerstanding.34 Nevertheless, it is clear that after the Khazars proınoted
Judaisnı, nıany other religions such as Christiaııity and lslanı continued to be
present and represented in the khaganate, as is revealed by many ınore or less
contemporary sources, which ınake a clear clifference between the religion ofthe
ruling classes ancl that ofthe subjects. 35
We can therefore conclüde that the promotion of .ludaism in the Khazar state
did not preclude the existence and even the proınotion of other religions. it was
convenient for the khaganate to have a flexible foreign policy and to reınain open
to every kind of alliance with its neighbouring powers according to the changing
geo-strategic conditions. A steady progress ofJudaisın inside the Khazar state at the
cost ofother religions might initially have been less advantageous for its interests
than equilibriuın between the different peoples and religions of its subjects. We
can expect a series of advances and setbacks in the role Judaism and the other
religions played in the khaganate until the final "internalization" ofJudaism as the
"national" religion ofthe Khazars perhaps as !ate as in the second halfofthe ninth
century, if not even later.
This may explain why Constantine/Cyril stili had hopes ofgaining the Khazars
for Christianity as !ate as 861 36 or that an ecclesiastical province such as Gotthia
had sees in different areas ofthe khaganate towards the middle ofthe ninth century,
despite the fact that the official recognition ofJudaism by the Khazars might date
from the beginning ofthe ninth century. Even Mas'üdı, writing towards the middle
ofthe tenth century, appears to understand the difference. In his description ofthe
Khazar capital ltil he says:

33 See Kovalev (2005) 230-34 with further bibliography. Golden (2007) 155-7 is
rnore cautious concerning the date. He acknowledges the institution of dua! kingship as a
widespread phenomenon in Eurasia, but considers that Jewish refonners clid not need to
"create a sacral monarchy stili laden with pagan elernents".
14 For a recent assessment ofTheodora 's role see Leppin (2011) 288-93.
J5 For the sources see again Golden (2007) 137-50.
·'1'
See L/fe ııl Constantine, chapters 8-12, pp. 358-71.
 Rus, S/avs and Bıılgcırs iıı ılıe Steppes 359

in this city there are Muslims, Christians, Jews and pagans. As concerns the
Jews, tlıey are tlıe king, his entourage and tlıe Klıazars of his tribe. Tlıe king of
tlıe Khazars converted to Judaisııı during the caliphate of RashTd [786-809).
Some Jews joined him, arriving there from various lslamic urban centres and
froın the Rüm. This was because the king of Rüm, in otır time in 332 it is
Armanüs [Romanos I Lekapenos, 920-944), converted tl10se Jews who were in
his kiııgdom to the Clıristian religion, using coercion on thenı.37

There is no reason to doubt the exact dating provided by Mas'üdT for the
conversion of the king of the Khazars to Judaism38 provided we take into
consideration ali the caveats ınade previously and accept that tlıe conversion could
not have occurred in only one stage. in fact, Mas'üdT himself limits the influence
ofJudaism to some tribes ofthe Khazar state and mentions the significant presence
ofother religions in the khaganate.
Accordingly, it is likely that after the privileged relation the Khazars had with
the lsaurian dynasty (Constantine V maıı-ied the daughter of the khagan), the
political turbulence that slıook Byzantiunı cluriııg the iconophile periocl, especially
after the fail of Eirene, nıade it advisable for the Khazars to approach Judaism.
This was during the reign of f:larün al-RashTd (786-809), as Mas'üdT states. The
reasons for that clıange may have to do with personal links between the khagan
ancl the lsaurian dynasty (now lost from knowleclge) or with the difficulty in
accepting icon worship for the Jews and Muslims ofthe khaganate. But whatever
the cause of this new course, it clid not bar the way for a renewal of the links
between Byzantium and the khaganate in the second iconoclast period, especially
during the reign ofTheophilos. The mission of Petronas Kamateros undoubtedly
represents this new atteınpt to re-establish a close alliance between the two powers.
We refuted in Chapter 19.1 the idea that the text ofthe Contimıator provides
a dating for this embassy. It now also appears that an embassy after 838 makes
no sense either. The major defeat at Amorion in this year coulcl not be ignored
by the Khazars, who were obviously not able to anticipate at that time the future
Byzantine reaction. They may of course stili have chosen Byzantium as an ally
clespite the temporary setback ofthe empire (and this would speak for the capacity
ofTheophilos as ruler to overcome his failures), but it was perhaps more advisable
for them to w_ait and see. This could have been especially true at the time, for we
can suımise that the victorious Mu'taşim increased the pressure of the Abbasids
on the Khazars in connection with his Anatolian campaign of838. Considering
the economic dependence of the Khazars on the caliphate,39 it is reasonable to
infer that they abstainecl from provoking the caliphate by a tighter alliance with

37
Mas'üdT, The Meadows of Gole/, vol. 2, 8-,-9, trans. Vasiliev (1950) 31, Pritsak
(1978) 276-7 and Golden (2007) 144.
38 Against Zuckerman (1995) 246 and 250. See Golden (2007) 154. Brook (2006)
107-8 also dates the conversion according to Mas'üdT .
.ı•ı Noonan (2007) 229-44.
360 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ı!ıe Eası. 829-842

the defeated Byzantine emperor. Moreover, it must be taken into account that
Mu'taşim's victory in 838 was made possible mostly by the new regiments of
Turkish mercenaries serving under his command (see Chapter 17.5). We do not
know whether there were Turkish Khazars among thenı, but even if this was not
the case, the Khazars could not have remained ignorant ofthe presence ofTurkish
contingents at SamaITa.
Time was needed to construct a new fortress on the Don, and ifwe conjecture
that the Khazar mission arrived in Constantinople in 839, there was practically
no time to put into force the project before Theophilos died in January 841, about
lwo years later. The embassy ofthe Rus to Constantinople, perhaps to be dated to
838, is also to be considered in this context, for if the Byzantines acknowledged
the prince of Rus as khagan, this would certainly not have been welcomed by the
Khazars. Finally, that the Khazars may not have been especially friendly towards
the Byzantines in 838 is made evident by three special issues ofdirhams struck by
the Khazars in that year.40 We will now consider briefly the significance of these
particular coins.
The Klıazars began to strike their own coins c. 825, following the pattern of
the lslamic dirhams but, as Kovalev put it, "with numerous misspellings ofArabic
words, mistakes in Kufic orthograpby, and erroneous mints, dates, nılers, and
their combinations"_-ıı This took place approximately during the Byzantine civil
war between Michael II and Thomas. ln 838 the Khazars for the first time struck
dirhams containing the name ofthe mint (Arçl al-Khazar, "Land ofthe Khazars")
and, most importantly, the actual date ofthe emission, HA 223. To date, 84 coins
of this class have been found. To the same mint belonged two other coin types
without date but which must be contemporary for they are part of the same die
chain. üne of them, of which 77 examples have been found, contained the sign
called tamgha, which was connected to the Turkic political heritage, although its
precise significance has not been ascertained. Finally, five further coins of the
same date have been discovered, at which in the spot reserved for a quote from
the Quran, the legend was inscribed Miisii rasiil Alliih, "Moses is the apostle of
Allah/God".42
According to Roman Kovalev, who studied these coin types, the !ast one was
struck to mark the official conversion of the khaganate to Judaism. If we accept
his dating, 838, as a result ofthe closeness ofthe Moses-dirhams to the other two
classes, then we would conclude that the K.hazars converted to Judaism in this year.
It appears difficult to admit that the Byzantines began diplomatic contacts
with the Khazars ajter their official conversion to Judaism and that this point, so
decisive for the future relations ofthe two powers, was completely silenced in the
account of the ambassador Petronas Kamateros. it appears that the most likely
course of events is that Petronas travelled to Khazaria to constnıct Sarkel before

.ııı HA 223 spans the Christian calendar from 3 December 837 to 22 November 838.
41 Kovalev (2005) 225.
-ıc For details about tlıese three coiıı types see Kovalev (2005) 226-30.
 Rus, Slcn•s cıııc/ Bıılgars in ılıe Steppes 361

838, probably at the very beginning oftlıe reign ofTlıeophilos, as we have already
suggested.
Tlıe Moses-dirhanıs struck in 838 may lıave signalled an episodic crisis witlıin
Byzantium after tlıe capture of Amorion. But it would certainly be excessive to
consider tlıe five pieces of this class of Khazar dirhanıs as marking a more or
less sudden conversion to Judaism of the Klıazar state. in fact, they were struck
in apparently smaller quantities than the two other Khazar dirhams of the special
issue of 838. And we cannot exclude that the tamghcı-dirhams caıTied not only
a political, but also a religious, message. 43 Moreover, the Moses-dirhams have
no continuity in later coin types providing similar messages, for the Khazars
contimıed to strike dirhams as they had in tlıe past but without any marks ofKhazar
identity. 44 It appears that the Moses-dirhams were struck only in 838 as a response
to a specific situation, which was sonıehow superseded some months later, for no
nıore sinıilar state-religious insignias were ever again displayed on Klıazar coins.
If these coins celebrated "the nıomentous political and religious transforınation"
which took place in 838, as Kovalev suggests, it is not easy to see why they did not
continue to be stnıck even later. The fact tlıat the coins never reached tlıe caliphate
or were not read by the inhabitants of the klıaganate (their supposed audience),
for they were carried to tlıe land of the Rus, is not an explanation for their lack of
continuity. It cannot be considered a failure tlıat the Khazars successfully diffused
tlıeir own currency among the northern nations with which they tracled. Whether
this currency carried specific legends or not was perhaps a rnatter of secondary
importance for the ultimate objectives ofthe Khazar state.
Kovalev considers indeed that the special coins were aimed at tl10se individuals
capable of reading Arabic, for the inscriptions were written in that language.
However, he also notices that ali of the coins found hitherto were carried by Rus
merchants to the north.45 As it seems unlikely that the Khazars did not foresee the
final destiny of these special issues, the most logical conclusion is that they were
conceived just for the people who used them, collected them in hoards and buriecl
them thereafter. These were the Rus, who had sent an embassy to Byzantium in
about 837 and whose prince had appointed himself "khagan" in open defiance
of the Khazar leader. It does not matter that neither the majority of the Rus nor
the Slavs could read Arabic. it was enough that some of them could read the
inscriptions or that they were told what the inscriptions said through the agency of
other peoples with whom they traded. In ınedieval and ancient societies literacy
was the possession ofa few and writing had a function not only for readers but also

43 K.ovalev (2005) 240-42 does not consider the possible religious relevance of
the tamg!ıa symbols, but speaks in general tenns of a new political-religious ideology
conveyed by ali the three emissions struck in 838. He connects the political change witlı
the reinforceınent of the power of the beg and the religious reform with tlıe conversion to
Judaism.
44 K.ovalev (2005) 242.
4; Kovnlev (2005) 239-40.
362 Tlıe E111peı-or Tlıeophilos emel t/ıe East, 829-842

for viewers.46 lf the Khazars had intended their dirhams for literate traders, they
would have avoided mistakes and misspellings in the dirhams they struck. But for
thern the image of the written Arabic was ınore important than the text itself.
ln any case, the special issues of the Khazar dirhams of 838 surely did not go
unnoticed by the Rus, who were, one presumes, told ofthe message tbey carried.
It was a message ofself-asseı1ion ofKhazar identity, a message the Rus probably
also conveyed to Constantinople. We can only speculate about the reasons. why
this took place only in 838 and not before or after that date. But I think that this
had to do not with a substantial change in religious stance inside the khaganate,
but tbat it was rather related to the changing geo-strategic balance in the area.
The alliance of the Rus with the Byzantine Empire or the defeat of Theophilos
at Arnorion would have been grounds enough for the Khazars to reconsider their
alliance with Byzantiuın. Under such circumstances, the embassy of Petronas
Karnateros probably preceded, rather than followed, this change.

20.3 The Alliance ofTheophilos with Bulgars and Slavs

Another possible clue for an alliance between Theophilos and the nations around
Cherson is a short passage of Mas'üdı about the caınpaign of the emperor against
Sozopetra in 837 where some nations allied toTheophilos are listed:

And in this year 223 Theophilos son of Michael, king of the Rum, marched
with his army, and with him were the kings of Burjan (Bulgars), the Burghar
(Bulgars), the Şaqaliba (Slavs) and others among those who are their neighbours
from the kings of the nations, and he fell upon the city of Zibatra (Sozopetra)
from the border of the Jazarı and took it by the sword, killing the youth and the
old or taking them prisoners.47

As far as I know, no explanation has been provided until now for the iteration
of the presence of the Bulgars in this text. The two names used for designating
Bulgars (Burji:in and Burghar) in the Arab tradition appear to be confounded and
used indistinctly for referring to Volga Bulgars or Danube Bulgars (Bulgariahs),48
but as both are used together, they should in principle refer to different nations.
In the ffııdiid al- 'Alam, a Persian geographical treatise written in 982, the
Christian Burjan living in the steppes ofThrace and the pagan BulgharI living on
the hills are included, along with the Christianized Slavs (Şaqi:iliba), among the

46
For a reflection on the acquisition of literacy among the Rus compared with the
ancient Euboeans see Signes Codofier (2011).
47
Mas'üdT, The ı\ıleadows of Gole/, vol. 7, 133-4, trans. Vasiliev (1935) vol. 1, 330,
who copies the French translation of Barbier de Meynard.
48
An overview over the terıninological problems in Nazmi ( 1998) l0l-13.
 Rus, Slcıı·s aııd Bıılgars iıı ıhe Steppes 363

nations somehow belonging to the empire of the Rum.4'1 As we see, it is the same
sequence we find in our passage. Minorsky, who translated the work, considered
the variants used by different Arab writers for naming the Bulgars and concluded
that the Burjan and BulgharT named as part of the Byzantine Empire refeITed both
to the Danube Bulgarians, with whoın he alsa identified the "lnner Bulgarians"
described in another chapter of the work.50 The Volga Bulgars are in fact refeITed
to only in a single fuıiher chapter,51 exactly after the one devoted to the Khazars.52
Minorsky thought that the existence of three different entries for the Danube
Bulgarians in the f:[zıdiid al- ',ıllam was easily explained by a conflation ofdifferent
sources where the same people appeared but under different names.53
However, without denying the dependence on the Arab sources by the Persian
author of.ffudiid al- 'Alam and admitting the prevailing confusion about the different
denominations for the Bulgars, Minorsky does not lake into account the presence of
another branch ofthe Bulgar people on the noıth coast ofthe Black Sea, the Black
Bulgars, usually said to !ive in the area of the Crimea or the Sea ofAzov. 54 Recent
research seems to show that the origin ofthe Great Bulgaria of Khuvrat was not, as
has been generally assumed, the region of the river Kuban to the noıth ofAbasgia,
where the Khazar state originated, but the area around the Dnieper, where some
Bulgar tribes remained, not having followecl the rest ofthe people in their nıigration
to the Balkans or to the nıiclclle course ofthe Volga. 55 Onıeljan Pritsak even thought
that the work conıposecl by caliph Ma'mün to answer the questions ofthe ruler of
the Burghar regarding Islam was aclclressed to the Pontic-Bosporan Bulgars.56 This
reveals again the impoıiance ofthis İıation at the time.
As we saw above in section 20.1, the khan of the Bulgars may have renewed
a peace treaty with Byzantium in 836. This could have been important enough
for Mas'üdT to mention and to include the kings of the Buıjan among the allies
taking to the field with Theophilos in the campaign of837. However, the expanded
reference to the Burghar (for which no kings are mentioned), the Slavs and
other neighbouring nations in Mas'üdI's passage (written some decades before
the .ffııdüd al- 'Alam) apparently goes beyond a simple reference to the khan of

49 lfııdüd al- 'Alanı §42, 16-18.

50 lfııdüd al- 'Alam §45.
51 lfııdı7d al- 'Alam §51.
52 lfııdıid al- ',ıI/aııı §50.
53 Minorsky (1970) 423 anq 438-40.
54 See De-adnıinistrando iıııperio 12 and 42.77 and the comments of Jenkins (1962)
62 and Belke and Soustal (1995) 88, note 85.
5; Golden (1992) 239-40, 253 and R6na-Tas (2007) 273. See Theophanes 357-60 for
the origin of the Bulgar state and its division into five tribes. Noonan (2007) 221 argues
that the Bulgars had settled in the Crimea abandoning their forıner nomadic way of life
since the eighth century and adds: "by the !ate eighth and early ninth centuıy much of the
Khazarian Crimea was thus populated by a relatively prosperous agrarian population of
Bulghar background".
;,, Pritsak ( 1979) 6-7.
36-1- Tlıc Eıııpcror Tlıeoplıi/os emel ılıe Eası. 829-842

Bulgaria and may lıave referred to furtlıer peoples, related or not with the Volga­
Bulgars and settled in tlıe areas around Clıerson. ;; These were peoples with whom
Byzantium was perhaps establishing new links as a consequence of the Magyar
invasion, of which the empire took note arouııd 836-837 after a military clash
of the Byzantine refugees ııorth of the Danube. The creatioıı of the thema of the
Klimata was probably connected with these eveııts.
Certainly, in the text of Mas'üdT we would expect a direct reference to the
Klıazars/8 as tlıey played a major role in tbis new status quo. But it could be that
by 837 Byzantium, as we suggested above, was already re-orientating its policy in
the area towards the Rus and tlıe Slavs. Certainly, Mas'üdı's text lends only a veıy
weak support for this lıypothesis, but itımıst be taken into account along with the
other testimonies we lıave been considering in the previous pages.

57 Interestingly, Mas 'üdT does not mention here the presence ofthe Persian Khurramites
among the troops of the emperor.
58 The sentence we have translated as "he [Theophilos] fell upon the city of Ziba\ra
[Sozopetra] from the border of the Jazari'' is based on a conjecture of the editors, for the
original Arabic had "Khazari'' instead ofthe proposed "Jazari'', which makes better sense,
for the city ofSozopetra borders the region of JazTra. Only ifwe suppose a major corruption
of the text and put the reference to the "border of the Khazarf' in connection with the
aforenıentioned peoples would we have the expected mention of the Khazars. But this
rencleriııg or tlıe passage seenıs unwarrantecl.
 SECTIONVI
The Melkites

We have scarcely any reliable source for the relations between the iconoclast
emperor Theophilos and the Melkite Christians. The apparent exception is the
appeal the three Melkite patriarchs supposedly wrote to the eınperor Theophilos
c. 836, the so-called Letter to Theophilos. As we shall see, this text is usually
considered clear evidence of the iconophile stance of the Melkite Church in the
first half of the ninth centmy, for it contains a dossier of sources in support of
icon worship, and has accordingly been advanced as confirrnation ofthe Melkite
opposition to the iconoclastic policies in the areas ofSyria and Palestine during the
ninth centuıy. Things are not, however, so clear-cut.
As I have tried to prove elsewhere, in the period after the Abbasid revolution
there appears to be an increasing nuınber of Melkites who tumed their bade
on the cult of iınages, thus paving the way for some understanding with the
imperial church in Constantinople during the reign oficonoclastic emperors. 1 The
mımerous references to the cross in the theological treatises of Melkites of the
eighth and ninth centuries or even in their debates with contemporary Musliıns,
especially compared with the absence in most of them of any mention to icon
worship,2 represent a first caveat against the extended image ofeastem Christians
as fervid adherents of icon worship at the time.3 On the contrary, figures such
as John of Damascus and Theodore Abü Qurra, undoubtedly the most prominent
theologians ofthe Melkites and convinced defenders ofimages, do not necessarily
represent the mainstream Melkites at the time, as has sometimes been assumed.4
Islamic pressure on images in general (the so-called "iconophobia") - as perhaps
attested in the partial destruction of figurative mosaics in the pavements of some
Palestinian churches of the eighth century 5 - contributed to this new trend among
eastem Christians outside the empire, as is already apparent in the eighth centuıy.

1 Signes Codofier (2013c).

See especially Swanson (1994).
3 However, Griffith (1992c), (2007) pleads for the prevalence oficon worship at the
time.
4 For the Damascene see Speck (1981) 209-24, Auzepy (1994), Griffith (2008a)
and, more generally, Louth (2002); for Theodore Abü Qurra see Griffith (1985), (1992a),
(1992b), (1993), (1997), Samir (2005) and Lamoreaux (2001), (2002), (2009).
; Piccirillo ( 1996) and Ognibene (2002). Maguire (2009) links, lıowever, tlıis
plıeııoınenon witlı Byzaııtine iconoclasııı.
366 Tlıe Eıııpemr Tlıcoplıi/os cmd ılıe Eası, 819-841

it was only during the second patriarchate of Photios that the Melkite prelates
expressly accepted lhe Nikaian council of 787 as the seventh ecumenical, most
probably because many members of their communities did not support the open
worship of icons as defineci by Constantinople.6 But this does not mean in any way
that we should automatically identify these men as iconoclasts, for the controversy
over icons assunıed a very different form in the lands of lslam.
it is against this background that we will proceed to an analysis of certain
aspects of the Letter ıo Theoplıi/os. Through internal evidence taken from the text
we will tıy to prove in Chapter 21 that the icon dossier was not part ofthe original
text and that, accordingly, it cannot be proved that the Melkite ecclesiastical
authorities were convinced supporters oficon vvorship. An understanding between
thenı and the emperor Theophilos was therefore conceivable at the time, either on
a religious level (as a response to the summoning ofa council in Constantinople:
see Chapter 21) or on a political !eve! (as a consequence of the military triumphs
ofthe emperor: see Chapter 2 l ). Although the stages by which the present text of
the Letter was forged are not easy to disentangle and our conclusions are only by
way of approximation, we will tıy to prove that there was indeed an original text
addressed to the emperor that was interpolated and expanded by an iconophile
writer. As to the where and who, we will make some suggestions in Chapter 21
lhat will obviously remain hypothetical.
Then, in Chapter 22 we will review the apocalyptic fears that appeared in lslam
during the caliphate of Ma'mün and their echoes in soıne Greek sources of the
period. Some Christian circles seemed at the time surprisingly optimistic about
the real possibility ofa radical turnabout ofthe status quo in the Middle East and
even considered the conversion ofMuslims to Christianity. However unrealistic or
deceptive these hopes may appear, they serve to give us a better understanding of
the religious and cultural climate ofthe period and to settle the reign ofTheophilos
in its proper context.

1
' Sigııes Codofier (2013b).(2013c).
 Chapter 21
The Letter of the Three Melkite Patriarchs
to Theophilos

21.1 An Interpolated Text

The Letter to Theophilos is a ınuch-debated text, 1 which enjoyed widespread

diffusion in the Byzantine era and was ınuch reworked and expanded at clifferent
tinıes.2 According to the title of thc work in what appears to be the version closest
to the original, the letter was addressed to the enıperor Theophilos by the Melkite
patriarchs ofAlexandria, Antioch ancl Jerusalenı, respectively named Christopher,
.fob and Basil. The title also claims the lettcr to have beeıı "written in the holy
city of Jerusalenı in the church oftlıe Holy Resurrection" as a result ofa syııocl
hele! there, wlıiclı I 85 bishops, 17 abbots aııcl 1153 nıonks attendecl (rov cı.pı0�tov
errıcrKorroıv pm::', �you�ttvoıv tÇ', �ıovaxföv ,apvy'). A dating is provided for the
synocl: "in the 111011th ofApril, the I 4th incliction, in the year 6344" (�nıvi An:pıUicp
ivoum&voc; ıo', ihouc; ,c;r�to'), which corresponcls to April 836. The title further
infonı1s us that the Ietter is "about the holy, venerable and revered icons" (m::pi ı-&v
cı.yiülv ıcai rt�tiülv ıcai aı:;�aa�tiülv dıcovmv), aclding that at the head of the text "the
holy representation ofthe all-holy Theotokos Maria, depicted bearing the Saviour
in her arms" was appended.3
The work begins by speaking ofthe Incarnation ofChrist and the symbols ofhis
humanity he left to mankind for his remembrance in the farın of Baptism and the
Eucharist.4 The emperor is then addressed as the authority established by God and
his victories are hailed,5 but the authors ofthe text reclaim their condition of"rulers
of souls" and beg Theophilos to pay attention to their dogmatic opinion.6 After a
short reference to the destnıction of pagan idols brought about by the Christians, a

1 Tlıere are two recent editions ofthe text, botlı published witlıin a short space of time
and dealing at some length with the problems ofthe authenticity oftlıe work: Gauer (1994),
wlıich includes a Gernıan transla,tion, and Munitiz, Chrysostonıides, Harvalia-Crook and
Dendriııos (1997), with an English one. Unless otlıeıwise stated, I will follow the text ofthe
second, quoted as Letter to Tlıeoplıi/os and tlıe corresponding paragraph.
2
in the edition of Munitiz further later variants of tlıe text, one of thenı attributed
to John of Danıascus, are published. I will refer to these variants only occasionally in the
following discussion.
3 Letter to Tlıeoplıilos, Title.
4 Letter to Tlıeoplıilos, 1-2.
Letter ıo Tlıeoplıilos, 3
'' Letter /o Tlıeoplıilos, 4.
368 The Eıııpemr Theoplıilos aııd tlıc East. 819-841

doctrinal justification of the veneration ofthe icon ofChrist begins, based mainly
on historical argumcnts.; A description of Christ's plıysical appearance follows,
accompanied by 15 stories dealing with a dozen images.8 Tlıe next section starts
with more theological argumentation and includes two ınore stories about visions
ofthe devi! in 1-Iagia Sophia. Tlıe concluding part mentions again the iınage oftlıe
Virgin and Chilcl and addresses the emperor as pious, cloing so in a respectful and
deferential manner.'ı
Paul Speck, 1-Ieinz Gauer and Julian Chrysostomides, who devoted detailed
studies to this versioıı of the Letter ( excluding later variants and developrnents),
agreed tlıat tlıc present text is an enlarged and interpolated version of a substantially
shorter lettcr, now lost, whiclı was actually sent by the patriarchs to Theophilos. 10
But to ascertain wlıich parts are original, and which are not, was not an easy matter
and their opinions divergecl to a great extent concerning individual passages.
Speck scrutinized tlıe text clıapter after chapter and judged, ınostly according to
the content, which sections were probably written by the patriarchs and whiclı
were in his opinion later interpolations. His method was rather arbitraıy for it
depended on a subjective assessment ofwhat was to be expected from iconophile
patriarchs writing to a Byzantine·enıperor. Ancl his final conclusions presupposed
tlıat tlıe original letter passecl througlı many stages in its transınission, whereby
not only was the text lıeavily interpolated but also tlıe papyrus support suffered
significant damage, thus ınaking soıne passages scarcely reaclable. Gauer, who
basecl his analysis on Speck, followecl however a ınore conservative approach,
with the consequence that he admitted great parts ofthe text as being authentic. 11
The method adoptecl by Chrysostomicles was different. She divided the text of
the Letter into four main sections according to their content. She also considered
in a more systeınatic way the protocol to be observed in an address to the eınperor,
the vocabulary ancl style eınployecl, the aggregative or anthologic nature of the
central section ofthe work (a list ofmiracles performecl by icons), the sources, the
historical references and the kinci of quotations eınployed. She further connected
each of the parts to different stages of the transmission, and concluded that the
original core of the work was to be sought in the initial chapters (salutation­
§6a), a passage in the middle of the work (§8a-§8t) and the ending (§ 14--§ 15).
Chrysostoınides finally suggested that this original core of the text "went through
one stage, or even two stages, of interpolation, when elements were introduced
that.dicl not form part ofthe official teaching ofthe Church"Y

7 Letter to Theophilos, 5-6.

8 Letter to Theophilos, 7-13.
9 Letter to Theoplıilos, 14-15.
10 Speck ( 1990) 449-534, Gauer ( 1994) lxxii-lx xvi and Chrysostomides (1997).
11 According to the numeration of the edition of Munitiz, Gauer admits as original
the title, the salutation, aııd §§ la-3a, 3c, 4a-4g, 5c-5j, 6c-7d, 7.la-7.Sa, 8d-8f, l3a-13d
aııd 15.
12 Chrysostoınides ( 1997) xxxvii.
 Tlıe Leııer o/'ılıe Tlıree Melkiıe Pcııriarclıs ıo T!ıeop!ıi/os 369

After her study, an article by Dinıitıy Afınogenov appeared witlı sonıe comments
about an uneditecl Slavonic version of the letter, probably macle on Mt. Athos in
the second halfofthe fourteeııth ceııtury but basecl on an old Greek version ofthe
text. Taking into accouııt certain details (a lesser ııumber of nıiracles liııked with
icons, more direct appeals to the emperor Theoplıilos), Afıııogeııov supposed this
version to be even older than the one preserved in tlıe Greek tradition. 13 He has now
reinforced his argunıents in a detailed study ofthe Slavonic text that introduces his
edition and is accompanied by an English translation. 14 There Afinogenov points
out that the Greek manuscript prototype of the Slavonic translation can be dated
no later thaıı tlıe third quarter of the ninth century. However, it must be stressed
that al! the nıaııuscripts preserving the text are later tlıaıı the fourteenth centuıy,
tlıat Afinogenov stil! aclmits interpolations in the Slavonic text, and that there are
some passages, as we shall immediately see, in which the Slavonic versioıı seems
to summarize the Greelc text.
Accorcliııgly, it is to tlıe arguments of Clııysostornides that we will tum our
atteııtion, as her systematice approach appears to be tlıe most convincing, although
one could also argue tlıat slıe oversimplified the problems posed by the textual
traıfsmission in order to present a clear-cut sclıeme tlıat does not necessarily
correspond to tlıe complex reality. Nevertlıeless, her conclusions are based on an
overall conception oftlıe text that is lacking in tlıe studies ofSpeck and Gauer. She
does not claim eitlıer to explain any single problem posed by the text, but just to
offer a likely explanation for its structure and the asseınbling ofits major sections.
it is wortlı considering in this connection how the Byzantines may have worked
with the texts when they tried to amplify or even to nıodify them according to a
given purpose. Speck seems to presuppose that they reworked practically eveıy
sentence in order to fit theın ali into an overall picture and make a new coherent
text with a new message out of an older one with a different intention. He also
appears to think that they were always unsuccessful in their attempt to erase the
traces of the prototype or original text ("Urtext"), for he is more or less able to
find the way baclc to it. Nevertheless, this systematic rewriting ofthe texts to give
them a new sense appears not only too modem, but also too complex to be worth
doing. A more siınple procedure, one that indeed leaves traces but could also prove
effective, could be envisaged, where the text was interpolated, but not entirely
rewritten. New passages were added, others were suppressed, but little rewriting
took place. This was ali that was needed to change the intention of a text for
most contemporaıy readers, who were not natura! bom philologists and did not
pay attention to the apparent unevenness and contradictions of the final text. As
a matter of fact, they \\fere used to these kinci of cut-and-paste works, for writers
always profited from thework of their forerunners.

13
Afinogenov (2003-2004) 20-33.
1�
Afinogenov (fortlıcoıniııg). 1 tlıaıık tlıe autlıor for providing ıııe witlı a first draft of
his text.
370 T/ıe Eıııı1erur T/ıeuplıilos c111d ılıe Ecısı, 819-·841

Marie-France Auzepy demonstrated in her analysis of the Adversııs

Coııstaııtimıııı Caba/li1111m (CC) 15 tlıat a text could be interpolated in suclı a way.
She showed tlıat a synodical letter written by the patriarch John of Jerusalem c.
730 was anıplified to form tlıe present CC. The wording ofthe original synodica,
wrilten in the first person and not as a dialogue like the rest of the text, has been
preserved in three passages, placed at the beginning, the ıniddle and the end of
the CC, exactly the saıne position Chıysostomides conjectured for the passages
preserving the original letter ofthe three patriarchs. 16
Moreover, lhe conclusions of Chıysostonıides are partly reinforced by the
stylistic analysis ınade in the same voluıne by Eirene Harvalia-Crook. This
researcher establishecl, based on exclusive linguistic criteria, three types of
slyles in tlıe Letter, lype I being tlıe most elevated and IIl tlıe lowest, whereas
type il represents a ıniddle way, highly rhetorical and not always grammatically
correct. Harvalia-Crook suggests that type I could have been written "by the three
patriarclıs theınselves or their highest secretariat" and types 11-llI by other scribes
ofthe patriarchal secretariat or later interpolators.
it is not coiııciclental that type I is represeııted at the beginning (salutation-§4g)
and tlıe end of the Letter ( § 14-l 5), tlıe parts tlıat Chıysostomides tlıôught to be
original. Paragraplıs §5a-§6a and §8a-§8f, whiclı pertain to tlıe original Letter
for Clırysostomides, are excluded by Harvalia-Crook from type I and included
in lype II. it is difficult to say whether we must consider them original, following
Chıysostomides, or not, following Harvalia-Crook. I tend to give more credence
to Harvalia-Crook in this respect, for two reasons that will soon be evident, first
because they are more rhetorical and not so balanced as the passages oftype I, and
second because they refer expressly to icons, which are not mentioned at ali in the
passages oftype l.
In the ensuing analysis I will focus on the passages ofHarvalia-Crook's type I.
and consider whether they represent the original core of the letter of the three
patriarchs. O):ıviously, no definitive conclusion will ever be reached on this point
because ofthe heterogeneous nature ofthe work and its complicated transmission.
Nevertheless, I hope to add new arguments to the forma! analysis of Harvalia­
Crook in order to demonstrate that the initial chapters may well have been written
by the Melkite patriarchs for Theophilos. In contrast, the opening and closing
paragraphs ofthe work appear to have undergone at least some reworking. We will
first reflect on the information carried by the title and the protocol, which provide
a dating to the text (836) and present it as the result of the synod summoned
in Jenısaleın (section 21.2). Then we will consider the historicity of a general
synod ofthe Melkites at this time (section 21.3). Then we will examine the initial
chapters ofthe Letter, which most probably preserved the original text, and reflect

15 Auzepy ( 1995).
ır, For interpolated passages witlı references to icon worslıip again in the middle
section of tlıe letters of Pope Gregory Il and patriarclı Gerıııanos, see Bnıbaker aııd Haldon
(2011) 91-6.
 Tlıe Lellr!r oj'ı/ıe Tlıree Mr!lkiıe Paıriarc/ıs ıo Tlıeoplıilos 371

on tlıe tlıeological stance towards icons tlıat can be deduced from tlıem (section
21.4). Soıııe considerations will follow aboul tlıe closing of tlıe Letter ,vitlı its
mention oftlıe icon oftlıe Yirgin and Clıild (section 21.5). In tlıe following section
an explanation will be souglıt for tlıe patriarclıs' appeal to tlıe eıııperor to reconquer
tlıeir laııds for tlıe empire (section 21.6). Next, we will evaluate tlıe inforıııation
preserved in the sources about tlıe iconoplıile stance of some Melkite patriarchs
after 843 (section 21. 7). Fiııally, we will consider wlıere the forgeıy could have
been concocted (sectioıı 21.8).

21.2 Patchwork in the lLetter's Title and Protocol

Tlıe title of tlıe Letter to Tlıeoplıilos runs as follows in wlıat the eclitors consider
tlıe oldest extant version oftlıe text:

'Eıncrroıı.ıj ı:föv Cf'/tt,ıı:&ı:oıv ırrıı:pmpxcııv, Xptcrı:mp6pou i\ıı.r.i;avi5pr.[cı.ı:;,

'fciıB Avı:ıoxr.ir1ı:;, Baaııı.Eiou ·ı�;pocrn/ı.U�l(J)V ıı:poı:; ı:ov Baaııı.tr.ı 0E6<ptAOV
l((l)VCTWVrtVO\lıtO/ı.f,(ılÇ ypmpEİcra CV Tfi ay[Çl iCO/ı.El fEp0llCTf1Alj�L17 EV Tfi ay[ç1
0

f\vacrı:acrEt m;pi ı:ciıv üyi(l)v ıcr1i nıduıv Kal <rnBacr�dwv EiK6vc,ıv, txoucra ev
ırn<paıı.[◊t TOV üytov xnpnKı:ııpa Tl]Ç ıı:a.vay[aı:; 0EOTOKO\l Map[aç eÇrnypwpıwevov,
tv ayKct/ı.fllÇ <pepoucra TOV L(l)t�pa, auva0pOLcr0evrwv aıi,föv ev ı:ft ay[a ıı:6AEl,
�lETU �LEyaıı.ııı:; auv68ou, ı:ov apt0�LOV eıncrıc6ıı:wv pıı:E', ııyou�lf,\/(t)V tÇ', �ıovaxô'ıv
,apvy'· �nıvi AnptAAiqı ivi5ucnctJvoı:; ılı', frouç ,ı:;ı:�ti5' . 18

In the traııslation by Munitiz:

Letter of the most holy patriarchs, Christophoros ofAlexandria, Job ofAntioch

and Basil ofJerusalem, to the emperor Theophilos of Constantinople, written in
the holy city of Jerusalem in the church of the Holy Resurrection, concerning
the holy, venerable and revered icoııs, having at its head the holy representation
ofthe all-holy Theotokos Maria, depicted bearing the Saviour in her arıus; they
haviııg gathered together in the holy city aloııg with a great synod, tlıe number
ofbislıops beiııg 185, abbots 17, aııd monks 1153, in the nıonth ofApril, the 14th
indictioıı, in the year 6344.

Speck sustained that the title was ınade up of several sources ancl pointed to
possible cleficiencies (absence of clay mımber and day of the week in the dating,
repetition of the reference to Jerusalem) and alien eleınents in it (the reference to
the icon ofMary was surely interpolated). 19 Gauer for his part centred his analysis
on tlıe historicity of the evidence provided by the title: dating, iclentity of the

°
17
Gauer ( 1994) 2 does not include ev tft ayiÇL n6ıı.Et 'IEpoucraıı.��L in tlıe title.
18
Lefler to Tlıeop!ıilos, Title.
1''
Speck ( 1990) 452-4.
372 Tlıe Emperor T!ıeop/ıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 829-842

patriarchs rnentioned, nurnber ofparticipants in the synod and the reference to the
icon ofMary. He came to the conclusion that ali these data were historically sound,
thus arguing on behalf of the title's authenticity. 2° Chrysostornides, on her part,
rejected the possibility that the title was authentic. First of ali, she argued, "the
reference to the three patriarchs as cı.ytwraı:o)v could not have corne from the writers
themselves". Besides, Theophilos would never have been addressed as "emperor
ofConstantinople" instead ofemperor ofthe Romans. She further considered that
the description of the icon of the Virgin and Child did not pertain to the title and
that the names of the patriarchs and the place where the synod was held should
appear at the close ofthe work, where they are lacking. Chrysostomides concluded
that ali these details pointed to a copyist supplying this kind of inforınation from
elsewhere. 21 Finally, Chıysostomides considered the figures given in the title for
the participants in the synod to be unlikely, for such a large gathering could not
have taken place in Jerusalem during Arab ruleY
Her interpretation is again the most detailed and convincing. it is clear that
whoever wrote the title did not know the forımılaic conventions of the ofücial
documents of tlıe period, and could not therefore have been the same person who
cornposed the Letter. Moreover, the wording of the title presents sorne evidence
of its patchy character.
To begin with, the "holy city", as Paul Speck pointed out,13 is mentioned
twice in the title as the place where the letter was writterı and the synod met. T his
repetition seems odd and unnecessary if the title was composed in one go. Also,
the genitives tmcrıc6rcwv, rıyowtsvwv and �t0vax&v are only syntactically sound if
we understand thenı as deternıinants of cruv68ou,24 for another genitive absolute
with an implied participle övrwv would appear more forced. But the accusative of
relation rov apt0µ6v breaks this syntactical sequence, for it is clumsily inserted
between cruv68ou and tmcrıc6rcwv, whereas its proper place would be after this last
word, to which it refers, and before the number of bishops. To say the least, the
construction ofthis phrase is neither particularly elegant nor fortunate.
Now, Athos Iviron 381 presents a different reading of this second part of the
title without the tem1s that make the difficulties:

... cruva0poıcr0tvrwv µım'ı. �u,yaıı.rıı:; cruv66ou ılıı:tcrıc6ıı:wv pıı:E', �you�uıvoıv ıÇ',

�wvaxö:ıv ,apvy' · �trıvi Aıı:pıUicp lvöıımö:ıvoç ıö', ihouç ,çrµö' .25

20 Gauer (1994) lxi-lxviii.

21 Chrysostomides (1997) xviii-xix.
,, Chrysostomides (1997) xix-xx.
23 Speck (1990) 453.
2-ı This is how Gauer (] 994) 3 understands the text in his translation. The genitive
Eıı:tcrıc6ıı:(J)v cannot be tlıe sııbject of cruva0poıcr0tvnııv because tlıis place is already taken
by a.im,ıv.
25 Lefler ıo Tlıeop/ıilos, title.
 Tlıe Leııer oltlıe Tlıree Melkite Patriarchs to Tlıeoplıilos 373

... wlıercas 185 bislıops, 17 abbots aııd 1 153 moııks gatlıered togetlıer aloııg
ıı-itlı a great syııod, in tlıe 111011th of April, tlıe 14th iııdictioıı, in tlıe year 6344.

in the Iviron manuscript it is the syntagma pı::ra �ıı::yaıı.rıç cruv68ou, which

now seenıs odcl, for we should rather expect a locative. it coulcl appear that the
Iviron 381, a !ate manuscript without known model (copied in 1426), triecl to
mend the textual problems we have noticed by suppressing some terms. But,
curiously enough, the syntagma �ıı::ra �ıı::yaıı.ııç cmv68ou is suppressed in two
other nıanuscripts, Dublin, Trinity College 185 (beginning of eleventh century)
and Athos, Vatopedi 37 (c. 1330), which instead transmit the words omitted by
lviron (i.e., aıh&v ev rfi a.y[a n6ıı.ı::t and 'COV apı0�ıov). Ali three manuscripts are
part of the same branch of the tradition (B in the terıninology of Munitiz), one
that depencls on a brother manuscript ofthe oldest copy preserved, tlıe Patmiensis
48 (late ninth or tenth century). As the rest of the manuscripts of the two other
branches of the traclition preserve ali the missing worcls of this passage, it is not
possible to correct the text of the title according to the readings provicled by the
nıanuscripts ofbranch B.26
ünce the patchy character ofthe title has been nıacle eviclent, we nıust consicler
from where the author coulcl have obtainecl the inforınation used to compose it. A
shoıi comparison witlı the Slavonic translation is illuminating in this regard. Tlıere,
a shorter and less inforınative heading has been preserved, in whiclı the work is
qualified as a "manifold letter" (as Afinogenov rightly argues, a translation ofthe
Greek noıı.ı'.ıcrrıxoç emcrroıı.�, a name that appears in later Greek mamıscripts), tlıe
names of tlıe patriarchs are given and the total nunıbers of the signatories of the
clocument (no synod in Jenısalem is mentioned!) are reckoned as 1455.27 This
number is the result of an error in tlıe addition, for 185 bishops, 17 abbots and
1153 monks add up to 1355 participants. This is a clear proof of tlıe derivative
character ofthe Slavonic version.
Curiously enough, the Slavonic version has preserved towarcls its end a
reference to the day (Resurrection Sunday) and place (Jerusalem, "in the temple of
the Holy Resurrection on the place ofCalvary") where the synod met, giving again
the same erroneous number ofparticipants, 1355. In this same passage the writing
of the text is linkecl to a certain Basil. We will retum to this person below,28 but
for the moment it suffices to note that the passage does not conclude the work, for
some nıore paragraphs follow: first, a passage where the signatories wish victory,
health and prosperity to the emperor; then a sentence where an absolute dating for
the synod is given for the first time ("April ofthe 14th indiction ofthe year from

26 Munitiz (1997b) xcii.

27
Afiııogenov (2003-2004) 25.
28 See sectioıı 21.8, wlıere tlıe wlıole passage is copied in tlıe Englislı traııslatioıı made
by Afiııogeııov (fortlıcoıning).
374 Tlıc E111ııeror Tlıeoplıilos a11d tlıe East. 819-842

the Creation 6344"), thus providing a kind of colophon to the text;29 and finally
a long discourse in defence of icon worship, which contains a reference to the
painted image of the Yirgin and her Son that headed the letter (to this ending we
will return in section 21.6).
As we see, the references that appear in the title ofthe Greek text are dispersed
in the Slavonic version between its heading and towards its end. it appears difficult
to ascertain which version comes first, for in some points (the reference to Basil
or to the temple of Holy Resurrection) the Slavonic text contains more details
(although these could be later additions or expansions), but in others, especially
concerning the exact nunıbers ofbishops, abbots and nıonks, it is clearly derivative.
Perhaps the safest conclusion is that the Greek ancl Slavonic versions reworked the
original text, providing different headings for a text that lacked any introduction at
ali. lt appears thal both versions were based on an original "colophon", but that the
Slavonic version retained it in its original location, thus creating some duplicates
with the title, whereas the Greek one suppressed it once the data it contained were
re-used for the title.
Let us ııow consider the protocol ofthe Letter, which follows the title and was
called sa/uıcıtio by the editors. it also appears not to be original. The "standard"
version of this protocol runs as follows:

Tcj'ı EK rı1ı; avm0av 0aiaı; 1mvcr8avoiiı; ıı: avı:oı<:pawptKfiç ôaçtüı; ı:oii uıııicrwu
pacrıı,ewı; röıv pacrıtı.foıv, ıcai ırupiou röıv ırupioıv, oı· oi'i f]o.aıAeTç fJo.aıAeuovaı,
1(0.İ rupo.vvoı Kp aroiiaı )'1/Ç, ot' oi'i peyıaro.veç JIE:)'aAU\IOFTW, ıco.i ovvaaraı
)'paıpovaı 011caıoauv17v, o6çn ıco.i rıpıj ıcareareppi:vçv, 0aoıı:pop1ı.11rq:ı, 0aocrrrıpiKTq:ı,
0EOCT1:E7Cl:(fl, <pepWVU�l(fl pacrıtı.Et Kpaı:icrı:q:ı 0eO(Jltlı.(fl, Vl1Cl1'rfi TpOn:atOUX(fl
O.UTOKpaTOpt, a[mv[qı aıiyoucrnµ, 0eOTl�l�Tqı oEcrn:6TTI, Oİ ıcar' EıtlVEUcrtV ıcai
ıı:p6crıc1ı.rıcrıv rfiç 0Eiaı; ıı:po�LI]0Eiaı; nıı; ôµooucriou ıcai Çmapxtıcfiç Tpıaooı; roı'.ıı;
Otaımç TÔJV aıı:ocrı:Otı.llCÔlV ICO.t '/CO.TptapXllCÔlV 0pOVWV, A.tı.EÇO.VOpEtO.Ç, A.VTtOXEtO.Ç,
·ıı::pocroMµwv, ıcai o[ �Lı::0' it�Lôıv oıipavoµıµrıwu iapapxiaı; riJv oıaıc6crµrıcrıv,
aıı:ô U\la.TO/ı.ÔJV 1)/ı.lOU �LEXPl oucrµöıv E/ı.Tjlı.O.XOTEÇ IC0.1:EXElV, EV Kupiqı xaipELV.

In Munitiz's translation:

To the rnost powerful emperor, advanced by God, supported by God, crowned

by God, appropri ately named Theophilos, crowned in glory and honour by
the divine, powerful and almighty right hand frorn above of the highest King
of kings, and lord of lords, by whom kings reign and despots hold sway over
the earth, and by whom the great are extolled and rulers decree justice, to the
victorious and triumphant sovereign, etemal Augustus aııd God-honoured
despot, we who have been eııtrusted with the goverııance of the apostolic and

'" According to Afinogenov (2003-2004) 26 the original Greek colophon can be

recoııstnıcted as follows froın the formulaic text in Slavonic: eypa<pıı oe müm EV rqı ı:t�Liqı
lW.TplUPXEll[l nı,; ô.y[uç rr6Aetuç ·1ı::poucrrı.1ı.11�t, �uıvi arrptUiqı l\'Oll(T[(ı)VOÇ to', i::ı:ouı; ı;ı:�to'.
 Tlıe Letter o/tlıe T/ıree Melkiıe Paıriarc/ıs to T/ıeop/ıilos 375

patriarclıal tlıroııes of Alexaııdria, Aııtioclı and Jenısalcın, witlı tlıe assent aııcl
iııvitatioıı of cliviııe provicleııce of tlıe coıısubstaııtial and life-giving Triııity, aııcl
also tlıose wlıo witlı us have been proıııotecl to occupy tlıe ranks oftlıat lıierarclıy
wlıiclı inıitates tlıe celestial one, froııı tlıe rising of tlıe sun to its setting, give
greetiııgs to lıiııı in the Lord.

This salııtatio cannot be accepted as authentic for several reasons. First of ali,
there are the titles given to Theophilos, who is nıentioned before the actual senders
of the text, as was to be expected. Some of these titles can indeed be found in
the imperial docuınents of the period, for example aiülVtOÇ aüyoucnoç or vucırı:ıiç
auı:oıcpcı:rO)p, although the Amorians seem to have adopted a sober approach,
as is ınade evident by the Letter to Louis the Pious ("Michahel et Theophilus,
fideles in ipso Deo imperatores Romanorum"). More telling is the fact that mır
salutatio addresses the emperor with a long series of epithets that appear in part
to be a rhetorical development out of the name of the ernperor: 0ı,on:p6plrp:oç,
0wcnııpııcroç, 0c6crrcn:roç, 0wı:i�nrrnç. Moreover, the use ofa title like 8wn:6ı:ııç,
albeit present on the coins ofthe reign ofTlıeophilos, seems only to have been used
for his son and co-emperor Constantine. 30 üne might attribute these intitulatiories
to tlıe lack ofexperience ofthe Melkite clıancelleıy in Jerusaleın (who had sparse
contact with the irnperial power at Constantinople), or even to an exaggerated will
to flatter the emperor, but the general irnpression speaks for a reconstnıction ofthe
iınperial titles by some inexperienced forger.
Then, the three patriarchs present thernselves without narnes or titles as the
senders of the text, which is alien to the practices of official documents of this
kind. They are also strangely introduced as governing the Church "from the rising
sun to its setting" (ano ava:r:oııiJw �1ı,iou �ıexpı 8ucrµ&v), again a rhetorical foım
which does not say very much. 31 Along with them some unspecified members of
the church hierarchy appear as senders ofthe text, perhaps also as signatories, but
their number or status is not given. Finally, the closing ev Kup{qı xaipcıv does not
seem adequate for a protocol, but for an ordinaıy letter.
Before looking for an explanation for this anomalous protocol, we will first
consider another piece of text in the Letter transmitted by Athos Iviron 381.
Along with the title already mentioned and the ensuing salutatio (both with
minor differences from the "standard" version of the Letter), this manuscript also
contains an interesting passage towards the end ofthe work, which no other source
has preserved. The passage appears like a kind ofeschatocol and reads as follows:

30
See Grierson (1973) 406-51, Treaclgold (1975), Füeg (2007) 25-8, 71-3 ancl
Lightfoot (2011).
'1
Unless it can be adduced as proof tlıat the original text referred soınelıow to an
ecuınenical synod of the church gatlıering at Coııstaııtiııople and iııcludiııg westerıı aııd
easterıı proviııces, and not just to an asseıııbly of tlıe Melkite patriarclıates.
376 Tlıe Emperur Tlıeoplıi/os cınd ıhe Eası. 829-842

Taüı:a ı1peıı;, Xpıcrr6<popoç iUel;avopiaç, ·ıc.iıB Avnox.eiuı;, Bacr[ı,eıoç

·ıepocroı,ı'.ıµ(!Jv, criıv eıı:ıcrK6n:oıı; pn:e·, 11you�ıevoıı; errwKa[oeım, �ıovüÇoucrı
x.ıi.iouç EKarov rrevrıjKovru rrpoç rotc; rpıcri, cruyypaıııü�ıevoı ün:ecrrüı.Ka�ıev croı,
Kpüncrre Brmıı.eü, µF.rc'L wi ı'.ırroypmpciıv E.X,oııcrciıv E.KÜcrrou övo�ıa Kal r6rrov
eıı:ıcrKomjı;, Kai �ııırporr6ı,eoıç Kai �ıovfjc; Kai zciıpuç. Ü oe cruvre0eiç rrap · ��ıcııv
ı.iBeı.ı,o,; 6p0o&6çoıı rr[crrnwc; EX,lll oürcııç·

We Christophoros ofA lexandria, Job ofAntioch, Basil ofJenısalem, with the one
hunclred and eighty-fıve bishops, seventeen abbots, one thousand one hundred
and fifty-three ınonks, wrole and sent you this lelter, ınighty eınperor, with the
signaturcs of each participant, name and place of his bislıopric, ınetropolis,
monaslcry and village. The stateınent of lhe orthodox faitlı coınposed by us
contains the following: 32

Tlıis direct address to the emperor is also not original, because neither the
senders nor the addressee have any titles or epithets given. The passage seems to
introduce a subscriptio "with tlıe signatures of each participant, name and p\ace of
his bishopric, metropolis, monastery and village", but in fact the "statement ofthe
orthodox" faith (1ı.i�s),Jı.oı; op0o86çou nicrı:sü)ı;) it introduces follows the passage in
the lviron manuscript, thus closing its version ofLetter. 33 Our "subscriptio" turns
out to be a soıi oftransitional piece ofdubious nature.
The confession offaith preserved in the Iviron does not appear in the "standard"
version. This text is different from the previous long text of the Letter that was
copied before in the Iviron (to a great extent coincidental with the "standard"
version), for this is referred to with the initial ı:aiiı:a and the aorist a.nscrı:&.1ı.Kaµev,
whereas the sentence presenting the 1ı.i�eUoı; begins with a öe (which clearly
marks a transition to a new topic) and uses the present tense (exe1). If we follow
the Iviron manuscript, it appears that the patriarchs were sending two different
kinds of text to the emperor, an initial exposition of their theological arguments,
constituting the main text ofthe Letter with tlıe signatures of the senders, and a
slıorter expositio fidei. This seems to be a strange procedure at first sight, unless
we surmise some kind ofreworking for this untypical "subscriptio".
Interestingly enough, this "subscriptio" contains the names of the three
patriarchs, Christopher, Job and Basil, who were not mentioned in the salutatio
of the "standard" version. These patriarchs, the same whose names appear in
the spurious title, were in fact contemporary to each other and to the emperor
Theophilos. Christopher, who was seriously ili in the !ast years of his reign and
could not ınove, ınay have been in charge as !ate as 848.34 Job probably reigned for

32 Munitiz et al. (1997) 124-5.

33
Munitiz et al. ( l 997) 125-31.
-'• Gauer ( 1994) lxiii and Nasrallah (1987) 16 ancl 23. See, however, below in section
21.7 for patriarch Soplıronios of Alexandria ruling since 836.
 Tlıe Leııer of ılıe Tlıree ı\Ielkiıe Paıriarclıs /o Tlıeop/ıilos 377

a veıy long period, perhaps fronı 799 to 843.35 And Basil nıay have reigned fronı
821 to 839 or even until the !ate 840s.36 Tlıus, tlıeoretically, tlıey could ali have
met in a synod lıeld. in Jenısalenı, as tlıe title says, in the year since creation 6344
and the 14th indiction, corresponding to 836. This coincidence is important not
only because it proves that the data provided by the title fit in well with the scant
information we now have at our disposal, but also because they could not lıave
been easily forged in Constantinople, at a time when contenıporary Byzantines,
even those as well infoııned as Theodore Stoudite, did not always know tlıe nanıes
ofthe Melkite patriarclıs. 37
On balance we can conclude that title and protocol as well as the "subscriptio"
of tlıe lviron manuscript are spurious and represent a kind of patclıwork of
references taken from different sources. However, at the sanıe time, sonıe of the
details given seem to be authentic, so it is quite possible that tlıey were somehow
boıTOwed fronı tlıe text ofthe original letter. Tlıis is an important point, for it will
enable us in section 21.3 to inquire further about the historical background ofa
Jerusalenıite synod ofthc Mclkite Clıurclı suınmoned in the time ofthe Abbasids.
Anyway, one problem remains to be dealt with before we proceed to consider
the historicity ofsuch a council. Ifwc adnıit that tlıe original wording ofthe Letter
was preserved in tlıe initial chapters, where, as we slıall see in section 21.4 below,
the patriarchs seem to adopt an aniconic stance, why then should the forger wlıo
expanded and interpolated tlıis original text not also bave copied tbe original
protocol of the Letter? Why did he choose instead to compose his own title and
introduction for the text ofthe Letter ifthe original !ay at hand? Was the original
protocol, a diplonıatic piece ofa neutral stance, not Iikely to lend more credence
to his forgery tlıan the spurious patchwork he wrote to introduce the Letter? How
could he not have been conscious that his own rewording ofthe protocol could not
but betray his forger's hand?
Otto Kresten suggested to me a likely explanation for this situation, one that
takes into account the habitual procedures ofthe Byzantine impeıial chancellery.
Kresten has rightly seen that some documents of the imperial chancellery
as preserved in the acts of the Constantinopolitanıım 11/38 seem to present a
(partially) reconstructed protocol. The cause ]ay in the fact that the copyist who
wrote the acts of the council and was charged to include there a version of the
imperial document no Ionger had the original document at his disposal, but had
to rely on the official copy entered in the imperial register book. There, most of
the documents were copied without any protocol because it was obviously known
to the clerks, who copied dozens of such documents under the reign ofa given
emperor with identical opening and closing parts. If we apply this conclusion to
0tır case, we can conjecture that the forger of our text took as tbe basis for his

35 Nasrallah ( 1986-1987) 60, ( 1987) 16. For Job see also Chapter 1.3.
ır, Gauer (1994) lxiii and Nasrallah (1987) 16-17.
37 Signes Codoiier (2014 ).
·" As eclitccl by Riedinger ( 1990-1995).
378 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ılıe Easl, 819-842

work a copy of the Lelier entered in the patriarchal register and lacking a protocol .
Perhaps tlıe regisler included some cursory indications about date, signatories and
scope of the document lhat our forger developed into the actual title and protocol
of the present version of lhe Letter.
A serious objection to this hypothesis arises from the secret character of the
original Letıer, a question we will discuss at some length in section 21.6 below. This
wou ld imply the existence of a secret register of the patriarchate, from which our
forger copied the main texl of the Letler. There is nothing objectionable per se in
this supposition, but it is just a petitio principii and perhaps other altematives could
be envisaged. Since some parts of the expanded Letter point to Constantinople as
the place where the interpolated text was written, as we shall see in section 21.8,
it is lhen conceivable that some palatine clerk in the capital succeeded in making
a partial copy of the original Letter (without protocol and eschatocol) from the
imperial register for incoming letters, where it was entered on its reception after
836. The original Letter could even have been copied without introducing and
concluding parts in the incoming register. This copy would provide the basis for
the interpolations ofthe forger.

21.3 The Jerusalemite Synod of the Melkites

As we have seen, the title of the Letter to Theophilos declares that the text was
written by the three patriarchs in Jerusalem, where the synod gathered in April
836. Supposedly 185 bishops, 17 abbots and 1153 monks attended there. The same
numbers appear again in what we called the "subscriptio" of Iviron 381.39 The
total number ofparticipants given in the Slavonic version, 1455 (instead of 1355)
is the result of an error in the reckoning, as we mentioned above.
The only fı.ırther source that mentions the existence ofa synod held in Jerusalem
at the time is the Life of Theodore of Edessa. The historical significance of this
L[fe will be dealt with in Chapter 22, but for now suffice it to say that it contains
many historical impossibilities, among them a narrative of the conversion of the
caliph to Christianity through the agency of Theodore, the monk of Mar Sabas
and bishop ofEdessa.40 His nephew Basil claims to write Theodore's L[fe as direct
witness of his deeds. There are in the text no exact dates for the events mentioned,
with the exception ofa visit Theodore paid to the emperors Theodora and Michael
in Constantinople; 1 therefore dated after 842. The passionate defence of icons
made by Theodore42 also places the writing of the work in the second half of the
ninth century.43

39 Munitiz et al. ( 1997) 124.

40 On Theodore see PınbZ #7683.
41 L/fe of Tlıeodore ofEdessa chapter 84 (89.5-7)
4ı L/fe of Tlıeodore ofEdessa, chapters 46-7 and 86.
43 See however Binggeli (2010) and below.,
 Tlıe leııer o/'ılıe Tlıree ı\Ielkiıe Paıriarclıs ıo Tlıeop/ıilrıs 379

According to tlıe L{fe, at tlıe time wlıen Tlıeodore was nıonk in tlıe Mar Sabas
nıonastery in Palestine, cluring Passion Week aııcl Easter (ımr· atm'1,; 611 taç
��tııpw; -rföv crı::�acr�tirnv ım0&v mu ıcupiou ıwi nıç Çcoıırp6ıpou ıcai ayiw; c1ı'.ırni:i
avacrrcı.crı::rnç), "it happenecl that tlıe patriarch of Antioclı arrivecl in tlıc Holy City
witlı his bishops" ( Eyııvı::ro ıcai rov 1ı:arpıapxııv A vnoxı::iaç Ev rfi ayiçı ıı:apayı::vfo0aı
ıı:6ı..ı::ı CTUVa�ta rni:ç im' aurov Eıı:tcrıc6ıı:otç), "partly for seeing ancl worshipping tlıe
Sepulchre whiclı sheds and receives life" (toi:irn �ıev ıcata 0fov ıcai ıı:pocrıcuvııcrıv
mu Çwııppurou ıcai Çcooooxou t&.ıpou), "partly also for some ecclesiastical
nıatters" (rni:ito 8t ıcai öıa nvaç Eıcıcı..ııcrıacrnı<:ac; uıı:o0foı::ıç). Tlıe nature of these
"ecclesiastical ıııatters" is not inclicated in the text, although it is further saicl that
when both the patriarclıs of Jerusalem and Antioclı were assembled there along
with their bishops (ıı:ap6vtü)V ÖE C(�l(pOTEpwv TO)V ıı:atpıapx&v ımi Tü)V uıı:' f1UTOUÇ
apxıı::pı\(ı)v), the clergy ancl laymen of Edessa came into the presence of the holy
synocl (ıı:pocr�ı..0ov -rfi iı::pi! cruv6ôcp) witlı a petition, nanıely that a new bishop of
Edessa be urgently appointed to avoicl thc prevailing dissension in tlıe see after
the death of the !ast holcler.4•1 Tlıe patriarch of Jerusalem, after exchanging some
worcls with his colleague from Antioch, recornmends Theoclore for the post. Tlıe
holy synod (ıi icpa CTUvoooç) agrees, as do the representatives of Eclessa, so tlıat
'Theoclore is appointecl bishop of Eclessa with tlıe coınmon consent of the two
patriarclıs ancl tlıe whole goclly synocl" (ıcoıvft yvo)ıın r&v oı'.ıo natpıapx&v ıcai
na.crrıç r�ç 0ciaç cruv6oou ıı,rı<piÇı::taı 0ı::6/5(ı)poç Eıı:icrıconoç 'Eôfocrııç).45 Then tlıe
patriarch of Jerusaleın writes a letter to Theoclore orclering lıiın to come iııto tlıeir
presence as soon as possible. Theodore appears before the two patriarchs and, after
some resistance, is finally persuaded to assume tlıe post. He is then ordained on
Holy Tlıursday by the patriarch of Antioch during a mass celebrated by tlıe two
patriarclıs and many other bishops (-r&v aµ<porı\prov ı..ı::tı:oupyouvrrov na-rpıapx&v
�tı::ta ıı:on&v faı\prov Eıı:tcrıcon(ı)v).46 During tlıe religious service a wlıite dove
descended upon the head ofthe new bishop, the Life telis us further, thus revealing
God's sanction of Theodore's election. Theodore spends several more days in
Jerusalem, leaving the city for Mar Sabas on the Monday ofHoly Week.47
The L(fe clearly refers to a synod held in Jenısalem with the attendance of
the Melkite patriarchs of Jerusaleın and Antioch and their bishops. Neither the
names of the patriarchs nor the number of the bishops present in the synod are
given. An approximate dating for the event is not given either, altlıough it could
fit in well with the year 836 when, according to the title of the Letter, a synod
met in Jerusaleın: Theodore supposedly visited Constantinople as ordained bishop
between 842 and 856, during the regency ofTheodora.
The reason for holding a synod in Jerusalem during Holy Week is also not
specified beyond the "ecclesiastical ınatters" adcluced as grouncls for it. Vasiliev

44 Life ofTlıeodore ofEdessa, chapter 41 (35.19 - 36.1O).

45 L/fe ofT!ıeodore ofEdessa, chapters 41-2 (36. 11- 37.6).
46
l{fe ofTlıeodore ofEdessa, clıapter 42 (37.6- 38.3 ).
H
l/fe of Theodore o/Edessa, clıapter 42 (38.3-19).
380 Tlıc Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos cmd ılıe Ecısı. 829-842

had no doubt that lhe compilation of a letter to the emperor Theophilos on his
iconoclastic policy was among the matters dealt with by the Melkite representatives
in those days. 48 But in that case, why should the author ofthe L(fe have reınained
silent about thi_s poiııt, when Theodore is openly depicted as a fierce partisan of
icon worship in several passages ofthe work? Either the author ofthe L[le ignored
the real concern of the synod or it had nothing to do with images. The possibility
must be seriously entertained that the synod met simply to regulate internal affairs
of the Melkite Church in the face of the dissension prevailing in some dioceses.
in fact, the clergy and laymen of Edessa who appealed to the synod describe
in alarming tenns the decaying state of their see, upoıı which heretics of many
sorts becarne active atler the !ast bishop 's death (ıı:oUoi tlıı:aı:e0ııcrav aipenKoi ı:ft
n:01cıı:eiı;t ıwcov). These heretics are depicted as followers of Nestorios, Severos
or Eutyches, who "poison ınany souls with their deadly veııom" (ıı:oUaç ,ııuxaç
ıtA.llPOU<Yl ı:ou 0avaı:ıı<p6pou iou auı:cov) and "carıy them away to their complete
destruction" (npoç cı.ıı:ü)Aetav cruvapm'ı.Çoum).49
The palriarch ofAntioch is said to come to Jerusalem first ofall to visit the Holy
City and its rnost famous shrine, the Church ofthe Sepulchre. it is not a dogmatic
debate in the first instance which moves the patriarch to come to Jerusalem, but a
kind of pilgrinıage, for it also tak.es place during Holy Week. This was certainly
the best period to visit Jerusalenı and it is just a natura! coincideııce that the synod
mentioned in the Letter assembled in April of 836, and accordingly also during
HolyWeek.
Nevertheless, the fact renıains that the Life of Theodore records a synod of
the Melkite Church in Jerusalem, where the patriarchs ofAntioch and Jerusalem
gathered in the company oftheir bishops. As the only other synod ofthe Melkite
Church known at the time was the one mentioned in the title of the Letter, the
identification of both lies to hand, especially as the chronology does not stand
in the way and this kind of meeting was anything but usual. The absence of the
patriarch ofAlexandria in the report of the Life was easily explained by Vasiliev
by the fact the he was stricken by paralysis in the !ast years ofhis reign, so that he
was represented in the synod by the bishop Peter. 50
Now, considering the dependence of the Melkite patriarchs on Byzantium,51
it is unlikely that they took the step of summoning a synod on the very sensitive
issue of icon worship, thus challenging the imperial church without any cogent
reason (no deals with Rome are mentioned on this occasion).52 I think therefore

48Vasiliev (1942-1944) 177.

49Life of Tlıeodore ofEdessa, chapter 41 (36.1-9).
50Vasiliev( l942-1944) 122.
;ıAccording to Theoph. 430, Theodore, the patriarch ofAntioch, frequently (üU;cvi.öç)
communicated Arab affairs by Jetter to emperor Constantine V.
5" The supposed Melkite iconophile synods of the eighth century are attested
in Latin sources ancl in tlıe acts of Nikaia 11, but many uncertainties renıain about tlıeir
representalivity. Tlıe Greek iconoplıile Sabbartes, very influential at tlıe Roman curia ofthe
 Tlıe lelll!r of'tlıe Tlıree ,\le/kite Palriarclıs to Tlı<!oıılıi/o.ı· 381

that ifa synocl of tlıe Mel kite Churclı assemblecl in Jenısalem in 836, it was not
to provoke tlıe eınperor with a defence oficoıı worship, but probably to deal with
some internal affairs of the Melkite Church, as we suggestecl above ancl the L[(e
of Tlıeodore of Edessa expressly says. Only in this case coulcl we accept tlıe high
numbers of tlıe participants in the synocl. But in any case, it must have been an
exceptional occasion, promptecl by exceptional circumstances.
The year 836 was certainly a good time to aclclress the emperor, for, as we
already saw in Chapter 15, Theophilos leci victorious campaigns in western
Am1enia between 834 ancl 836, which could have been grouncls enough for the
patriarchs to make an approach to the emperor. In fact, in a passage of the Letter
it is said that tlıe patriarchs "rejoice and take pleasure in the acts of bravery and
prowess of your [Theophilos'] triumphant clivinely granted victory". 53 Although
the victorious campaign ofTheophilos in 837 in Sozopetra, which caıne afterwards,
coulcl have provided an even belter occasion for tlıe writing oftlıe Letter, a clating
of 836 also seems possible. Nevertheless, rnore precise circumslances tlıan the
emperor's victories were required to assemble a council in Jerusaleın.Tlıe only
likely explanation is an appeal by Constantinople itself, caused perhaps by the
suınınoning ofa council in the imperial capital.
The question now is whether eviclence for a council in Constantinople at the
time, obviously an iconoclast one, can be found. Whereas it is certainly unlikely
,that an iconophile synod in 836 passecl unnoticed in iconophile propaganda after
843 (including the Letter itself, except for the title), icon worshippers would have
had every reason to silence an iconoclastic gathering cluring Theophilos' reign.
The absence of contemporary iconophile writings during the reign of Theophilos
(Theodore Stoudites died in 826) prevents us from verifying this hypothesis.
However, Chrysostomides venturecl that the gathering of Jerusalem "was a direct
response to the one envisaged in Constantinople a year later". 54 Let us now
consider this possibility.
The Synodicon vetııs does indeecl speak of a Constantinopolitan synod in the
patriarchate of John the Grammarian. 55 According to this source, the emperor
Theophilos, "having organized a godless assembly in Blachemai, anathematized the
worshippers of the revered icons" (ii0ı::ov ev Bıı.axepvaıç ıcaı:acrıcsuıiow; cruveopıov
ı:ouç -ıı:pocrıruvrıı:a.ç ı:&v crı::�acrµirov ı::iıc6vrov uva0ı::µıincrı::). The importance of this
source, written according to the editors "not long after 867",56 is not to be ignored.
Although some of the information provided for older councils is doubtful or
imaginary, the Synodicon had no special reason for attributing to Theophilos the

time, may have amplified the actual support of the Melkite prelates to icon worship. See
Signes Codofier (2013c).
53
Letter ta Theoplıilos, 3d: xuipow:v ıcui yı,y�0U�lEV EV -mıç avopuyu0imç ıcai
aptcr,duıç -rfjç uµ&v ı:ponmouxou 0wocop�ı:ou Vl!CT)Ç.
ı; Clırysostomides ( 1997) xxi.
55
Syııodicon ve/us� 155.
51'
Duffy aııd Parker ( 1979) xiii.
382 Tlıe Eıııperıır Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Easl. 829-841

sumnıoning of a synod different fronı the one that Leo V had already called in 815,
previously referred to by the author.57 it is thc meticulousness of the author ofthe
Syııodicon, who intended to revicw ali the synods of the church, "both orthodox
and hcretical" (ôp0o86i;ouç Kni nipı::nKaç), that perhaps explains why he is the
single source recording this gathering.
About the dating ofthis supposed synod we are given no further clues from the
Syııodicoıı except for the fact that it happened at a time when John the Granımarian
was patriarch, that is to say, after 837 or 838 if we accept that John ascended
to the patriarchal throne according to the communis opinio, although there are
other possible alternatives.5s This appears lo contradict the dating of the Letter
to Tlıeoplıilos to 836. However, the Letter informs us, in a passage that does not
pertain to the original synodical letter, that the patriarch Antonios I Kassyınatas, the
predecessor of John, fell seriously ili "after their falsely named and blasphemous
synod" (�ıeı:a n)v ıııı::uociıvu�ıov 0ı:;6�lf1XOV O"UVOOOV a.uı:mv).59 This would speak for
the synod being held during the patriarchate of Antonios, not of John, and be in
accord with the dating of836 provided by the title ofthe Letter. Warren Treadgold
argued that the synod could only be conceived in connection with an edict against
the iconophiles issued by the emperor in June 833 and frequently referred to in
the sources.60 However, it could also be that the council was suırnnoned to back
previous decisions taken by the emperor.
In order to resolve the contradiction, Chrysostomides suggests that Antonios
had started with the preparations for the synod in 836. He supposedly fell ili at this
time, precisely when the three Melkite patriarchs wrote the Letter to Theophilos.
And as Antonios died before January 837, it was finally John who summoned
the council.61 This explanation does not fit in well with the text of the Letter,
which says that Antonios fell ili ajier the synod, not after sıımmoning the synod.62
Moreover, Antonios seems to have fallen ili as a result of his celebrating an
impious synod, punished by God. The Letter even adds that Jesus has delayed

57
Syııodicoıı vetııs §154.
58
Far a dating of the appointment of John either in January 837 or April 838 see
Grumel (1935),Treadgold (1979b) 178-9 and Pratsch (1999c) 165. See howeverTreadgold
(1988) 436, note 386 far a dating of the council ta 833. According ta Th. Cont. III.26
(121.6-7), John was crowned patriarch on 21 April, a Sunday. Such dates coincide only in
827 (Easter), 832 and 838. As 827 seems too early, far John the Grammarian took part in
embassies ta Baghdad in Theophilos' reign befare being appointed patriarch, there remain
only 832 and 838 as possible dates if we accept the wording ofTh. Cont. See Signes (1995)
535-7. See alsa Chapters 19.1 and 24.1 (note 28) far more arguments favouring an earlier
patriarchate of John.
5" Letter to Theop/ıilos 10.h.
60
Treadgold (1988) 280-81 and 436, note 386. Far the version of the edict in Th.
Cont. III.10 (99.4-100.23) see alsa Signes Codofier (1995) 419-24.
"1
Chrysostomides ( 1997) xxi and note 24.
1''
lıı facl, Chıysostonıides traııslales the passage in I 0.lı as ifthe council had finished
al the time: "oııce tlıeir falsely ııaıned aııcl blasphemous syııod had beeıı helcl".
 Tlıe Leııer o/'!lıe Tlıre<! :\lelkiıe Patriarclıs ıo Tlıeıııı/ıilıı.ı· 383

his death in orcler to give him occasion for repenlance ( Katpov foc,ıç ôı6ouç
pı::rnvoiaç). Pratsclı sııggestecl that Antonios' illness must ha\'C lastecl a long time,
for otlıerwise the Letter woııld nol have made reference to it. He cven hazards that
John was appointed synkellos of Anlonios in the wiııter of 829/830 iıı view of his
serious disability.6·1

We do not have any further infornıation about tlıis iconoclastic coııncil, except
for some reports of debates between the emperor and iconophile saints, which
coııld be connectecl with the proceedings of a synod.64 But, as tlıe matter stands,
an iconoclastic council in Constantinople summoned by Theophilos can be
considered not oııly a historical plaıısibility, but also a ııecessity after the wavering
political and religioııs situation during the reign of Michael, II. The central role
probably assıımecl by tlıe emperor in tlıis coııncil, wlıiclı only the clergy of tlıe
Constantinopolitan patriarchate attencled (surely not the pope ancl the easterıı
patriarchs), nıacle tlıe gathering appear as just tlıe expression of the iınperial will
and not as a coııncil proper. The Iack of dogınatic innovations coulcl also lıave
nıacle it unnecessary for later aııthors to refer to it.
A synod of Jerusalenı nıay lıave been sıımnıonecl by tlıe Melkite aııthorities
to give an adeqııate answer to a possible clenıand from Constantinople. in fact,
the text sent to Theophilos was acconıpaniecl not only by the signature of the
three patriarclıs, but also by that of the other participants in the synocl, if we pay
credence to the "subscriptio" of the I virion manııscript, where it is said that the
text was accompanied "with tlıe signatures of eaclı participant, name and place of
his bishopric, metropolis, ınonastery and village". The salutatio to the emperor as
preserved in the "stanclard" version of the Letter names as senders of the letter,
along witlı the patriarchs themselves, "those who Iıave been promoted to occııpy
tlıe ranks ofthat hierarchy which imitates the celestial one, froın the rising of the
sun to its setting".65 Nunıbers are not given in this salutatio.
But even admitting the iınportance of the occasion, figures of almost two
hundred bishops and more than a thousand monks are inconceivable in Palestine
at the time. Consider for exaınple that the iconoclastic council of Hiereia, with
338 participants,66 bpasted about its high numbers.67 This was surely a reason
for congregating up to 252 bishops in Nikaia II and an unidentified nuınber of
monks.68 It is significant that in the Life ofTheodore ofEdessa Theoclore gives the
nuınbers ofthe participants ofthe seven ecumenical councils (350 for Nikaia il),

63 Pratsch (1999c) 165, note 47.

64
Th. Cont. IIl.11-12 (101.1-102.18).
65
Letter to T/ıeop/ıi/os, salutation.
66
Nikaia II (Mansi) vol. 13, col. 232 E.
67
Nikaia Il (Mansi) vol. 13, col. 233 A.
''8
In tlıe acts ofNikaia [! tlıe bislıops are listed by name; after tlıem, tlıe presence of
EÜA.a�rnı:aı:rnv apxı�tavop[nov ııyowıevrnv ı:E ıca.i �ıovaxciıv is recordecl; see Laınbertz (2008)
18-37.
384 Tlıe Eı11peror Tlıeoplıi/os cmd ı/ıe Eası. 829-842

although the text had previously said nothing about the exact numbers of the
Jerusalemite synod. 69
However, the very precise numbers of the participants were perhaps not just
invented ex nihilo. The suggestion nıade by Duchesne and developed by Gauer,70
that the high numbers given do not correspond to the actual participants in the
synod but nıake up the sum ofthe pilgrims coming to the Holy City with the retinue
and dependent clergy ofthe three patriarchs, certainly appears unfounded. But we
may accept that the interpolator of the Letter took the numbers of participants
from some official records of the Melkite Church (this explains the high number
of nıonks) and made of them the subscribers of a regular synod. He could thus
have transformed a synod of some relevance into an "ecumenical" gathering of
the Melkite Church.

21.4 The Unmentioned Icons in the Original Core of the Letter

As we have seen above in section 21.1, Eirene Harvalia-Crook distinguished three

sections in the Letter according to three levels of s'tyle (types 1-lll), although she
defended the unity ofthe work and argued that the unevenness could be explained
as a result of several authors with different linguistic competences working
together. However, the fact that the part that according to her was written in
high style (salutation and §§1-4, 14-15) coincides to a great extent with the paıt
Chrysostomides considered the authentic and original text (salutation and §§ l-6a,
8a-fand 14-15) seems to reinforce the suspicion ofthe latter scholar that only the
introductory chapters and the conclusion constituted the original core ofthe Letter.
That these initial chapters, up to the enci of §4, represented the original and
genuine text of the Letter may be supported by a further argument not considered
hitherto. This is the absence of any allusion to icons in them. lndeed, the first
reference to an icon appears only in 5d-e, where coins are mentioned, supposedly
issued by Constantine I with the cross and an effigy of Christ. As is well known,
no such coins ever existed.71 It also seems strange that the mention of such
coins appears immediately after a passage where Constantine is praised for the
destruction of the pagan idols, an evocation of the iconoclastic stance of the
emperor reflected in the work of his panegyrist Eusebius ofKaisareia. 72
But there is more than that. in the initial chapters of the Letter the word ei.ıcciıv
(eikon) does appear, but always used in a figurative sense, never as a reference
to achıal icons. For example, it is said that Christ was an iınage (dKci:ıv) of God

69 Life of Theodore ofEdessa, chapter 47 (44.24-45.8).

7" Duchesne (1912-1913) 224 andGauer ( l 994) lxiv-lxvi.
71
Walter ( l 997) lxv.
n See for exaınple Eusebios ofCesarea, Life o.fConstcıııtiııe lll.48 anda selection of
his texls in Tlıümmel (1992) 282-7.
 Tlıe lefler ofılıe Tlıree M<'lkiıc Paıricırclıs /o Tlı<'op/ıilos 385

(§ l .a); tlıat nıaıı was ınade "in tlıe image" (ıcar'dı<6va) ofGod (§ l .d); or thal tlıe
emperor is the image of the celestial eıııpire ( oupaviou pacnı,tiaç ciK6va) (§4.e).
Even more interesting is a passage towards tlıe beginniııg or the Letter tlıat is
wortlı reproducing in ful!:

Kı:Ka011KEV f.V i5ı:l;ıçı tol) 0p6vou r�ı; �u;yaArncruvııc; tol> 0ı:oi) Kai narpoc; EV
toTc; oupavoıc;, ıcavm ra cru�tPoAa TOJV cmırqpiwv aıiroü ıca0rı�t((T(l)V r�c; 0Eiac;
F.vav0pcoıcııcrı:rnc; [...] F.yKamA.ı:iıııaç ıcpoı:; TO avı:/;aAEl1CTOV Kai aı:t�lVlU[OVEUto\l
exınv rıjc; auroü Eıcİ yıjı:; Kal EV crapıd ıı:oı,ırniac; aıitoü TC( yvwpicr�ıam, Öıı:(fJÇ �lll TU
xpoviçı ıı:apaôpo�tfi, A.�0ııı:; Pu0oTc; TU KaAfl a�ıaupcıı0föcrıv, UAA.fl ruıı:oucr0aı �lE\I
ımi el;ı:ııcov[Çı:cr0at EV l]�llV füa AOUTj)OÜ ıcaAtyyı:vı:criac; TOU 0ı:[ou paıcricrµatoı:;
Tl]V EV r{fı 'Jopôavıı yı:yovouiav 0ı:[av Paıı:ncrtv uıci;p toU aöa�tiou yi:vouc; puıııtv
TE ıwi avaıı:Aacrtv, ıcai r�c; ıcpocr<popac; TOU m,ı�ıaroc; autou, niıv CTülTllPLWV
aıirou ıcaOııµ&.roıv rı'ıv c'ıva�tvııcrtv, Karnyyi:Urnı oıc; yi:yparcraı, öıcrrn OUV, oıc; iiv
fo0iıırı: rov iiprov rourov ıcai ro ıcon)pıov toüro ıcivqrı:, ri'ıv 0avarov tou Kupiou
ıcamyyı\Uı:re, ıcai Tl]\I avacrmmv aıiı:oi) 6poAoyı:1n:, axptı:; ou iiv F-A0!l, iiıcrn; ıcai
ıcpoc; pepaıori:pav Kal acrcpar,ECTTEj)fLV niiv TEAOUµf.\1(1)\1 iepoıv crwıP6A(ı)V ıcicrnv
Kal pepa(mı tlhiöa TOU F.I' rıoprpii Tii ıs:ae· ı'wa,; yı:yov6roı; ıca\ uioü iıv0pcıııcou
XPllflaTICTfL\/TOÇ.7-'

The text could be reııdered as follows: 74

He tlıen took His seat on tlıe riglıt hand of tlıe tlırone of the Majesty of God the
Fatlıer in lıeaven, leaving belıind all the symbols of the salvific sufferings of His
divine inhumanisation ... , in order that the tokens of His life in the world and
in tlıe flesh be indelible and ever-remembered, so that with the ]apse of time
these benefits should not perish in tlıe deptlıs of forgetfıılness, but tlıe ablııtion
which took place in the lordan, for tlıe sake of the purification and refoımation
of Adanı's kind, be nıodelled and portrayed in us by tlıe waters of regeneration
of tlıe divine baptisnı, and tlıe renıembrance of His salvific sufferings by the
offering of his body, as it is written that he proclaimed, for as often as yoıı eat
tlıis bread and drink from this cup yoıı declare the deatlı of the Lord, and yoıı
confess His resıırrection till He come, and the result of this was to establish a
firmer and secıırer faith in tlıe consecrated holy symbols and an unslıakable hope
in tlıe one wlıo took our form and who was tlıe son ofman.

Although the passage is problematic,75 the general sense seems to be clear. It is

pointed out that the ablution (Pu1mcnv) of Christ in the Jordan aııd his Passion on

73 Letter ıo Tlıeophilos l g-h.

7 -ı We take as a basis for this traııslation Mıınitiz et al. (1997), witlı some minor
chaııges.
75
We lıave substituted ı.:o.rnyyı\Uı:ıv, attestecl in the nıss.• for tlıe ıcamyysHı:t of the
ecls.
386 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıenplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 819-841

the Cross ··are nıodelled and portrayed in us'· (nırcoucr0m �LEV Kai e�ELKovıÇı::cr0m
ev ıı�ıTv) by the Baptisnı and the Eucharist. that is, ··the waters of regeneration
of the divine baptism ... and the offering of his body". it seems as if the author
wanted to stress that thc two sacraınents were the true iınages or representation of
God in contrast to the material icons made by human lıands. The arguınent sounds
iconoclastic. Moreover, the e:ı:c!usive use of iconic vocabulmy for the Eucharist
iıı a.figurcııive sense must not actually be considered an argument in favour ofthe
iconophile character ofthe text, but rather as evidence of its iconoclast stance.76 We
can quote here a well-kııown passage ofthe iconoclastic council ofHiereia in 754, as
reprocluced in the Acts of the Nikaian Council of787. There, both the identification
of the Eucharist as the true inıage of Christ and the use of iconic vocabulaıy are
conıbinecl in tlıe same way as in the passage of the Leııer. it is worth copying the
whole passage along with the Eııglish translation macle by Daniel Sahas:

Eı'ı(jlpav0ıırnıcmv Kai a.yaı-J,t&.cr0oıcrav ımi rcappıımacrÇfo0wcrav oi ,ııv a1ı.ı10ı1 rnu

Xptcrrnü ı:iı<6va Eİtı.ıı<ptvecrTu.Tn ıın>xı1 rcowuvrn; Kai rco0ouvrn; Kal crı::B6fıı;vot,
Kal ı:iç m,rnıpiav ıııuxııç; ı<ai crc,ıfıam;; rcp0lpep6fıı;vot· ijv atm'ıç; ô iı:poTEtı.ecrnıç;
ımi 0ı;oç;, TO ıiwöv EÇ llfl(ÖV ÔA.[l((ı)Ç avatı.aBôflE\IOÇ ıpupafıo,, KUTU TOV ımptov TOU
i:KO\JulOU rca0ouç ı;[ç; TUTCOV ıwi avaµvqcrıv EVEpyECTTU.Tl]\I TO!Ç au,ou µı'.ıcrrntç
rcapa8e8tııKE. flE/ı./ı.(1)\/ yap (.(lJTOV froucr(wç; EK8ı86vaı Ttj'ı aotfüftqı ml Çeııorcotqı
0avu.Tqı (.(lJTOU, AaBtiıv TOV iiprnv EUA.OY,]CTE, Kal. ı:uxaptCTTl]uaç EIC/ı.(.(CTE, ıcai
flETaÖOUÇ ElTCE" AU.BETE, cpayETE ı::iç; ÖCpECilV &+ıapnföv. TOUTO flOU foı:t ı;o crföfıa.
6µo[wç; Kal ı:o 1C0t'�pıov µı;m8ouç; El1CE" t'OUTO flOU fon t'O aifta· t'OUt'O 1COlELTE
Eiç; Tfıv EflllV avaflVl]CTlV, wç 0\JK Ö.tı.A.OU ı;'i8ouç E1ClA.EX0EVTOÇ nap' aı'ırnu EV rfi
un' oupavov, � rurcou, Elıcov[craı TT]V aurnu crapıceııcrıv 8uvaµevou, l8ou ouv ıi
EiKoJV rnu Çwonoıou m,ıftarnç auwu, � evTıfteııç ıcai TETtflllfLEVWÇ npanofıevıı.
,i yap Efırıxav�crarn EV wı'.mıı 6 ıraVCTO(jlOÇ 0ı;6ç; oı'ıx ihı;p6v Tl, � öEt/;at ıcai
Tpavföcraı (jlaVEpföç fıµıv TOIÇ av0poırcotç; t'O npanımw0ıo:v µucrı:fıpıov EV ,fi 1((.(1''
au,ov oiıcovofıiq. · ÖTt rocrırı;p ö el; T]flOOV UVeA.Cl�Et'O, ÜA.Tj flOVT] ecr,iv a.v0pcorcivııç
oucr[aç; ıca,a. ıravı-a t'Etı.Elaç, flT] xapaıcTtjptÇOUOllÇ i8ıocrumarnv ırp6croırcov, ıva
flT] ırpocr0ı'ııcıı npocrciıırou ev ,fi 0ı;6uın rcapı:µırecrır oü,w ıcal TTJV dıc6va ü1ı.rıv
el;aipı;wv, f\youv iipwu oı'ıcriav ırpocreı:al;ı:v ırpo(j(pepı:cr0aı, �ıı'j crx,ıuıaTıÇoucrav
a.v0p6ıırou �ıop(j)TJV, ıva fırı ı::i8eııAoAa,pı:ia ırapı:wax0fi. rocrırı:p ouv ,o ıcma.
cpı'.ımv wu XptcrTOti crföfıa ö.yıov, wç 0ı::eıı0ev· oüTWç 8fj1ı.ov ıcai ,6 0foı::t, ııwt
ıı EİKO)V aı'ıTOu ayla, ôıç 8ta TlVOÇ &.ytacrµou xapm 0eOUflEVT]. TOÜTO yap ıcai
eırpayfıam'.ıcrmo, wç; E<pllflEV, ô 8wır6ı-ııç Xptcrı:6ç;, örcwç; ıca0aırep ,fıv crapıca, tjv
ClVEAaBE, Tip olıcdqı 1((.(1'(/. ıpı'.ıcrıv aytaCTfl([l el; CLUTfjÇ tvciıcrı::eııç e0EWCTEV, ôfıoiwç ıcai

7
" John the Grammarian used, as expected, expressioııs like Eiıcovw�ıoıç and
t
XP ı ı fıawupyucov TEpacrnov in a negative sense in tlıe fragments of an anti-rhetorical
attributed to him, but he also speaks of"representing the ınan by the logical discourse" (,ov
... iiv0poırcov . . . xapaKTTJpiÇw0a.ı ... Tı1 eıc 1ı.6ywv uıpqyı)crı::ı). See Gouillard ( 1966) esp.
173-5. For the Eucharistic doctrine of the icoııoclasts see especially Gero ( 1975), but also
Corrigaıı ( 1992) -:i 1-61 ancl Baranol' ( 201 O).
 Tlıe leııer rı/'ılıı: T/ırc'<! :\l<!lkiıe Puıriarclıs 111 Tlımplıilos 387

riıv rii.; ciıxrıpıcrriaç üprov, ciı.; aıııcu8ıl ciı-:6vr1 rılç ıpımıı-:�ç crrıpı-:oı:; ôıiı rılc; rou
ayioıı m·curıaro.; ı::;ı:ıcpoırııcrcrn.; rıyıaÇ6pcvov. Odov crciırırı ı;iı56ı-:ıırn: yivı;cr0rıı.
rıı:crıwuovroı; rou ı':v rıcrcvı':2;ı;ı i;ı-: rou ı-:oıvou ;ı:pô.; ro üyıov rıiv <'ıvwpopiıv
iTOlOIJ[lE\10\J İı;pı':co.:;. AOliTÔV 1] ı-:rır/1. ıpucrıv i-:pıııuzoç ı-:ai voı;pa criıpi; roii Kllpiou
ı':wicrOıı m•ı;uprm c'ıy[qı niv 0s6nım. ciıcrr1.unoc; rni ı'ı 0ı;o;ı:apa5oroç EİKciıv rılı:;
crapoç aiırou, 6 OEToı:; üproç EiTAl]pciıOıı iTVEı'ıparoç ay[oıı OlJV np iTOTllJ)İqı TOU
Çwııcp6pou a'irıaroç r�ç ;ı:ı..wpuç aiıroii. aünı oı'iv rı;ı:oöı':8cıKraı c'ııııwBıiı:; EİKciıv
T�Ç f.\'urıpımu oiımvopiac; Xpıcrroii mu Omu iuıciıv, ım0dıç iTJ)O/.E/dlKTfH' iiv
aiıroç ıi[ıiv 6 aı..ııOıviıç nlç cpı'ıcrE(IJÇ ÇoıorcMmrqç oiKı::ıoıpciıvrnç ;ı:apaöı':ö(IJKcv. 77

Lel tlıose wlıo enacl, desire, aııcl respecl tlıe true icoıı of Clırist witlı a ıııost
lıonest lıearl, aııcl wlıo ofler tlıenıselves to salvatioıı, botlı soul and bocly, rejoice,
exalt, aııcl beconıe outspokeıı. Tlıis icoıı tlıe Celebraııt Himself aııcl God, wlıcıı
He assuıııecl fronı us tlıe eııtire coıııpositioıı, lıaııclecl down to his initiates, al tlıc
lime of lıis voluntary Passioıı, as a form ofHinı7x aııcl a most vivicl remenıbrance.
For, wlıen 1-le was aboul lo offerHiıııselfvoluııtarily to his ever nıenıorable aııd
life-giviııg deallı, takiııg llıe breaclHe blessecl İl aııd, afı:er 1-le gave tlımıks, He
broke il, aııd passiııg İl on.He saicl: ·Take, eal, for llıe ı'enıissioıı of siııs; llıis is
ıııy bocly." Siınilarly, passiııg on tlıe cup, He saicl: "Tlıis is my blood; do tlıis in
rcıııcnıbraııce of ıııc."He clicl so, because tlıcrc was ııo otlıer kinci or form uııder
tlıe sun selected by Hinı wlıiclı could depict his iııcarnatioıı. Here is, therefore,
tlıe icoıı ofhis body, lhe giver of life, which is eııactecl honestly and witlı honour.
For wlıat else clid the all-wise God want to achieve tlırough this? Nothing else,
but to show, to make abundantly evident to us men, tlıe accomplished mystery
ofthe dispensation in 1-lim. That is, in the same way as that wlıich He assumecl
from us is a mere malter of humaıı substance, perfect in every respect, which,
however, is not characterized as a persoıı witlı a hypostasis of its own - in this
way no aclditon ofa person nıay occur in the Godhead - so dicl He commaııcl
that tlıe icon also be matter as suclı; that is, tlıat the substance ofbread be offered
which does not yielcl the shape of a maıı's form, so that idolatıy may not be
introduced iııdirectly. Therefore, as the natura! bocly of Christ is holy, as it has
been cleified, so obviously, is the one which is in its place; that is, his icon is also
lıoly as one which becomes deified by grace, through an act ofconsecration. For
tlıis is wlıat the Lord Christ specified, as we have said; so tlıat, in the same way
that He deified the fleslı wlıich He assuıned by tlıe uııion ofit witlı the sanctity
ofhis own ııature, so dicl He the brcad oftlıe Euclıarist. He consentecl !hat tlıis
becoırie a holy body as a true icon of tlıe natura! flcslı - coıısecrated by the
dcscent ofthe Iıoly Spirit and through tlıe mecliatioıı ofthe priest who makes the
offer in orcler that the breacl be transferrecl from the state ofbeing common to tlıat
of being holy. Thus, the plıysical and cogitating flesh oftlıe Lorcl was aııoiııted
witlı diviııity througlı the lıoly Spirit. Siınilarly also the icon ofhis fleslı, handcd

77
Nikaia il (Mansi) 26 I D-264 C.
;, Salıas traııslales '"in place ofHiııısell", for lıe read r6;ı:ov iıısteacl ofr (mov.
388 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıi/os cmd ı/ıe Eası. 819-842

down by God, the divine bread along with the cup ofhis life-giving blood from
his side. was filled with the holy Spirit. This is, therefore, the icon that has been
proveıı to be tlıe true icoıı ofthe incarnate dispensation of Christ 0tır God, as it
has beeıı stated before, aııd it is this one ıvhich the true Creator ofthe life ofthe
world has handed down to us with his own words.;9

in tlıe passage EiKc.iıv is used seven tiınes (one ınore if we include the verb
ı::iKoviÇw) and ıimoç twice in connection witlı the Eucharist.80 These were the
two terms also used in tlıe Letter for referring to the (Baptism and) Eucharist
tlıat '"are modelled ancl portrayecl in us" (rnıı:oua0m �LEY mi el;ımcoviÇrn0m ev
ıiµ"i:v). But now we see tlıe real sense ofthis particular "theology ofthe Eucharistic
image": it was conceived by the iconoclasts as an alternative explanation to the
iconoplıile defence of icon worship. This explains the emphasis on the Eucharist
as the true icon of Christ (-rrıv aJı.11011 -rou Xpıa-rou EİK6va) ancl the contrast with
the material and blasphemous icons made by human hands. That the description of
the Euclıarist in iconic terıns by the iconoclasts was not without consequences for
tlıe iconophiles is providecl by tlıe reacling oftlıis passage ofthe council ofl-liereia
in Nikaia il, wlıich preserved it for us in the acts. The reason for this ınention was
uncloubtedly tlıe subsequent refutation of the ideas aclvancecl by the iconoclasts.
The deacon Epiphanios read the official doctrine of Nikaia il that reserved the
word icon for images and disclaimed any use oficon for referring to the Eucharist
for "none of the holy apostles ... or of mır every-memorable Fathers called mır
bloodless sacrifice, which is celebrated in memoıy ofthe suffering ofour God and
of his entire dispensation, an icon of His body".81 The patriarch Nikephoros also
refuted the iconoclasts on this point and denied the existence of any biblical basis
for calling the Eucharist an image: "For we cali this not an image or a model of
His body, althoıigh it is accomplished symbolically, but the very body of Christ
deified" (iıµdç yap oihe elıc6va oihe ıiırcov -roü aroµa-roç eıceivou ı-cı.üı-cı. Myo�tev,
ei Kal cruµ�oJı.ııc&ç eımeJı.ei-rm, aıı,Jı.' mho TO a&µa TOÜ XptuTOÜ -re0ero�tevov).82
That the Letter puts emphasis on the symbolic value of the Eucharist as image of
God and of Christ as image of God constitutes therefore clear proof, if not of the
iconoclast sympathies ofits authors, at least ofa theological approach close to the
imperial iconoclasm. From this perspective it is not just coincidence that the only
images mentioned as such in the initial chapters of the Letter, up to §4, are the
idols destroyed by the Church! 83

7" Salıas (1986) 92-4 (with minor changes). See also the Gennan translation of
Krannich, Schubert and Sode (2002) 45-7.
sn For the use of rimoç and ciKü)V by iconoclasts for tlıe Eucharist see Gero (1975).
81 Nikaia il (Mansi) 264 D-268 A, esp. 264 E.
8'
Aııtirrheıicus il, PG 100, col. 336B.
x.ı See for example Letter ıo T/ıeophilos 2.b: ıriiv ı::i6c,ıı..ııcov ıcai oa.ıpovıciıoı::ç ı..a,pdaç
ü.yo,;.
 Tlıe lefler of ılıe Tlıree :\le/kile Palricırclıs /o Tlıeoplıilos 389

Aııotlıer passage of tlıe Letter, following closely the above, is perhaps worth
mentioning. it appears sonıewhat as the corollary of the previous defeııce of the
lncarnation of Christ as the main dogma of the Christian Church:

Toü xapıv ,�ı; ev crapKİ ıro).m:iaı; aürnü ,a Oeoırpım� Kai 0c0aıöıi KaUmp��ıam
UVE�UAEtırm Kaİ aırapqxEipıım öfov ��tTv ılwpav[ÇacrOaı KUTU. TO qıauKOV
ırpocpT]TlKOV ıı.6yıov, i)ıciı ev T/İ ÖE:çıfi. JIOV xeıpi, ASYEl K.ı'.ıpıoı;, ı':�cvypaıpqcro. TO.
rcix17 rrov, KO.İ evcum6v JIOV fon 010. ;ro.vr6ç, ımi aUaxoü, )'PCl.1/fOV 0.VTO. e;r/ ır),o.ıcoç
Ko.pôiaç rrov, ıcai C)'l,Aofcvcrw aı.irb. e;r/ cr<v rpaxıj).q r ımi aUaxoü, ;rouıcreıç ıravra
Karb. rov TV7l:O\I TO\I &:ıx0frro. croı €\1 rı7 Öpeı rp17cri Kvpıoç rçu Mcvımi, Kai ypavıeıç
aı.irb. ı':ıri rııç olıdaç crov ıcai ı':ıri rcul' 0vpcuv crov, oırcvç lcrovmı ı':v orp0aAJIOIÇ ımv
1/Jlepaç ıwi VV!iroç,.,8�

The passage might be translated as follows:

Therefore, the auspicious sacrifices of His life in tlıe fleslı, wlıich are acceptable
to God and divine, ıııust be nıanifested to us in an iııclelible way, not touched by
the hand,85 in accorclance witlı lhe proplıetic utterance, I /ıaıı e pai111edyoıır ırnl/s
in my rig/ıı lıand, says the Lord, aııd yo11 wi/1 be co11/i1111al�I' before me,8" and
elsewhere, Engrave ıhese wordı· 11po11 ılıe ıableı ofyour /ıecırl and /ıcı11g ılıem
as cı c/ıai11 cıbouı your neck,87 and elsewlıere, Yo11 slıall make ılıeın al! qjier ılıe
patterıı ,vhic/ı wcıs s/ıow11 to you on the mowıtain,88 says tlıe Lorcl to Moses, and
You s/ıcıll wrile t!ıem ııp 011 yoıır !ıoııse a11d 011 your doors so that t/ıey are before
your eyes day a11d nig!ıt. 89

As we see, the text pleads for a manifestation ofthe İncarnate nature ofChrist
"in an indelible way, not touched by the hand" (avsl;a1ı.ımrı:a ıcai aırapsrxsiprp:a).
This might be easily understood as a rejection of human-made, perishable icons.
The use ofa word like aırapsyxsiprrra, very similar to the adjective axsıpoıroirp:oç
used for God-given icons, may be understood as a veiled criticisın of this kind
of "foundational" icon. Alternatively, it could point to the acceptance of some
kinds of iınages close to the concept of relics, for, contrary to some opinions,

84
Letter to Tlıeoplıilos 1.j.
85
Munitiz et al. (1997) 9 translate the passage as follciws: "We must therefore,
represent the indelible and invjolable offerings ofHis Life in the flesh whiclı are acceptable
to Gocl and divine." This rendering distorts the actual meaning ofthe passage. First, they
translate e�LqıaviÇecr0aı as "represent" in the active instead ofthe passive "be manifested";
second, they consider the dative ��(iv to be tlıe agent ofE�Lcpav[ÇwOaı, when it is in fact its
inclirect object; fiııally, tlıe traııslation nıakes the adjectives aveça).wı:m ıcai aıı:apayxeipııw
appear as determinants ofıcaı,.7ı.ıı,p��mw whereas they qualify tlıe noıın as predicatives.
86
Is.49.16.
87
Prov. 3.3 aııd 6.21. Cfr. also Prov. 7.3.
88
Heb. 8.5. Cfr. also Exod. 25.40.
x9 Deut. 28.66.
390 Tlıı! E111peror Tlıı!oplıilos wıd llıı! Eası. 819-841

relics were partly accepted by iconoclasts.9" The quotations that follow are also
revealing. The first one, taken from lsaiah 49.16, refers to God, in whose hand
the walls of the lıeavenly Jerusalem are represented. Tlıe passage speaks of a
synıbolic representation and it has been understood in this sense in the exegetical
tradition.91 The second quotation from Proverbs 3.3 or 6.21 refers to the words
(pıı�ıaw.) or conımandments (vô�u�ıa, vô�toı) ofSolomon, so that their "engraving"
on the "tablet of tlıe heart" is also symbolic. The third quotation, taken literally
from Hebrews 8.5, is in fact a quotation from Exodus 25.40 and ınentions the
conıınanclmeııt of God to Moses ordering hinı to make al] things according to
the model sho\\'n to him on the mount. The heavenly model of human action is
stressed. Finally, the !ast quotation, from Deuteronomy 6.9, refers again to the
writing of worcls (p��ıatu.) in a symbolic way.
Finally, it woulcl be tempting to extend our analysis to the confession of
faitlı copiecl at the end of the lviron mamıscript and referred to above. in fact,
nıention is nıacle there only incidentally oficon worship. Certainly, the confession
nıentions the seventh ecunıenical synod ancl how it clecreecl to honour and revere
the venerable icons. But, curiously enough, the total nunıbers ofparticipants in the
council are not given, although these numbers are provided for the six previous
councils. Besicles this reference to the council, the text just mentions in passing
the iconoclasts and enemies of the icons, who do not worship the images ofChrist,
the Virgin and the saints. Both references could have been easily interpolatecl to a
more general (a neutral) confession offaith.
On balance, we can conclude that in the original core ofthe letter the patriarchs
do not refer by any means to real images ofthe Divinity, but continue to use (and
abuse) references to syınbolic images in a way that is perfectly in agreement with
the iconoclast doctrine.

21.5 The Closing of the Letter

The two final paragraphs ofthe Letter, §§14-15, that Eirene Harvalia-Crook also
considered as pertaining to type I, ınust be taken into consideration in our analysis.
If her conclusions prove to be right, there would be a strong probability that these
two paragraphs were integral parts of the original text of the synodical letter.
Nevertheless, the general stance ofthe passages speaks against this supposition, for
although the emperor Theophilos is addressed with respect and his reign labelled

00
See Wortley (1982), Auzepy (2001 b), Thun0 (2002), James (2003) and Magdı:ılino
(2004).
"1 Cyril, Coınmeııtarius in Jsaiaııı, PG 70, col. 1068; Gregory of Nyssa, De tridui
inler mortenı et resıırrectioııeııı domini nasiri Jesıı Christi spatio, ed. E. Gebhardt (1967)
294; John Clırysostomos, /11 Jocınnem, PG 59 , col. 338; Didymos, Comıııeııtarii in Psalmos,
ecl. M. Groneıvalcl ( 1969) 139; Prokopios Rhet., Commentcırii in /saiam, PG 87.2, cols
2476-2477; Theocloretos, Co111111ı!11fııı•ii in /saicıııı, ecl. J.-N. Guinot ( 1980-1984) section 15.
 Tlı<! Letter o/tlıe Tlıree Melkite Patriarclıs ta T/ıeop/ıilos 391

as pious, the wording, as in the case of the protocol/salutatio, does not fit with the
fornıs expected in an official docunıent. The same word plays with names beginning
in 0so- appear again here, for Theophilos' empire is labelled as 0wcppoı'ıpıırov and
0wcpı),ı,crrcmıv. Especially inappropriate is tlıe closing of the Letter with the form
i:ppo)cro 0wcpıı..fom,s auroKparop, "farewell Enıperor, most beloved ofGod".
it is against this background tlıat we must consider the reference to an icon of
the Virgin and Child we find in § 14:

L'ııc'ı ırpôı; aır65F.ıl;ıv Kai Bc:Baiwmv rci'N ırap' ıiıtcov c:ucrc:Bciıı; 5ontrmcr0tvnov
c:ıicrc:Bcov ımi 0wırvc:ı'.ıcrrwv Jcoyiwv, Kai rôv ripıov ımi crc:pacrınov xapaKrıipa r�ı;
ıravayiac; 0wıtııropoc:; Kai 0wrôımu Mapiaı;, ımi rnü ı\1; aurı'jı; crapıcw0evroı; Kai
vııırıacrrıvroı; 0wü A6you, ciJc:; Km'.ıxııwı �ı; ıhıciıv ıricrrnwı; ıcai crreıpavov ıcaUouı; ıcai
crıa"]ırrpov Kai BoüUav roü ı::ıroupaviou Bacrı1eoıı;, EV rqı ıee<pa1rıiqı r�ı; c'ıp0o561;ou
ıricrrımıı; roü op0o561;ou ıi�ıwv roıwu ı\vc:rumiıcraımv, öc:11\.-vuvrc:c; ırpc'ıc; r�v 0Eôcrocpov
uııcov ayxivoırıv ıcai 0w5i5aıcrov BacrıAEirıv, TO EV0EOV Kal ouprıviov ıcrıi op065ol;ov
ıpp6vıwa ıru.crııc; avaro1ııcııc:; rciıv ırarpwpxıı,ci'ıv ımi aırocrro1ııcciıv 0p6vwv
ÖIOlKl]CTEWÇ, Ct7rf1JJUXC1JJUl(Tfl IWİ fLVÔ0EUTfL TflUTfL T(l)V EV0ErıCTTlK(f)\I öonıaTOJ\I T�Ç
F.ICKAl]CTIUÇ Ölf1TE0evrcııv, eırôıtc\10! TC!l Öpqı TCrlV 0ı;crm;cr[oıv ıipföv lrflTEJJülV, EİÇ 56/;rıv
ımi ırpocrıruvııcnv r�c; ayiaı; ımi 6ıtooucriou Ka.i Çompxuajc; Tpirı8oı;, ımi ımuxıııta TI"]ç
6p0o861;ou ır[crm,ıc;, Kai Elrat\10\1 T�Ç c:ucrc:Boüc; uıtföv BacrıAc:iaı;.'"

The passage may be translated as follows:93

Therefore as proof and confirınation of the holy and inspired tenets of faith
which have been piously defineci by us, we have staınped (ı\vErumiıcraııc:v) at
the heading ofthis oıır orthodox toınos with the orthodox confession offaith, as
a mark of pride of our faith, as a crown of beauty, sceptre and seal of the King
in heaven, the honoured and revered iınage (xapaırn'jpa) of batlı the All-Holy
Mother of God, the Theotokos Mary, and of Hiın, the Word of God, who took
flesh from her and becaıne an infant, thus showing to your sagacity, full ofdivine
wisdom and divinely taught Majesty, the divine and heavenly and orthodox
doctrine of the whole eastem diocese of patriarchal and apostolic sees, which
have set forth inviolate and unadulterated the divinely originated tenets of the
Clıurch, wlıereby we followed the defiııition ofour holy Fathers to the glory and
veneration of the holy, consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, the pride of tlıe
orthodox faith, and to the praise ofyour pious reign.

The reference to a charakter (xapaıcı-�p) of the holy Virgin with the Christ Child
is the same as the one we found in the title ofthe work. Chyrsostomides suggested
that the writer ofthe title culled these details from paragraph § 14. 94 Nevertheless,

9'
Letter to Theoplıilos 14.
93 Agaiıı I adopt tlıe traııslatioıı offVluııitiz et al. (1997) 79 witlı ıııiııor clıanges.
'14
Clırysostomides ( 1997) xix.
392 Tlıe E111perur T/ıeophi/os cmd ı/ıe [ası, 819-841

the ınention of an icon here is puzzling, not only because it appears first and lastly
in a passage of Harvalia-Crook's type 1, but also for two other complementary
reasons. To begin with, the iconoclast emperor Theophilos is praised for his pious
reign, after the patriarchs have supposedly inserted an image of the Virgin and
Child in the document! This is not only a blatant contradiction but also a curious
way to preseııt the matter under debate, for if the patriarchs wanted to admonish
the enıperor with the presence of an icon in the heading of their synodica, they
should have nıade ınore explicit their intention.
Secondly, the xapaKnıp is considered "sceptre and seal ofthe King in heaven".
These tenns seem inappropriate for the iınage ofthe Virgin and Child,95 for which
we should have expected instead a reference to the iııcarnatioıı ofChrist aııd/or to
the iııtercession oflhe Virgin, but not to the Heavenly King, whose representative
on the eaıih the eınperor was. It would perhaps rnake more sense if the image
referred to was the Cross, the true sceptre and seal of God.96 The text gord on,
saying that with the xapaıcnıp the patriarchs succeeded in showing (8eucvı'ıvreç)
the creed of their sees by followiııg ( Erc6µevoı) the definition of the Fathers both
to the glory of the Trinity and to the praise of the ernperor. These final words
are, from a syntactical (through the moda! participles) and logical point ofview,
connected with the syrnbolic value ofthe attached xapaıo:ııp, as ifthey expressed
the aims the patriarchs pursued and the values they observed when putting the
xapaKnıp at the heading ofthe docurnent. Ifthis is the case, it would certainly be
strange that an image of the Virgin and Child could contribute to the praise ofan
iconoclastic emperor. Again, there is something wrong in the message.
Thirdly, it remains to consider the exact sense we should give to this xapaıcnıp
set at the beginning of the text. It is certainly not a seal (the text uses the word
pouıı.ıı.a in the same passage), for seals are put at the end of the documents,
not at the beginning. But if we then understand xapaıcnıp as image (as in the
translation), there arises a second problem, for it would be an image depicted on a
papyrus surface, the material support used for documents issued in the patriarchal
chancellery at this time.97 However, as papyrus offers a very fragile surface and
easily absorbs ink, images ofthis kind were not usually painted on it.

95
Here the Slavonic version, according to the Eııglish traııslation by Afinogeııov
(forthcoming), skips the reference to the Kiııg in heaven, and mentions only the image "as a
sign and inviolable and unmistakable seal". Again a proofofits derivative character.
96
A possible parallel can be found in the following passage from John the Damascene,
Against iınages 3.86, ed. Kotter (1975), taken from Leontios, Apology against tlıe Jews, fr. 3,
ed. Deroche (1994 ): "when we worship the fonn of the cross, we do not worship the nature
of the wood, but, seeing it as seal, ring and imprint (clıaraktera) of Christ, through it we
worship and greet Him who was crucified on it" (ı:qı n'.mqı wü m:mıpofı ıı:pocrıruvofıvı:ec; ou
ı:ııv <p-UcrtV mu ÇUAOU ıı:pocrıcuvofı�lEV, a.Ua mppay[lia ıcal oaıcn'.ılwv ıcal xapaıcı:�pa Xplcrı:ofı
auı:ou pı..tıı:ovı:ec; oı' mirnfı ı:ov ev auı:cp crı:aupw0evı:a a.crıı:aÇ6�tE0a ıml ıı:pocrıcuvou�tEV)
''7 Agati (2003) 52-3.
 Tlıe lefler of't/ıe Tlıree Melkite Patriarclıs to T!ıeoplıilos 393

1-Iow to sol ve this contradiction? Jf an iınage ofthe Yirgin and Child existed;ıs
it was ınore probably drawn on parchrnent and therefore for a book, not a rol!
or a single sheet of papynıs. We could imagine it as a whole-page image set as
frontispiece to the text, as in the Bible ofLeo (Vat. reg. gr. 1) witlı the representation
ofthe Yirgin and the donor, dated to tlıe tenth century. 9" lfthis were the case, we
would then have a very clumsy forgery, for the text could never have passed for
an original document of the patriarchal chancellery by their contemporaries. it
does not matter whether the image prornpted the compilation oftexts, including
tlıe original letter of the patriarchs, in order to support the iconophile views of
the forger, or if it was on the contrary the original letter which was interpolated
aııcl expanded, even enclowed with an iınage of the Yirgin, witlı the purpose of
subverting its pro-iconoclastic views. The iınportaııt thing is tlıat the present text
ofthe Letter probably appeared in book format witlı an introductory image, as a
kinci oftlıeological essay, not in the form ofa documeııt.
There is another possibility, that the three patriarchs rnarkecl their synoclica
with a seal ofthe _Cross, in accorclance with tlıeir and the emperor's iconoclastic
creecl, but that tlıe interpolator, who had already expancled the original lext witlı
stories about icon worship in orcler to preseııt it as iconoplıile, also altered the final
aclclress to the enıperor, for the iconoclast reference to lhe Cross did not obviously
fit in with his intention. The insertion ofa reference to tlıe Virgiıı ancl Chilcl in the
midclle ofthe passage was the easiest way to subvert the meaning ofthe passage.
Ifwe suppress the sequence ıııç 1w.vayiaç 0w�tip:opoç ıcai 0w.6ıcou Mapiaç ıcai
wü sç aurijç crapıcco0ı'.:vrnç ıcai vrpna.cravrnç 0eoü J\.6you, the rest ofthe passage
ınakes perfect sense, proviclecl we understand now xapaım"jpa not as an image, but
as a mark or syınbol, referring to the Holy Cross:

D.to 1tpoç aıı:6oet/;tv ıcai PePairoow T.ffiV ıı:ap' ı'J�t&v EUcrep&ç ooyµancr08VT.COV
wcreP&v ıcai 0eoıı:vwcJT.rov 1ı.oyirov, ıcai ,ov ,iµıov ıcai crepacrµıov xapaıcı:fjpa,
coç ıcauxrıµa ı:fjç ı'Jµ&v lTtO"T.E(ı)Ç ıcai cr,sıpavov ICUAAOUÇ Kai crıcfj1t-ı:pov ıcai
pouAAav wii tıı:oupaviou pam1ı.sroç, ev -ı:qı ıcecpa1ı.aiqı ,�ç 6p0oo61;ou nicr,eroç
-ı:ou 6p0oo61;ou fıµrov T.O�lOU EVET.U1tCOO"U�lEV.

Therefore as proof and confinnation of the holy and inspired tenets of faith
which have been piously defined by us, we have stamped at the heacling of this
our orthoclox tomos with the orthodox confession of faith, as a mark of pricle
of mır faith, as a crown of beauty, sceptre ancl seal of the King in heaven, the
honoured ancl reverecl symbol (xapaıcı:fjpa).

This explanation is obviously conjectural but gives the passage a coherence it was
lacking before. It is also in accorclance with the general sense ofxapaırn']p, which
is an ambiguous temı to be used instead ofthe ınore precise EiKrov favoured by the

''8
See Kalavrezou ( 1990) for tlıe iınages of tlıe Virgiıı as nıotlıer cluriııg aııcl al1er tlıe
icoııoclast period.
'''' For tlıe nıanuscript see Mango (1969) ancl Dufreııne ancl Canart ( 1988). See also
Walter (1997) lxxi-lxxii ancl Agati (2003) 312, witlı plate YIi.
394 T/ıc Eıııpemr T/ıeoplıilos wıd ı/ıe Ecısl, 829-842

iconophiles. A possible confirınation of mır conjecture is provided by the Slavonic

version öf the Leııeı: As we mentioned earlier, the description of the frontispiece
depicting the Yirgin with the Child figures there only after the colophon. 100
in this case. we could envisage the mark of a cross (or a group of three
crosses?) 101 either at the beginning of the text or at the top ofthe original document
to signal the Christian faith of the signatories. Following this supposition, the
final reference to the mediation of the Theotokos Mary and ali the saints, which
closes the Letter ıo T/ıeop/ıilos, 102 would have been original and even inspired the
interpolator to insert into the text the mention ofthe image ofthe Yirgin and Child.
As we know, the iconoclasts turned to the Yirgin as intermediary before God. We
neecl only to note how Theophilos, during the siege ofConstantinople by Thomas,
"'went round ali the city with the clergy, bearing the life-giving wood of the Cross
and the garınent of the all-pure mother of Christ our God". 103
Be this as it may, we can conclude that there was no image of the Virgin ancl
Child in the original Letter sent by the three patriarchs to Theophilos. This again
raises questions about the authenticity of the two closing paragraphs of the work,
although the forger could have _been inspired by some previous text, as we have
already suggested for the title ancl the protocol.

21.6 Wishing Victory on the Emperor

Sidney Griffith remarked many years ago on the pioneering use ofArabic in the
Melkite Church as early as the eighth century, which nıns parallel to a drastic fail in
the use ofGreek. 104 Marie-France Auzepy connected the shift from Greek to Arabic
in the Melkite Church of Palestine with a cultural change that took place there at
the very beginning ofthe ninth century and drove some ofits prominent members,
figures tike Michael Synkellos and the brothers Graptoi, to a Constantinopolitan
exile. 105 It is not a coincidence that Michael Synkellos wrote at the time a Greek
syntax that became one ofthe most popular grammar texts ofthe whole Byzantine

1"'1 Afinogenov (2003-2004) 26, who unfortunately does not provide the exact

wording ofthe passage.

ıııı See Jongkind (2005) 155 and Wilson (2008) 103 for uses ofthree crosses as textual
marks in manuscripts ofthe eighth and nine centuries.
102 Letter to Tlıeophilos 15: EiprıvıKcoı:a.ı:ıı 1m1ı.urn)ç pacrıtı.da ıcai ya1ı.rıvııccoı:a.ı-rı,

aicovwç ıcai aa<'ı.tı.aı.ırnç ı:porraıoqı6pqı viıqı oiıv ıtavı:i ı:qı ll7tTjlCO(l) (jll!ı.OXpiaı:qı tı.aqı oıaµevoı
aicov[Çouaa, ıtpEapeiaıç ı:fjç rravayiaç 0Eo�t�ı:opoç ıcai 0EOı:6ıcou Mapiaç, ıcai mivı:cov ı:rov
<'ı.y[cov· a�t�v. "May your reign continue in profoıınd peace and tranqııillity, etemal and
unshaken in triumphant victoıy together with yoıır Christ-loving sııbjects, throııgh the
mediation ofthe All-Holy Mother ofGod and Theotokos Mary and ali the saints, Amen."
ıoı Th. Cont. II. 14 (59.11-14).
10•
Griffitlı ( 1988).
ııı, Socle (2001) and Aıızepy ( 1994) 215-16. On the foııııatioıı of the ethnolinguistic
idenlity of the Melkiles see ııow Moııferrer Sala (2012a).
 Tlıe Letter rı{tlıe Tlıree M,dkite Pcıtricırclıs to Tlıeoplıilus 395

period. 106 Accorclingly, if the three Melkite patriarchs wrote a text in Greek it
was probably conceived not for interııal use of the Palestine Melkites, but for a
Coııstantinopolitaıı auclience aııd the iconoclastic emperor himself. 107
As the original synodical letter of the three patriarchs was writteıı in Greek
and addressed to the emperor, it is to be expected, as we saw, that its coııtent
was also in accorclance with the iconoclastic creed of Theophilos. Indeed, the
iconoclast sovereign appears to have been continuously iııvoked and named in the
prayers of the three patriarchs, who included him in the diptychs of the Church
as the orlhodox eınperor he undoubtedly was in their eyes. Suffice it to quote the
following passage: ıos

ı\oııı:ov oı'iv ıırıcTç oi rıerpıoı Kal yvııcrıoı 0cpcmovrnç T�Ç 0ımKupciırou

U[Lföv pacrııı.eiaç, tı; EİA.tKplVOUÇ oıa0foeoıç ıcal Oc�crımıç rrpoç TOV Tföv öıı.cov
Kı'.ıpıov KUi pacıüfo, ıırıepaç ıcai VUKTOÇ, ciıxaıç ıcai IK€Tl]pimç, ıı.ımTç ımi
cruval;wıv, İcpoupyimç ıcai 0ı::iaıç avmpopaıç, EV TOİÇ icpoiç omruxoıç, oiı
rrau6pc0rı rıiv al;ı6xpcü)V ımi al;ıorrprni'j pvıırıııv ımi avappqcrıv TOU c\Jcrnpouç
iı�ıföv 0wcrnıpiKTOU Kparouç, rni T�Ç pacrııı.ucı'jç pcyaıı.auxiaç Ta EYKOlfllU
avaıcrıpiınovrnç.

Well tlıeıı, we tlıe lnııııble aııd trııe servaııts ofyour divinely sanctioned empire,
out of siııcere dispositioıı and prayer to the Lord aııd emperor of tlıe universe,
do not cease day aııd niglıt, during our prayers and supplicatioııs, litaııies and
services, during the euclıaristic rites and divine offerings, in the reading of the
sacred diptychs, to proclaim the wortlıy and honoured reputation and public
acclamatioıı of your devout and divinely established might, and procfaim the
praises ofyour iınperial grandeur.

lt remains however to ascertain what was the original purpose ofthe synodical
letter written by the three patriarchs. We discussed above in section 21.3 the
possibility that the letter was written in connection with some kinci of council
sumınoned in Constantinople during the reign of Theophilos. The ıneeting of the
three patriarchs in Jerusalem (provided they met there to write the letter) may have
may have been convened in order that the patriarchs might compose an answer to
a doctrinal question demanded by Constantinople. The writing of the Letter may
even have originated from the inability ofthe patriarchs to travel to Constantinople
to attend a general council.
Nevertheless, the Letter in its original core, that is to say its initial chapters,
does not seem to deal with a disputed matter of faith, but rather to reassert the
patriarchs' creed in front of the emperor. it appears even as a kind of captatio

ıor, Donnet (1982 ).

107 Theodore the Stoudite con-esponded in Greek witlı the three Melkite patriarchs in
818: Theod. Stoud., leııers, Nrs 275-9 and 469. See Signes Codofier (2014 ).
ınx lefler ıo Tlıeoplıilos 3.b.
396 Tlıe Eıııperur Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ılıe East, 829-842

benevolentiae in front of the mighty iconoclast eınperor, whose victories are

ınentioned twice in the text, namely in the final address (§ 15) and in a chapter at
the beginning which is again worth quoting in fı.ıll: 109

Tpia yap 8iiıpa ıı:apa rqı 0ccTı ciıç İ::<pıı riı; riiıv ıı:an\prov, pacrıt..Eia, ıı:poqııırnia,
İEpwcruvıı TOIÇ Ct�lOIÇ ÖEÖCİlp11Wl' KUl yap 8t0crr�plKTE KUl 0EoyepaurE öfoıı:om,
xa[po�IEV Kai yEy�Sa�tEV EV mi.:; av8paya0iaıç Kai apıcrrEiaıç -rı),; ı'.ı�ıii:ıv
,poıı:aıoı'.ıxou 8c08rnpıjrou viKııı:;. Ei yap Kai r6rroç nıpavvıı,_ı),; 8uvacrrEia,;
öıfonıcrcv ��ıaı:;, aHrı rp6rroç 0EIKı)ı:; E�oucr[aı:; OUK EXWPl<JEV ıhtd,;, an. (l)<JITEP
arropıpcıvıcr0evm; EK rrarpıKfjı:; ıi�ıciıv Kı,ılPovo�tia,; Kal ı'.ırr6crrrovöoı ycyov6rc,;
rroı,E�ıioıı:; pappapoıç rErpııxrn�ıEvoı, ıı:Ev0ouvrnı:; mi rnrn0pc,maÇovw;, oihrnı;
rropw6�tc0a ö>-ııv rıiv ıwepav, ürricrı 0daı,; KapaôOKOUVTEÇ el,; rı)v apxaiav
,�c; pacrıt..tK�,; ��ıii:ıv ı:;u8aı�wviaı:; mi ynt..ııvo,arııı:; Çroı)ı;, rra1ı.ıv arrorn0icrmcr0aı
mi Ct7tOKAljpciıcrncr0aı ra apxafo TOU 0Eou ıi�tiiıv üeıı TQ) VEU�lUTl TOU navm
7t0lOUVTO<; KUİ �lETU<JKEUaÇovro,; Kal EITlTpercovro,; uKıav eavarou Eic; <piiıc;.

For tlıere are three gifts from God, as oııe of the Fatlıers has said, kingship,
proplıecy, priestlıood, wlıich are grantecl to the wortlıy.'For tlıis reason, divinely
established and diviııely rewarded Sire, we rejoice ancl take pleasure in the acts
of bravery and prowess ofyour triuınphant divinely granted victory. For even if
a region unçler tyrannical sway has separated us, nevertlıeless the way ofdivine
power has not divided us, but bereft ofmır ancestral inheritance and subservient
to a barbarian enemy, we go about all day, eınaciated, moumful and sullen,
waiting with divine lıope for the forrner state ofour imperial happiness and most
tranquil life to be restored once more, and to be allotted tlıe mercies we enjoyed
in the past, by command ofthe One wlıo creates and changes ali and transfoıms
the shadow ofdeath into liglıt.

This passage directly exhoıis the eınperor to regain the Christian lands
under Muslim rule (the alluded-to "region under tyrannical sway") and restore
"the fomıer state of our imperial happiness", freeing them from the "barbarian
enemy". Such a message goes far beyond the wishes customarily addressed to an
emperor and there is no doubt that the patriarchs would have lost their lives ifsuch
a message had come to the attention ofthe caliph. 1 10 The history ofthe Melkites at
this period was one ofsubmission to and compliance with the two major powers in
the area, with patriarchs being continually deposed and exiled or even forced to act
against their will. The same patriarch Job who appears as signatory of the Letter
was forced to follow the troops of the caliph Mu'taşim in his campaign against

ıo•ı Letter !o Tlıeoplıilos 3.d. The English translation is by Chrysostomides.

ıw As already suggested by Duchesne (1912-1913) 223-4. in the eschatocol ofthe
Slavonic text tlıe patriarclıs even refer to "the violence of the heathens which tlıreatens us",
accorcling to tlıe translatioıı by Afiııogenov ( lorthcoming).
 Tlıe Letl<!I" of' ılıe Tlıree Melkite Patricırclıs /o Tlıeoplıilos 397

Byzantiunı in 838 and used to persuade the inhabitants of Ankyra and Aınorion to
surrender to the besieging rvıuslims. 111
However, tlıis does not speak against the authenticity of this appeal to the
emperor, as Yasiliev thouglıt. 112 As a matter of fact, after Theophilos' death and
the immediate restoration of icon worship no one was iııterested any more in
attributing to the Melkite patriarchs suclı a flattering address to an iconoclast
emperor, described as orthodox, victorious and a future deliverer of the enslaved
Christians ofSyria and Palestine. The good fanıe of the emperor nıay lıave survived
his deatlı in popular literature or oral traditions (see Epilogue), but this provides no
grounds for the forging of an official document such as our Letter.
Thus the address to the emperor makes sense only if it was written during
his lifetime and, accordingly, must be authentic. ııJ The patriarclıs wrote to the
emperor to reassert their fidelity to the official creed of Constantinople, perhaps
as an iconoclastic council was sumınoned at tlıe capital, but then seem to lıave
taken the opportunity to ask for imperial support against the Muslim nıle. We do
not know whetlıer this secret written appeal to Theoplıilos was finally cletected
by the Abbasid autlıorities or not, 114 but the heart of the maller is tlıat they surely
cherished lıopes of an iniperial reconquista for otherwise they would never have
laken the dangerous step of appealing to the clistant ernperor in Constantinople.

111
Eutyclıios, Amıals 406-7 (see Clıapters 1.3 and 17.3). üne can also meııtion, just
to conıpare, the case of tlıe patriarclı Elias II of Jerusalem, wlıo was denouııced, deposed
aııd sent into exile in Baglıdad wlıile tlıe usurperTheodore replaced lıinı, profitiııg from his
good relatioııs witlı a Palestiııian emir. For details see Leontios, L!fe ofStepheıı t/ıe Saba ite
(Greek) §§19-23 and 44-9 and Auzepy (1999) 215-18.
112 Vasiliev (1942-1944) 223: "Such outspokenness (of the patriarchs) seenıs
unbelievable unless the Letter was to be kept completely secret, which is very improbable."
113
The only alternative explanatioıı is offered by Tlıümmel (2005) 257-67, who,
admitting that the text was addressed to Theophilos during his reign, suggests tlıat it was
forged by contemporary iconophiles in Constantinople around 836, after the death of
patriarch Antonios. According toThümmel 's hypothesis, this group of iconophiles saw then
the occasion to summon a council at Constantinople for the restoration of icon worship and
produced this document ad hoc in their aim to bring the emperor over to their cause. In the
document, our Letter to T/ıeop/ıilos, the iconophile dogma was presented as sanctioned by
an ecumenical council having met at Jerusalem at the sanıe time. This reconstructioıı of
the events appears highly unlikely for the emperor would never have failed to detect as a
forgery a document passed by a general council of ali tlıe Melkite patriarclıates and a high
number of bislıops and monks. It is also ingenuous to think that a dognıatic treatise could
persuade an emperor to change sides in the polemic of icon worship, which was always
about looking for a balance between two opposite parties with different interests.
4
11 As we have already seen, the patriarch Job, one of tlıe three signatories of the
Letter, was shamefully forced by the caliph Mu'taşim in 838 to persuade the inhabitants
ofAnkyra and Amorion to surrender to tlıe besieging Muslims (Eutychios, Anııals 406-7).
Wlıether he was thus relıabilitating lıimself in front of tlıe caliplı for his previous treason,
we will probably ııever kııow. See ııote 51 above for tlıe patriarclı Tlıeodore comımıııicatiııg
witlı Coııstaııtiııe V.
398 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ı/ıe Eası, 829-841

The l{f'e of Stephen the Sabaite, written at the very beginning of the ninth
cenlury, contains an interestiııg passage that is perhaps worth mentioning here.
in it the saint tries to persuade his friend Abba Christopher not to go to Baghdad
in orcler to release the patriarch Elias (imprisoned by the caliph), for his journey
would be in vain. lnstead, Stephen considers it rnore effective "to pray for him
day and night, so as to intercede (with God) for the release of the patriarch and ali
Clırisıeııdoın, and to protect us and them from every hostile plot and frorn every
trial, whether huınan or devilish''. 115 As we see, the hopes for a fı.ıture liberation
fronı Arab rule had not yet coınpletely disappeared.
Coıısidering the events from the perspective of tinıe, we can easily see
that these hopes were deceived, at least for a century, before the arrival of the
Byzantine armies in Syria with the emperors Nikephoros il Phokas aııd Johıı 1
Tzimiskes. Now, the point is how the political sitı.ıation was perceived at the time.
The victories the emperor Theoplıilos won at the beginning ofthe 830s along with
the formation of Persian contingents in their arnıy could have caused alarm to the
Abbasid authorities in the same proportion as it raised the hopes of the Melkite
conınıunity. No Byzantiııe source has beeıı preserved, except for the Letter to
Theoplıilos itsel1� where these hopes ofa Christian reconquista of the Holy Land
are openly expressed. But considerable information has been transmitted about
the eschatological fears pervading the Abbasid nıling elite, especially during
Ma'ımııı's reign. And some indirect reflection of this state of mind is also to
be found in some contemporaıy Christian sources, as we will duly consider in
Chapter 22.
The role the Melkite Church could have played in a Byzantine reconquista is
not to be overlooked. Nehemia Levtzion has argued that although the Jacobites
were more numerous in Syria than the Melkites, and also had communities in
Palestine, and even despite the fact that "immediately after the Arab conquest the
Greek Orthodox suffered more than the rnonophysite because they were deprived
ofthe privileged status they had enjoyed under the Byzantines", in the long run, the
Orthodox population prevailed for they not only had the protection ofthe imperial
authorities, but were strongly represented in the towns and, as rich landowners,
could effectively protect the Christian peasants on the chtirch estates.116 There
was accordingly every reason to rely on the Melkites, especially in Palestine, for
undeıtaking the project ofa reconquista of the Middle East.

115
Leontios, Life ofStephen the Sabaite (Greek) 538 (II.21): vuKrmp Kal µa0rı�ıepav
A.l'CUVEUWV aı'.rt:OV, KUt ıtpE<J�E\JO)V {map ı:fjç A.uı:pü)<JEWÇ 't:OU ıtaı:pıapxou ıcai 7tUV't:OÇ
ı:ou xpıcrı:ovu�lOU ıı.aou, [ıcai 1l7tEp ı:ou pucr0fjvaı ııµaç ıcai aı'.ıı:ouç arca 7tU<JTjÇ evavı:iaç
em�ouıı.fjç] ıcai ıcavı:oç ıcaıpacrµou öıa�oıı.ııcou ı:e ıcai av0pmrcivou. Leontios, L(fe ofSteplıeıı
tlıe Sabaite (Arabic) §23.6, based on the Greek text, presents a !acuna in this passage and
oınits the sequence we marked with square brackets in the Greek text: see Lamoreaux
( 1999) (trans.) 28, note 134. Was it rnere clıance that tlıe Arab translator let drop precisely
tlıese compromising words fronı his text?
11'' Levtzion ( 1990) 305-6.
 Tlıı! Lı!ltı!/' of'ılıe Tlıree Melkiıe Palrimdıs ıo Tlıı!oplıilo.ı· 399

Assurning thus that the patriarchs contacted the enıperor and urgecl hinı to
reconquer tlıe east in a written appeal, sorne new questions arise, ınost pronıinently,
how this appeal is to be relatecl witlı tlıe syııocl of 836. Particularly, 1 think it can
be ruled out thal tlıe Letter, in its present form, can be passed as a resolution of
a nıassive Melkite synod. Ancl tlıis for a sirnple reasoıı: a gathering of 1355 {!)
Melkites at Jerusalenı endorsing the text ofa synodical letter where the Byzantine
emperor is praised and his help demanded for putting an enci to Arab occupation
would not only have been an act ofoutright rebellion against the caliphate ancl
accordingly never been pernıitted by Muslim autlıorities, but woulcl also have
been easily detected and punishecl.
Accorclingly, be it snıall or big, the synod could not have producecl such an
open appeal to the emperor with the signature of ali the participants. it appears
ıııore likely that the synocl passed some neutral profession of faith like the one
preserved at tlıe enci ofthe lviron ıııanuscript (except for the two slıort references
to icon worship we considered above in section 21.2). But at the same time another
text, probably not a long one, might have been conıposed with some. secrecy
by the patriarchs, this time witlı a direct appeal to the enıperor. This text was
what we have considered to be the original Letter ta Theophilos. Certainly, the
fact that it was written in Greek ancl, incleed, in a rhetorical way, rnade the bole!
appeal not imnıediately detectable to an inexperiencecl reacler. But the problem
_. renıains that the message was conveyed by means ofa written Letter that could
have been intercepted by caliphal agents before it arrived in the capital. An oral
message,' rendereci by the bearer of the epistle by the deliveıy of the text, woulcl
have been more advisable in this case to convey the appeal to the emperor. These
oral ınessages are in fact mentioned in many Byzantine letters, for example in the
epistles ofTheodore Stoudites, Photios or Nikolaos Mystikos, and are also known
in connection with embassies.117 However, in this particular case, the sparse ancl
difficult communications between Constantinople and the Melkite patriarchates
may have made it necessary for the patriarchs to compromise and produce a
written record tlmt could stand alone. Writing was in fact used to authenticate
docuınents when the reliability of the bearers··
could not be easily checked, as we
should assume was then the case. 118

21.7 'fhe Melkite Patriarchs after 843

Whereas what we know about the particular stance toward icons ofthe three Melkite
patriarchs who appear as signatories of the Letter aınounts almost to nothing (for,
as we lıave argued above, the Letter they supposedly signed was expanded only

117 Drocourt (2009) 40---43.

ııs As for the problems caused by false Melkite representatives attending councils
in Constantinople in the ninth century and mainly duriııg tlıe patriarchates of Plıotios and
lgnatios. see Sansterre ( 1973) and Signes Codofier (2013b).
400 Tlıe Emperrır Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası, 829-842

later with a clossier of texts on icon worship), two of their irnmediate successors
appear in tlıe sources connected with the defence of icons.
The Melkite patriarch Sergios is the addressee of a letter written by the
Constantinopolitan patriarch Methodios some time after his enthronement in
843. 119 The letter is an answer to a previous letter from Sergios, sent three years
earlier, where he had agreed with Methodios on the measures to be taken for the
reintegration ofthe iconoclast priests into the Byzantine Church. Strictly speaking,
no discussioıı is had about icon worship, but what matters is the clear siding ofthe
t\V0 patriarchs against iconoclasts. in a previous (lost) letter to Methodios, Sergios
had appareııtly agreed with lıinı that oııly those repenlant iconoclasts who had been
consecrated by the patriarchs Tarasios and Nikephoros were to be reintegrated as
priests, with the express exclusion of John the Granınıarian hinıself. However,
the readmitted priests would remain "as in a second rank" (6ıc; ev oEuTspçı. Ta./;Et).
No priest consecrated after 815 would be kept in his post either. No wonder
that Methodios acknowledges in the preserved letter that ınany iconoclasts did
not accept the severe conditions posed for their reintegration into the Orthodox
Church. 1"0 in any case the understanding between Methodios and Sergios on these
lıarsh measures against iconoclasts appears to be conıplete.
This alignment ofthe Melkite patriarch ofJerusalem with his Constantinopolitan
counterpart against the iconoclasts does not however mean that the Melkite sees
had a continuous tradition of icon worship, and much less that we ınust find here
a proofofthe iconophile stance of his predecessors or of the Letter to Theoplıilos,
written only a few years before Sergios was appointed patriarch of Jerusaleın. In
fact, there is soıne plausibility to the elaim that a change of position might have
taken place among the Melkite hierarchy with the arrival ofMethodios.
Through a passage preserved in Eutychios of Alexandria's Annals we are
informed first that Sergios was appointed patriarch in 843, exactly the same year
as the re-establishment of icon worship by Methodios, and then that Sergios was
"the son" of the Manşür who had delivered the city of Damascus to the Arabs. 121
Eutychios undoubtedly refers to a Manşür who was serving as a high official under
the emperors Maurice and Herakleios and negotiated with the Muslims, on behalf
of the Christians of Damascus, the surrender of the city to the Arabs. He thus
assumed its rule with the approval of the new Muslim authorities. As Eutychios
is our best source for this person, it is clear that he could not have said that a
patriarch of the ninth century was "the son" of a person living in the first half
of the seventh. 122 It must be assumed that our author wanted only to stress that
the new appointed patriarch Sergios was "of the Manşür (family)", one of the
leading families of Syria, to which, significantly, John of Daınascus belonged.

11" Edited by Pitra (1868) 355-7 and reprinted in PG 100, 1292-1293. ! clealt at soıne
length witlı the text of this letter in Sigııes Codofier (20136).
110 • For a slıort sumınary of tlıe conteııt of the letter see Zielke (1999) 240-42.
111 Eutychios, Aııııals 408.
112 Eutychios, A111w/s 16.
 Tlıe Leııer o(ılıe Tlırec Me/kiıe Paıriarclıs ıo Tlıeoplıi/os 401

in fact, Jolın was called Manşür ibn Saıjün, tlıat is to say, Manşür son ofSergios,
b·cfore he clıanged his name when entering the nıonastic state. Tlıe Damasceııe
was indeed the grandson of the same Manşür to whose family the patriarch of
Jerusalem belonged. 1 23 John the Damascene is presented as tlıe "son of Maıısür"
(6 rnu Mavcmup) by Theophanes. 1 2.ı
it is therefore clear that the new patriarch Sergios, appoiııted in 843, was a
menıber of the well-known Manşür farnily, to which John the Damascene, the
most fomous of the Melkite iconophiles, belonged. it is also clear that the Melkite
Eutychios clicl not regard with ımıch synıpathy the new appointed patriarch, for
he connectecl him in a contemptuous way with the Manşür who had betrayed
Danıascus and had been anathenıatized for that. The harsh inclictment reminds
us of the anatheına launchecl against Manşür's grandson Jolııı the Damascene by
the iconoclast enıperor Constantine V. 125 That Sergios was appointed patriarch in
843 for his faınily connections is the unavoidable conclusion. But his appointmeııt
does not mean that ali members of the Melkite Church in Palestine ancl Syria
now supportecl icon worship. it may reveal iıısteacl a slıift from iconoclasm to
iconophilia in the Melkite lıierarchy in accorclaııce with the new signals sent frorn
Constantinople arter Theophilos' death, but, as had also beeıı frequently the case
in the empire, suclden turns in the official creclo of the church authorities did not
alter at once the beliefs of common Melkite believers.
More or less contemporary with the appointment of a new patriarch in
Jerusalem was the enthronement ofSophronios as new head of the Melkite Church
in Egypt, who thus followed Christopher as patriarch in Alexandria. The Annals
of Eutychios provide us this time with a detailed account of Sophronios' defence
of image worship before the emperor Theophilos. 1 26 This is in fact the only time
that Eutychios refers to iconoclasm in his work. Thirty years ago Sidney Griffith
submitted the text to a careful analysis that will provide the starting point for our
reflections. 1 27 But !et us first have a look at the passage itself.
Eutychios says that when Michael, "the son of Theophilos", died, his son
Theophilos becarne king of the Romans. "He removed the iınages from the
churches, effaced them, broke them, and commanded that there were no images
in churches at all." 1 28 The cause for his iconoclasın, we are told, was that he
discovered that a miraculous image of the Virgin placed in a "ceıtain place in
Byzantine teITitory", from whose breast a drop of milk ıniraculously came out on

m See PmbZ #2969 and PBE s.v. "Ioannes 11".

124 Theoph. 408. Mango and Scott (1997) translated tlıe passage as "the son of
Mansour", but the expression is to be understood again as indicating that John was a
descendant ofthe Mansour family.
125 Mansi (1758-1798), vol. 13, col. 356 C-D.
126 Eutyclıios, Aııııa/s 409-11.
1 7
� Griffith ( 1982).
ı:?s in this and fuıther quotations I follo\ıv the English translation of tlıe passage by
Griffith ( 1982) 166-7.
402 Tlıe Empcror Tlıeoplıilos mu/ tlıe Ecıst, 819-842

her feast day, was in fact manipulated by the custodian of the church in order to
attract pilgrims and thus increase his reveııues. Theophilos was furious at the fraud
and, putting images on the same level as idols, removed them froın the churches.
"Tlıus a coııtroversy arose aınong Byzantines over the matter of images." Tlıen
the text continues:

Sophronios. the patrian.:h of Alexandria, heard aboul this. so he wrote an

extensive ıreatisc, in whiclı he upholds bowing down to images, and he provided
argumentation f'or it. He said, "God, praise and glory be to Him, and lıallowed
be His naıııes, cuııımanded Moses to make golden images of the Chenıbim on
the Ark or tlıe Con:nanl, and lo put it inside tlıe sanctuary." He also argued,
"Soloıııon, Llıe son of David, wlıen he laboured lo build the ıeıııple, put a golden
iıııage oflhe Cherubiııı in it." And lıe saicl, "Wlıenever a docuıııent froııı tlıe king
arrives, sealecl witlı the king's seal, and the official is told, 'Tlıis is the king's
seal, and his document', does he not rise to lake the docuıııent in his hancl, to kiss
it, to put it to his head and his eyes? His slanding, and his kissing the clocument,
is not lo lıonour the scroll, or tlıe wax that is sealed on Lhe scroll, or tlıe ink
that is inside the scroll; nor is his standing or liis lıonour for the document. it is
certainly not for any one of Llıese features. it is only to honour the king and the
king's name, since this is his docurnent. So, froııı this perspective it is necessary
for us to kiss his iıııage, and to bow down to it, since mır kissing it and our
bowing down is not like mır bowing down to idols. Our honour and reverence
are only for the name of tlıis martyr, whose iınage is here portrayed in these
colors." He dispatched the book to king Theophilos. The king received it, took
delight in it, and abandoned his disapproval of images.

Abü Qurralı was also among tlıose who supported bowing down to images. He
wrote a book on this, and he named it "Sermons on Bowing Down to Images".

The text is inseıted in the reign of caliph Mutawaldcil (847-861) although it

refers to the appointment ofTheophilos as emperor ofthe Romans after the death
of his father Michael in 829. Apparently it is misplaced and in fact Eutychios
refers to the beginning ofthe reign ofTheophilos earlier in his work, during the
caliphate of Mu'taşim (833-842). 129 This date is again not altogether right, for
Theophilos ascended to power during the caliphate ofMa'mün, but it does at least
make Theophilos a contemporary ofMu'taşim.
The most likely explanation for this second reference in the Annals to the
ascension of Theophilos to power is that it was a kind of flashback destined
to explain the origins of iconoclasm in Byzantium and thus the circumstances
moving Sophronios to compose "an extensive treatise" in defence oficon worship.
However, as Griffith has already remarked, Eutychios is completely confused about
the sequence of Byzantine emperors from the beginning ofthe eighth century to

12" Eutyclıios, Amıa/:; 407.

 Tlıe lefler oltlıe Tlıree Melkiıe Patriarc/ıs ıo Tlıeoplıi!o.ı· 403

the reign ofTlıeoplıilos, and tlıe ıııention of a Theophilos, father of fvliclıael, i r not
aıı inference of the author or his source, ıııay lead us to supposc tlıat he tlıought
that there were two emperors of this name. 130
Nevertlıeless, the foct reınaiııs that Sophronios ancl Theophilos were
contenıporaries, provided it is tnıe, as Eutychios telis us, that Sophronios was
appointed patriarch in the ''fourth year of the reign of fvlu'taşim", that is to say,
in 836, after the death of his predecessor Christopher (one of the signatories of
tlıe Letter to Tlıeophi/os) and when Theophilos was stili in charge. Sophronios
rulecl for 13 years (until 848). 131 Why then clid Eutychios insert the piece about
Sophronios' treatise on images in the reign offvlutawakkil, that is to say, after 847,
well after the death ofTheophilos? The reference to Theophilos' repentance for his
previous iconoclasm may provide a clue, for, as Griffith has alreacly renıarkecl, 132 it
fits in too well with tlıe offıcial propaganda set in motion by his wiclow Tlıeoclora
atler 843 wlıere it was said tlıat tlıe emperor repented for his sins on his deathbecl
and aclherecl to ortlıodoxy. 133 Tlıis might be a clear iııdication that tlıe story was
concocted after 843, when Theoplıilos was already cleacl.
On the contrary, if Sophroııios had written his treatise before 843, this would
lıave been not only untiınely but also harcl to reconcile with the common appeal
to the emperor macle by the three fvlelkite patriarchs in 836, as we arguecl above.
A Melkite patriarch woulcl lıave had no reason to challenge tlıe imperial autlıorities
on this matter, seeing that their support was vital to hiın in clefencling his positioıı
before the Musliın authorities ancl teınpering their ili treatment of the fvlelkites.
üne might argue that Sophronios wrote the treatise after 838, in the wake of
Theophilos' defeat, but even then he could not have foreseen the emperor's cleath
and his widow's restoration of icon worship.
The definitive solution to this question lies in the audience to which Sophronios's
treatise was addressed. This will only come with the edition of the two treatises on
icon worship attributed to Sophronios which John Duffy discoverecl some ten years
ago in Harleianus 5665, ff. 1 r-47r. 134 To be sure, before John Duffy completes the
edition of these texts for the Coıpııs Christicınoruın, nothing definitive can be said
about their ııature ancl intent. However, some facts can already be outlined.
To begin with, it is interesting that Sophroııios wrote these two pieces in
Greek, and not in Arabic, as Abü Qurra did. Some Greek grammatical scholia of
Sophronios have been preserved, based on the coımnentaıy made by Johıı Charax
to the gramınatical Ccınones ofTheodosios of Alexandria (living at the beginning

130
Griffith (1982) 168-73. For problems in oriental sources on tlıe chroııology of
Theophilos' reign see also Clıapter 5.3.
131 Eutychios, Aıına!s 407.
132
Griffith ( 1982) I 77.
133
Markopoulos ( I 998).
134
Duffy (2002) with an overview of the content. l tlıank tlıe autlıor for allowing nıe
access to his unedited paper. The text wı:ıs also siıııultaııeously cliscovered by Laıııbertz
(2003) wlıo described tlıe ıııı:ımıscript aııcl clated it to tlıe years after I 094/5.
-104 The E111pcror Tlıenphi/os aııd ılıe Eası, 8]9-841

of the fifth century).rn in its short prologue, Sophronios says that he wrote the
sclıolia wlıen he was a monk (ıiviKa eµ6vaÇs). More important, tlıe treatise is
addressed lo the abbot John, bishop of Damietta (ıcpoç ı:ov a.ppav 'Icoa.wrıv
eıcicrrnıcov Ta�ua0scııç), thus confirming that the work was composed in Egypt
for loca! audiences. Recently a Greek paraphrase ot' the first odes of the lliad,
also attributed to Sophronios, has been discovered in a Sinai manuscript, NF Mr
26. 136 The discovery is revealing for two reasons. First, because it confirms that
Sophronios wrote and lived in Egypt, for the manuscript dates to the ninth century
and is almost contemporary with Sophronios. in fact. the text contains perhaps the
oldest copy ofHomer preserved. Second, Sophronios is addressed as hegoumenos,
a title that implies that he was abbot of the monastery of Saint Catherine before
being appointed patriarch in Alexandria. The monastic provenance ofSophronios
may explain his iconophile sympathies, if it is true that monks in Egypt and
especially at the Sinai monasteıy, were particularly prone to icon worship. 137
However, it can be doubted that writing in Greek on icon worship at this time
could have been conceived only for loca! audiences, when Arabic was already the
main language oftheological discussion. Sophronios undoubtedly thought also of
Constantinopolitan audiences, when he wrote his texts. Unfortunately, we cannot
say for now, where did he wrote them (İn Egypt or in the Empire?) or even whether
he actually sent them to Constantinople, as the text of Eutychios expressly says.
Duffy demonstrates in his short overview of the content of the two works
that Sophronios' opponents, whom the author frequently addresses, were
"some iconoclast individuals or faction in his own church". As Duffy remarks,
"Sophronios in Egypt, it would appear, was stili confronting a !ive controversy
that was not only disrupting the peace of the Church, but was also (as he puts it
himself) providing the e0v1Koi with an opportunity to slander Christians". This is
an important point, for although Sophronios refers to the iconoclast emperors at
Constantinople and therefore considers the dispute on icons against the background
of Byzantine iconoclasm, it is because of intemal divisions within the Egyptian
Church that he took the pen. The Iack of any reference or address to Theophilos,
either in the title or in the content of both treatises, would confinn mır previous
supposition that the texts were written after the death of the emperor, as Duffy
actually seems to believe, for he thinks that Sophronios wrote his works in the
84Os or 85Os. Moreover, in chapter 35 of the first "logos" the patriarch apparently
refers to iconoclast coercion of the church as a thing of the past. In any case, the

135
Hilgard (1894) 373-434 for the edition of Sophronios' text. Theodosios'
Elıxqw)'ııwi ıcav6veç rrepi ıcAi<Jewç dvoplı.rcvv ıcai pııplı.rcvv are well known and have been
edited by Hilgard (1889) 1-100. About him see Dickie (2007) 83--4 and Robins (1993)
111-15.
136 N
icolopoulos (2003).
137
See Signes Codoiier (2013c) especially 178-80 for icon worship in Egypt during
lhe iconoclasl periocl.
 Tlıe Letter o{t!ıe Tlıree ı\Ielk:ite Pcıtriarclıs to Tlıeop/ıilos 405

outspokenness and confidence of the author as far as the exposition of his icleas is
concenıed would spcak for tlıe writing ofthe two trcatiscs after 843.
We provisorily conclude tlıat Sophronios may have started, as in the case of
patriarch Sergios, a clıange in tlıe attitude of the Melkite clıurch towards icons,
a change that woulcl have begun after 843 with the support of Constantinople. it
took however stili some time before the Melkites officially embraced the canons
ofNikaia il at the time of Photios. 138

21.8 Wlıere and by Wlıom was the Forgery Made?

in what appears to be a forma! closing, towarcls tlıe enci ofthe Slavoııic version of
the Letter we reacl the following statement:

And we decicled to write clowıı tlıis letter witlı tlıe help of Basil, a loyal monk
ancl your close slave and servant, becmıse of his piety and becmıse he does not
fear tlıe violence of the lıeatlıens wlıiclı tlırealens us ancl because he was tlıen
in tlıe palriarclıate, going arouııd the lıoly aııd veneratecl pl::ıces, we tasked lıim
witlı wriling llıis in tlıe teınple or llıe Holy Resurrectioıı on tlıe place of Calvary
for honour ancl glory. 1,'1

Who was this Basil? Obviously Basil is a very cornmon name, but the fact
that the L[fe of Tlıeodore of Edessa, mentionecl above in section 21.3, is said to
have been writteıı by Basil, nephew ofthe saint, may notjust be a coincidence. If
the Basil who wrote the Life ofTheodore is the saıne who is saicl in the Slavonic
version to have written the Letter in Greek, we would therefore have a serious
basis for doubting the authenticity ofthe Letter, since the fantastic nan:ative ofthe
conversion of the caliph to Christianity preserved in the Life of Theodore makes
this text anything but a reliable historical source. However, the fiction in the Life
ofTheodore is accoınpaniecl, as we havejust seen, with many accurate details that
betray a clirect knowledge ofthe ecclesiastical affairs in Palestine, and they could
only have been written by a direct witness of the events. If the Basil who wrote
the Ltfe ofTheodore was also the author ofthe Letter, he could have expanded an
authentic document, Jet us say the original letter ofthe three Melkite patriarchs to
Theophilos, to form an iconophile dossier suppoıiing his particular views about
icon worship. The exalted iconophilia of the Basil who was author of the Life of
Theodore (writing under the regency ofTheodora for Michael III) would account

138 Signes Codofier(2013b).

9
13 Tlıis is the translation provided by Afinogenov (fortlıconıiııg). in Afinogenov
(2003-2004) 26 Basil was ::ıddressed as "tlıe faitlıful nıoıık and loyal slave aııcl servant",
without tlıe possessive proııoun reterring to Tlıeoplıilos.
406 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeoplıilos aııd tlıe Eası. 829-842

for this. 140 As we have said, this was exactly the way in which forgers worked at
thc time, by expanding previous texts. Significantly enough, sometimes the first
person of the personal pronoun (betraying Basil's ego?) intnıdes unexpectedly in
the anthology section of the Leııer as preserved in the Slavonic version. 1·11
However, the Slavonic text presents Basil not as a loca! Melkite, but as a
'·close slave and servant" of Theophilos. Apparently, Basil happened to be there
when the synod took place and helped the patriarchs to write the Letter to the
enıperor, perhaps because of his kııowledge of Greek. it strikes oııe as suspicious
that this inclication of authorship was made in an original Letter, especially when
we consicler tlıat the statenıent is lacking in the Greek versions and that there are
sonıe indications of the clerivative clıaracter ofthe Slavonic text, as we have seen.
The reference to the writing of tlıe text by Basil would only make sense in front
of Theophilos if Basil was in fact his envoy to the Melkite patriarchs, the man
chargecl by the enıperor to surnınon them for an iconoclast council in the capital.
But if we argue for the authenticity of the passage, we ımıst then rule out that a
work written by a "close slave aııd servant" of the iconoclasl emperor contained
a clossier oftexts supporting the cult oficons! This conclusion woulcl support mır
previous· reasoning and confirm the interpolated nature ofthis icon dossier, but it
would at the same time question the authenticity ofthe work as a whole.
Now, there are other elements pointing rather to Constantinople as a place
where the Letter coulcl have been ınanipulatecl. 1n fact, that Constantinople was the
place where the forgeıy took place or was at least initially disseminatecl has already
been suggested. 142 lhor Sevcenko for instance made the following comment about
the Letter:

I suspect that it was doctored up, ifnot composed, by some committee for the re­
election ofan iconodulic patriarch, based either in Constantinople or Bithynia.
The !etler, which claims to emaııate from Jerusalem, says unlikely things about

140 Binggeli (201 O) 96, note 69 announces that "new evidence will be advanced in a
foıilıcoming article by the author to support tlıe contention that the work was composed
in the two first decades of the eleventh century. Central to the argument is the terıniııııs
post qııeııı provided by Nikephore Ouranos's metaphrasis of the Life of Symeon Stylites
t/ıe Yowıger, written while he was the governor ofAntioch (between 999 and 1007); it can
be shown !hat the beginning ofthe Life ofTlıeodore of Edessa, which relates to the saint's
childhood, plagiarizes Nicephore's text." Even admitting that his conclusions are correct,
the possibility lies to hand that an original text ofthe Life ofT/ıeodore was expanded at the
beginning ofthe eleventh century with episodes of the saint's childhood or other sections.
This -ı,vould account for the popularity of the text, which undoubtedly uses contemporaıy
evidence ofthe ninth century.
141 Afinogenov (2003-2004) 28.
14' Griffith (1982) 177 wondered whetlıer the text "was not composed comp/etezv
ıvithiıı tlıe Greek speakiııg realms ofllıe emperor".
 Tlıe Leııer o/ı/ıe Three Me/kiıe Paıricırclıs ıo T/ıeop/ıi/o.ı· 407

tlıat city. 14·' ıvhile tlıe orieııtal patriarclıs are reıııarkably well inforıned about
goiııgs-011 in St. Soplıia aııd eveıı knoıv soıııetlıiııg about its layout. Tlıe milieu
wlıiclı could lıave doctored up tlıe letter did exist in tlıe capital at tlıe time. 1-14

Christopher Walter has also considered tlıat some passages reveal a direct
acquaintance witlı the building of Hagia Sophia, especially Letter 7.13 and 12.a-f,
althouglı he alsa admits that they too may have been later interpolations. 145 There
are alsa some stories ofa typical Constantinopolitan flavour, like Letter 11.a-e,
where a certain Michael, who was to be ordained archbishop of Ephesos after a
decision by tlıe enıperor Michael ("your father," ıı:aı:p6c; crou, as the text goes), 146
put off his consecration after a clreadful vision oftlıe devi! in Hagia Sophia, or
Letter 7. 14, dealing with an icon which was thrown into the sea at Constantinople
by the patriarch Germanos and miraculously arrived at the Tiber. More recently
Dimitri Afinogenov has argued for the use ofByzantine sources for the composition
of the dossier of the Letter, including even the acts of the synod of814 that led to
tlıe reintroduction of iconoclasnı. 147
lf we consider these Constantinopolitan elements to be an interpolation, we
slıould conclucle that the original Letter was manipulated and interpolated first in
a Melkite lancl, either in Jerusalenı or in Alexanclria (only there could a Byzantine
enıperor be called �acrtAEu<; (basileus) Kwvcr-ravnvouıı:6AEW<; as in the transmittecl
title of the work), and then again in Constantinople. Tlıis presupposes perhaps
too many changes for a text that was alreacly widespread in the "standard" form
towarcls the end of the ninth century, this being the date of the olclest nıanuscript
preserved. 148 Therefore, if we are not pleased with the idea of supposing two
successive phases in the transmission in such a short period of time, then we rnust
resort to complementary explanations, which go well beyond the evidence but
may perhaps help to understand how such a text may have been diffusecl.
We advanced earlier (section 21.2) that the absence of the protocol and
eschatocol could be explained if we suppose that the forger used a copy of the
original Letter, which Iacked these elements and was entered either in the patriarchal
or in the imperial register. Now, the secrecy of the appeal to the emperor (see section
21.6 above) makes it more likely that the forger consulted the original text of the

143
He probably refers to the high mımbers of participaııts in the loca! Jerusalemite
synod.
144 Sevcenko (1979-1980) 735, note 36.
145 Walter (1997) lxix-lxxi. For the "holy well" quoted in 7.13 see also Bnıbaker and
Haldon (2011) 438-9.
146 This direct appellation to Theophilos is obviously a rhetorical device, muclı in tlıe
sense of tlıe appellations to Julian in the treatises ofCyril of Alexandria, written many years
after the emperor was dead.
147
Afinogenov (forthcoming).
ı4s Muııitiz et al. (1997) xiv aııd xcii. Otto Kresteıı, on inspectioıı of the plates of tlıe
editioıı, agreecl witlı this datiııg.
408 Tlıe Eıılfı<'ror Tlıeop/ıilos a11d ı/ıe Easl, 819-841

Leııer in Constantinople. wlıere it could lıave been easily accessible. lt is therefore

possible to conceive that tlıe iııterpolator of the Letter, being a Melkite, worked in
Constantinople the whole time but with an eastem mentality. He must have been one
more of the many Melkites wlıo emigrated into Byzantine lands during tlıe period.
This would explain the twofold character of the text, the differences of linguistic
level as well as its rapid diffusioıı among the iconophile milieu ofthe capital.
This would also provide an explanation for the silence ofthe Constantinopolitan
authorities ofthe time about this text, whose content and purpose fit perfectly with
their own policy against icoııoclasm: they knew well that the interpolated Letter
with its bulky iconophile dossier was a forgery (it was barely adapted to the uses
and standards of the Melkite chaııcelleıy) and, moreover, did not reflect the real
stance towards icons ofthe eastern Christians, with whom they coıTesponded. The
silence ofPlıotios in this respect is telling, especially as the oldest manuscript ofthe
Letter was copied during his lifetime and contains references to the "Two-Powers"
tlıeory that the famous patriarch developed in his Eisagoge or Introdııction to the
Law. 149 1 f our assumption proves correct, we would have to cope again with a
further episode of forgeıy liııked with the eastem emigres and Sabartes, similar to
others we kııow. 150 The interpolation of older texts, which had proved so successfl!I
in the eighth centuıy, rnighl have continued thus in the ninth by means of other
agents.
On these premises it will be objected that no conclusions about the nature
of relations entertained between Theophilos and the Melkites can be obtained at
ali from the present text of the Letter. I have argued against this too sceptical
approach in the preceding pages and obviously I will not repeat my arguments
here. It suffices to say that no forger could have written such an enthusiastic appeal
to Theophilos after 843 (see section 21.6 above) nor written a text (what we called
the original core of the Letter) which clearly avoids any direct approach to the
controversy on the icons (see section 21.4 above). Nevertheless, if the sceptical
mind continues to remain unconvinced, we can at least safely conclude that the
Letter does not prove that the Melkites opposed Theophilos in his iconoclast
policy. A more balanced approach to the relations between the Byzantines and the
Melkites during the reign ofTheophilos is therefore conceivable.

14'' For Photios and the Letter to Tlıeoplıilos see Signes Codofier (2013b).
15" See Alexakis ( 1996), Auzepy (2001a) ancl Signes Coclofier (2013b).
 Chapter 22
Apocalyptics and Expectations of Political
Change in the Realm of the Abbasids

In the analysis ofthe Letter to Theophi/os undertaken in the previous pages I have
argued that the tlıree Melkite patriarchs, probably in 836, on the eve ofTheophilos'
major victory of 837, addressed a synodical letter to the ernperor, where they
dealt with sorne dogrnatic questions in a way that was wholly cornpatible with
the icoııoclast doctrine, as we saw in Chapter 21.5. Moreover, they wished the
emperor further victories that woulcl eventually eııable the reunification of ali the
Clıristians lands under his sway (see Chapter 21.7). This significant text was later
manipulated and expanded in order to create a political manifesto in defence of
icon worship, althouğh neitlıer the exact place where the forgery was nıade nor tlıe
person responsible for it can be easily ascertained (see Chapter 21.8).
We ımıst now consider whether or not further evidence can be found for
the existence of some expectations of political change amongst the Christian
population ofthe Middle East. These expectations, linked not only with Byzantine
victories but also with dissidence and intemal strife in the Abbasid caliphate, could
have encouraged the Melkites to address the emperor in the way they did.
Wilfred Madelung published some thirty years ago an interesting text preserved
f
in the Kitcıb al-Tarcı 'iffi ına 'r{fat al-tawcı 'i ofRaçliyy al-Din ibn Tawüs, an Iraqi
shiite scholar of the thirteenth century. 1 It is a letter written by Ma'mün to the
Abbasids and the people of Baghdad when he was already caliph but had not
retumed to Iraq. In the letter Ma'mün replies to a previous insulting letter from
them (now lost), which was in turu the answer to a first letter (also lost) of his
written in Rabi I ofHA 203 (Septerriber-October 8 I 8). In this first letter the caliph
informed them ofthe sudden death ofhis appointed successor 'AiT al-Riçla. 2 The
reason for the harsh tone ofthe correspondence was undoubtedly the appointment
of'Alı al-Riçla as heir, for he was an 'Alici and thus unwelcomed by many sunnis
and supporters of the Abbasids. The authenticity ofthe preserved letter, a lengthy
text that Ibn Tawüs took frorn the no longer extant Kitcıb nadim al-farıd of tlıe
Persian philosopher and historian Miskawayh (932-1030),3 cannot be doubted,
as Madelung convincingly proved, and it has been generally accepted until now. 4
This makes the docurnent, where Ma'mün defends 'AiT as the most excellent

1
For this Muslim sclıolar see Kolılberg (1992) esp. 57-9.
Madelung (1981) 340-44.
For tlıe use of Miskawaylı by lbn Tawüs see IColılberg ( 1992) 294-5.
• Maclelung ( 1981) 344-6.
410 T/ıe Emperor Tlıeoplıi/os aııd tlıe East, 829-841

companion of the Prophet, attacks the corruption of the Abbasids and, finally,
justifies his designation of' Alı al-Riçla as heir instead of his son 'Abbas, one of
the most revealing testimonies for the history ofthe period.
üne passage orthe letter is worth mentioning here. it is the caliph himselfwho
is speaking:

AI-Rashid has informed me on the authority of his ancestors and of wlıat he

found in lhe Book of tlıe Reign [Kitiib al-Dawla] and elsewhere that after the
sevenllı of the descendants of al-' Abbas no pili ar will remain standiııg for tlıe
Banü !-'Abbas. Prosperity will continue to be fasteııed for them to his life. So
wlıen I take leave. take you leave from it, and wlıen you are deprived of my
person, seek for yourselves a fortified refuge. But alas, there will be nothing for
you but the sword. Tlıe I:IasanT, the avenger and destroyer, will come to you and
ınow you down, and the SufyanT, the subduer. But your blood will be spared at
tlıe advent ofthe Qa'im, the MahdT, except for just claim.

As for my intent in respect to the pledge of allegiance for 'AiT ibn Müsa [al­
Riçla], peace be on him, in addition to his meriling it in hiınself and my choice
of him as the best, it was only that I might becoıne the sparer of your blood and
your protector by perpetuating the love between us and them. This is the way I
pursue in honouring the kindred of Abü Talib in giving them a share oftlıefay'
in the small amount that accrues to them, even though you claim that I desire its
income and its benefits should pass to tlıem. Thus I anı occupied with managing
your affairs and with taking care of you and your offspring and sons after you,
while you occupy yourselves with carefree amusement. You stray in a flood, not
knowing what is intended for you, and tlıe affliction and robbery of your wealth
which are approaching.5

As we see, Ma'mün announces to his partisan Abbasids that he appointed Riçla as

successor instead ofa member ofthe Abbasid house because he knew from his father
Harün al-Rashıd that the Abbasid caliphate was to come to an end after the seventh
caliph, who was Ma 'mün himself. There will follow an age oftribulations, represented
by the apocalyptic figures ofthe Basanı° and the SufyanT,7 with the final coming of
the Mahdı, who will restore faith to its original form and eradicate moral comıption.

Madelung (1981) 343.

6
The I:IasanT is a descendant of the Prophet Mul:ıammad's elder grandson I:Iasan (625-
669), considered an imam in the shiite tradition. However, according to Cook (2002) 64--5,
the apocalyptic figure of the I:Iasani was also adopted by sunnites, as they considered that
I:Iasan's willingness to give up the caliphate to Mu'awiya in 661 signified an unworldly lack
of political ambition. Baylıom-Daou (2008) 22-3 considers the anomalous characterization
of the J:lasanT as avenger and destroyer.
7
Tlıe SufyanT represents tlıe descendants of the Umayyads. For him see Madelung
(2004) and further below.
 Apoccızvptics cıııd Expecıaıions (J/'Political Clıcmge 411

lfthis passage were authentic, then we would have a caliph openly raising the
question of the continuity of his own fanıily power, an unprecedented fact that
could not but trigger political instability in the caliphate - and encourage of cmırse
Christians' hopes for a political change. However, this passage in particular (but
not the rest ofthe letter) has been recently suspected ofbeing an interpolation.8 As
a nıatter of fact, it seems strange that Ma'nıün appointed Riçla as successor just
because of an apocalyptic prophecy. He nıust have paid attention to other factors
ancl actually nıany interpretations to the designation of Riçla have been advanced
in recent research.'1 But, although the passage could have been interpolated, this
does not change anything about the proliferation of prophecies predicting the end
of Abbasid rule precisely during the reign of Ma'nıün. Hayrettin Yücesoy has
clevoted a comprehensive nıonograph to these messianic beliefs in the early ninth
century, where the reader can find useful infornıatioıı. 10 Therefore we will content
ourselves here with a brief overview.
Clear evidence ofthe apocalyptic fever that shook the caliphate at the beginning
ofthe ninth centuıy is providecl by the Kitab al-Fitan (Book ofApocazvptic Turmoi[)
ofNu'aynı ibıı Hammad. Nu'aym was a coııtemporary ofMa'mün ancl died in 843
after being put in jail by caliph Wathiq for refusing to acknowledge that the Qur'an
was created. in his Kitab al-Fitaıı he cornpiled about two thousand projJhecies,
condensecl into l O chapters, covering the period from early lslamic times up to the
third Jslanıic century.11 The reason for this "apocalyptic tuımoil" is to be found in
the first place in the long period ofcivil war following the death ofHarün al-Rashıd
in 809 and conıing to an enci only with the entry of Ma'rnün into Baghdad 819.
Between these two dates fell the year 200 HA, corresponding to 11 August 815
to 29 July 816. It comes as no surprise that different prophecies appearing at the

8
Baylıom-Daou (2008) considers that it was Ibn Tawüs lıimself who made the
interpolation. However, Kohlberg (1992) 86-7 considers that the author"is scrupoulously
honest about his sources" and that he always "makes clear when the material was composed
by him and where he is citing from earlier sources". It is therefore to be considered
whether the interpolation was made before the text reached Ibn Tawüs, as Yücesoy (2009)
93 suggests, refen-ing to his own unpublished doctoral dissertation, "The Seventh of the
'Abbasids and the Millenium: AStudy ofthe Fourth Civil War and tlıe Reign ofa!- Ma'mün
( 193-218 A.H. / 808-833 C.E.)", Chicago 2002, 197 ff.
9
Yücesoy (2009) 91-2 far a panoramic view oftlıe different explanations proposed,
with bibliographical references.,
10
Yücesoy (2009).
11 See Yücesoy (2009) 11-13 far a slıort assessment ofthe work. Unfortunately the

most comprehensive study ofthe work, made by Jorge Aguade, "Messianismus zur Zeit der
frühen 'Abbasiden: Das Kitab al-Fitan des Nu'aym ibn I:Iammad", is an unpublished PhD
diss. from the University ofTübingen submitted in 1979. There is no modem translation
of tlıe Arabic text, which has been recently published by Shuhayl Zaldcar in Beirut in
1993. Alsa lacking is a thoroughgoing study of the references to Byzantium and the Arab
Christians in the Apbasid apocalyptic ınaterial ofthe time of Ma 'nıün, wlıiclı could para ilel
tlıe one nıade by Baslıear ( 1991) on the basis of Nu'aynı far tlıe Uımıyyad period.
412 T/ıe Eıııpemr Tlıeop/ıi{os aııd ılıe Ecısı. 829-842

time made the beginning of the third lslamic century coincide with the end of the
seventlı millennium and tlıus gave the year an apocalyptic relevance. 1"
Most significant for us, these lslamic apocalypses found an echo among
Clıristians, wlıo developed during tlıe same period other apocalypses predicting
the end ofAbbasid ruleY The most important ofthem is the so-called Legend of
Sergios Bal,'irci which Barbara Roggema has recently subjected to a comprehensive
study, which includes an edition with translation ofthe different versions preserved
in Syriac and Arabic. 14 The Legeııd, as it is known, describes the encounter of
the proplıet Mul)aınınad with a Christian monk, called Sergios (by the Syriacs)
and Bal)Tra (by the Arabs). According to the Syriac tradition, this monk informed
Mubammad of the doctrines of Clırist, wlıich were later misrepresented by the
prophet of lslam. The variant versions of the Legeııd that have been preserved
(West Syrian, East Syrian, Arabic) contain two apocalypses, one before the
encounter of the monk with the prophet and one aft:er. ln tlıem, as is usual in this
genre of predictions, the end of Muslim rule is announced.
Curiously enough, as convincingly argued by Roggema, this end is connected
again with the reign of the seventh son of Hashim, that is to say the seventh
Abbasid caliph, Ma'nıün, for Abbasids referred to themselves as "sons ofHashim"
in order to emphasize their descent from Hii.shim ibn 'Abd Manat� the coınmon
ancestor ofMul)aı11mad, the 'Alids and tlıe Abbasids. The "sons of Hashiın" are
fuı1her identified in the prophecy with the color black, undoubtedly an allusion
to the black banner ofthe Abbasids. The text also refers to a period ofcivil strife
that will begin with the reign ofthe seventh Hashimite: an unmistakable allusion
to the civil wars of 809-819. 15 After the end of the Hashimites, it is said that
the Mahdı will come and "will uproot the fortified city of Babel and destroy
its stronghold and pul! down its walls". 16 This is now clearly a reference to the
siege ofBaghdad in 812-813 at.the climax of the civil war between Amin and
Ma'mün, during which many buildings were in fact demolished. The hopes
of the appearance of a MahdI are linked to the usurpation of ibra.hım ibn al­
MahdI in 817-819 after the proclamation ofthe 'alid imam Riçla as heir to the
caliphate. 17 There is accordingly no doubt that the apocalypse of Sergios BalJirii
was composed during the reign ofMa'mün. 18
1" Yücesoy (2009) 50-58. See alsa Kennedy and Pingree (1971) 112-13.
13 See for instance the Arabic version of a Sibylline Prophecy edited by Ebied and
Young ( 1977), wherein the eighth sun the destruction of the churches in Syria and the
devastation ofJerusalem is announced following the civil war ofAmin and Ma'mün and
then, in the ninth sun, the "Lion Cub" (the Roman Empire) will appear from the west and
"rebuild the earth's rnins, and the world shall be prosperous, and the fruit ofthe earth shall
multiply".
14 Roggema (2009).
15 Roggema (2009) 69-71.
ıc, Legeııcl ofSergios BabTrci { 17.641, trans. Roggema (2009) 291, 361, 503.
17 Roggema (2009) 71-2, 87-9.
1"
Roggema (2009) 86-7, witlı refürenc� lo previous datiııgs oftlıe text in ııote 102.
 :lpoccı�ı1Jtics aııd Expecıcııioııs c>( Political Clıcıııge 413

However, tlıe restoratioıı of lhe Roman Empire, which would follow the eııd
of the Abbasid rule aııd lead the Ishmaelites back to their southem lands, 19 is not
presented in the prophecies of Sergios Bal)Tra as coming imınediately after the
MahdT, for after him and before the final Byzantiııe recoııquista, other allegorical
figures appear, suclı as tlıe "sons ofSufyaıı", the "sons of Joktan", a second MahdT
and tlıe Green king. 20 Tlıese intermediaıy stages between the Christian restoration
and the enci of the Abbasid power show that in the mind of the composer of the
apocalypse Islam will not disappear in tlıe immediate future, but towards the
enci of the world. 21 Evidently, tlıe autlıor of the prophecies did not envisage an
immediate political change, perhaps because he did not even imagine that the
Byzantine emperor could in fact appear again in Syria and Palestine, as did the
amıies of Nikephoros II and John I Tzimiszes in tlıe tenth century. But the fact
remaiııs that at the beginning of tlıe ninth centuıy, the focus of the Christian writers
living under tlıe Abbasids shifted fronı the reasoned defence of the Christian faith
and the refutation of the religious doctrines of lslam that had prevailed in the
eighth centuıy back to an apocalyptic approach that was the result of the political
turmoil shakiııg the Abbasid caliphate after tlıe deatlı of Harün al-RashTd.22 Under
these conditions, any military campaign or diplonıatic approach by the Byzantines
would have been highly welcoı'ne.
This climate would provide a conıplementaıy explanation for tlıe writing of
such a eulogistic text as tlıe Letter to Theophilos. But the definitive proof that these
"apocalyptic expectations" played a role in tlıe political dealings of the period is
provided by the Byzantine emperor himself. In the letter that the Umayyad emir
'Abd al-Ral)man wrote to Theophilos after the defeat at Amorion in 838, to which
we referred in Chapter 18.2, the Arab briefly summarizes the content ofthe previous
letter sent by Theophilos. Among other things, we are told that the emperor expected
an impending enci to the Abbasid caliphate. The emir's words are:

Then, [we understood] what you mentioned about the deeds ofthe two villains,
the deeds oflbn Marajil [Ma'mün] and lbn Marida [Mu'taşim]23 his brother and
successor after him, of the heresy in their creed, of the vice in their behaviour,
oftheir sins against their subjects and the calamities resulting from the violence
against them, and how they pennitted that their blood was shed and their goods
taken; and how you mentioned that the moment for the end of their dynasty
[theAbbasids] has come, that the continuity oftheir power will cease aııdAllah
will concede the restoration ofotır dynasty and the power ofour fathers that is
proclainied by the books, declared by the prophets, conferred by the consensus

19
Legeııd o/Sergios BcıbTrii (17.95-101), trans. Roggema (2009) 295, 367-9, 415,507.
20 Roggema (2009) 72-86.
21 Roggema (2009) 90-92.
" Roggema (2009) 62. The Christian Kindi, writing again duriııg the reigıı ofMa 'ınün,
refers also expressly to an immiııent end ofthe world in his apology; see Bottini ( 1997) 215.
2·' Botlı caliplıs are referrecl to by tlıe ııaıııes of tlıeir nıothers, in an iıısultiııg way.
414 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeophilos aııd ılıe Ecısı, 829-842

[or tlıc doctors] aııd coııceded by argumeııt: aııd tlıat you eııgaged us to make
nn e:ı:peditioıı againsl thenı to o�)taiıı revcııge on thcm aııd thal you promised
your help to us with tlıe help one friend provides lo his friend, whose lovc and
atfoction to\\'ards hinı he knows.24

in a later passage ofthe letter, the emir repeats these same points, although in a
cursory way in order to give an appropriate answer to the proposal ofTheophilos.
'Abd al-Rabnıiin theıı expresses his wish that the announced end ofthe Abbasids
should come to be tnıe willı tlıe support ofAllah and that His promises would be
fulfilled. He further says that he lıears "constantly" that the Umayyads would be
avenged on the Abbasicls, who will be punislıed by Allah with the extinction of
their lineage.25
The passage is interesting for many reasons, such as the reference to the Abbasid
"lıeresy", meaning undoubtedly tlıe Mu'tazila movenıent fostered by Ma'ınün. But
the most inıportant point for us now is that both sen der and addressee, the Byzantine
emperor and tlıe Unıayyacl emir, accept the existence of wiclespread prophecies
announcing the end of tlıe caliplıate. These prophecies seem to gain moınentuın
due to the interııal conflicts slıaking the caliplıate, wlıiclı were minutely described
by Theophilos in his letter to the Urnayyad emir. in other words, there was an
atmosplıere ofinstability in the air tlıat very sooıı provecl false, but caused a revival
ofold apocalyptic prophecies in whiclı the Umayyads played an impoıtant role.
The apocalyptic figure ofthe Sufyanı, mentioned in tlıe (probably interpolated)
passage oftlıe letter ofMa'rnün we saw above, was a key figure in this revival. He
derives his name from tlıe Umayyad Abü Sufyan, father ofthe caliph Mu'awiyya,
first caliph ofthe Sufyanı branch oftlıe Umayyads who reigned between 661 and
684, until he was replaced by the Marwanid Umayyads. Modem research discusses
the emergence ofan apocalyptic tradition in the eighth century linked with the name
of the SufyanT, and whether it arose originally out of the popular hopes among
the Syrians for a restorer ofthe SufyanT branch of the Umayyad house or, on the
contrary, whether Sufyanı was conceived from the very beginning as a rival to
the saviour Mahdı and therefore as an Antichrist figure, as he appears in the later
Abbasid and Shiite traditions. 26 Be this as it may, what matters for us now is that
there were in the beginning ofthe ninth century some partisans ofthe Umayyads
who proclairned themselves caliphs in Syria. The best known of thern is Abü al­
'Amaytar the Sufyanı, who was raised to the caliphate in September 811 in Syıia
and held Darnascus against the Abbasids for at least one year, until he was deposed

24 For the text see lbn I:Iayyan, Muqtabis, 180v-181r and Levi-Provençal (1937) 17-
18. Tlıe translation of Makki and CoıTİente (2001) 296 is to be followed in preference to
the verbose version of Levi-Provençal (1937) 2 !. 1 checked my own translation against the
Arabic original.
25 lbn I:Iayyan, Muqlabis, 18l r and Levi-Provençal (1937) 19, trans. Makki and
Coıı-ieııte (2001) 297 and Levi-Provençal (1937) 22.
'" Madelung (2004).
 ılpoca(rplics und E.rpecıaıioııs r!f Po/ilical Clıaııge 41 5

in 812-813.27 This proves that expectations ofa restoration of the Unıayyads, as

refeITed to by Theophilos in his letter to the Andalusian emir, were not anachroııistic.
The episode regarding the conspiracy of 'Abbas undoubtedly contributed to
raising expectations ofa significant clıange in the relations between Muslims and
Christians. Obviously, there were nıany factors which contributed to the conspiracy
of Ma'müıı's son, includiııg the influence of the commercial sector among the
Abbasid ruling classes. We duly considered this in Chapter 18. l . Because 'Abbas
had led ınany canıpaigns against Byzantiuın in the company of his father Ma'mün
and was even respoıısible for the militaıy froııtier laııds of the Thugür, the echo of
the treaty lıe agreed witlı Theophilos, preserved by Michael the Syrian, may have
had a great inıpact on the population of the Middle East.28 it is 110 coincideııce, as
Michael tlıe Syrian reports, tlıat 'Abbas' secretaıy, a Nestoriaıı, was accused of
coııspiracy along with his master, who had been earlier the dearest frieııd ofManuel
tlıe Arnıenian, as we saw in Chapter 5.4. We fürther know tlıat 'Abbas' name aııd
ınenıory were publicly accursed by the caliplı, but altlıouglı this can always be
conııected with his conspiracy, the exteııt ofhis daınnatio memoriae contrasts with
the attitude Ma'müıı had, for example, towards his uııcle lbrahTm ibn al-MalıdT,
brother of Harün al-RashTd, who was proclaimed caliph in July 817, thus defying
Ma'müıı's authority and committing lıiglı treasoıı against him. lbrahTnı held power
in Baglıclad for almost two years, a period that ended oııly with tlıe entry of his
nephew into Baglıdad in August 819. IbrahTın then went into hiding for several
years, but although he was discovered and imprisoned by Ma'ınün, he was soon
released and accoınpanied the caliph as courtier and poet in the following years.29
Obviously Mu'taşim was not Ma'mün, but the ferocity witlı which he dealt witlı the
conspirators in 838, minutely described in Arab sources, reveals perhaps that the
conflict had deep roots that could not be healed by recourse to clemency.
Ali in al!, these episodes ofpolitical turbulence in the caliphate nıay well have
inspired those Greelc texts of the period in which the conversion of the Arabs
or the caliph to Christianity figures prominently. First and foremost, we should
ınention the Life ofTheodore ofEdessa, in which the caliph ofBaghdad converts
to Christianity. This conversion is referred to in the final part of the Life, where
the protagonist, Theodore bishop of Edessa, travels to "Babylon" in an effort to
plead his case before the "eınperor" against the "Manicheans" ofhis see, who were
plotting against Theodore's life and making perınanent trouble (§69). Theodore's
stay in Baghdad takes however an unexpected hım after he heals the caliph of
an eye disease, something at which the personal physicians of the caliph had
previously failed (§71-2). The grateful caliph then gives orders to his emirs to
restore orthodoxy in Edessa and neighbouring regions by expelling and punishing
the dissideııts according to Theodore's wishes (§§73-5). After that, the bishop

27 For lıim and other usurpers in the name ofthe SufyanT see Madelung (2000).
28
Mich. Syr. 538, trans. Chabot (1899-19 10) vol. 3, 1O 1.
2'1
For the lıiding of lbralıTm ibn al-MahdT in 8 19, his iıııprisonıııent in 826 ancl the
pardon of tlıe caliph see TabarT 111. 1034-5, 10 74-5, trans. Boswortlı ( 1 987) 90-92, 146-7.
416 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıi/os emel tlıe Eası. 829-842

pays a visit in his cave near Baghdad to the ereınite Jolın, for lıe carried a letter of
the Eclessan stylite Thcodosios, Jolın 's brotlıer, far lıiın. Astonishingly the eremite
knew beforelıand oftlıe visit and his brother's letter, and even achieves a ıniracle,
for Theodore, to his wonder, appears to carıy not just the letter ofTheodosios but
already the answer of his brother John to lıim, in which the eremite prophesies the
iınminent conversion of the caliph to Christianity. This had also been predicted by
Theodosios lıimself to Theodore before the latter set off froın Edessa to Baghdad
{§§76-7). Back at tlıe court, Theodore remains closely attaclıed to the caliph and
through skilfı.ıl indoctrination succeeds in making him embrace the Christian faith
aııd abjure Islam (§§ 78-81 ). What comes next is the secret baptism ofthe caliph in
the margiııs ofthe Tigris tlırough the agency ofbishop Theodore. He receives in the
ceremony the Christian name of John. Witnesses of this "historical" event are the
three servants ofthe caliph (said to be ofAlan descent) and the naırntor, Theodore's
nephew Basil, who until this point has regularly stressed his presence at ali the
previous episodes rn82). After that Theodore continues with the indoctrination of
the caliph (§83) ancl travels to Constantinople to obtain a piece of the Holy Cross
fronı tlıe eınperor Michael 111 for the converted caliph. The bishop again effects
a lıealing, this time of a leucoma affecting the empress Theodora (§§84-5). This
serves to clate the event to the years 843-856. in the following chapters Theoclore,
after bringing the piece of the Holy Cross to Baghdad, holds a religious debate at
court in front of a Jew (who then converts to the Christian faith) and aırnnges a
lengthy interview ofthe caliph "John" with his naınesake the eremite (§§86-102).
After that Theodore leaves Baghdad with Basil ancl reaches Edessa, passing through
Jenısaleın (§§103-5). At his point the caliph "John" decides to ınake a public
statement of his Christian faith in front of ali the assembled people of Baghdad.
This obviously triggers a violent reaction of the mob, which slaughters hiın on
the spot on 30 May, making of him a martyr (§§ 106-1 1). Theodore and Basil are
inforıned of what happened by a deacon coming from Baghdad. The ereınite and
his brother the stylite die, one soon after the other, then Theodore three years later,
at the Sabas monasteıy in Palestine, leaving only Basil as a witness of his life and
ıniraculous deeds (§1 1 2-1 5).
Needless to say, the L[fe of Theodore of Edessa has no historical basis at all;
for no caliph was converted to Christianity, even less slaughtered in Baghdad by a
fı.ırious ınob because of his public confession.30 However, it is interesting to note
that whereas the Greek version of the Life consistently reports the name of the
caliph as Mauiaı;, meaning Mu'awıya (and thus the Umayyads), theArab version,
probably derived from the Greek,31 identifies him as the Abbasid Ma'mün.32

30
Vasiliev (1942-1944) tried to identify the caliph ofthe L(fe with Mu'wayad, killed
in 866 for sedition by his brotlıer tlıe caliph Mu'tazz. His interpretation, as rightly indicated
by Griffith (2001b) 156-8, is based on a too literal acceptance ofthe text and does not tally
well with other hislorical accouııts.
31 Griffitlı (200lb) 153.
.ı: Griffitlı (2001 b) 150, ııote 22.
 Apocazrptics wıd Erııecıatioıı.ı· o(Political Clıaııge 417

Obviously thc philhellenic Ma'm[ın (if not his son' Abbas) was an ideal candiclate
for the post of heteroclox caliph, although this cloes not mean in any way that he
approached Christiaııs for more thaıı their iııtellectual contribution to tlıe study
of Greek texts. 33 Tlıe reference to tlıe Umayyad patronymic in the Greek version
seenıs tlıerefore more appropriate, not just because of its vagueness, but also
considering a possible connection witlı the SufyanT. ln any case tlıis reference, as
well as the connection witlı tlıe regency ofTlıeodora (842-856), makes it evident
that the author oftlıe text was setting the action in the first lıalfoftlıe ninth century,
either in the reign of Theophilos or shoıily after. Accordingly, some distance
between his readers and the narrated facts was needed in order to make thc stoıy
more palatable to them.
This distancc may ofcourse be temporal, tlıus pointing to the writing ofthe Life
at a later stage, not earlier perhaps than the !ast third oftlıe ninth century. Or even
later, for after the takiııg of Antioch in 969 new lıopes ofa Byzantine reconquest
of the east were raised amongst the Melkites, wlıo could even lıave drcamed ofa
conversion of the caliph to Christianity, for wlıich mır texl offered a "historical"
precedent. Iıı fa.et, Armaııd Abel thought that the L{f'e was written in the teııth century
for propaganda purposes to go along with the Byzantine reconquest of northern
Syria. 34 Siclney Griffith has also considerecl this clating likely. 35 Furtlıermore, Andre
Binggeli has receııtly aıınouııced that in a fortlıcoming stucly he will provicle ııew
eviclence supportiııg a dating of the L{f'e to the two first decacles of the eleveııth
century. Ceııtral to his argumentation will be the fa.et that the begiııııiııg oftlıe L{f'e
ofT/ıeodore ofEdessa is basecl on Nikephoros Ouranos' metaphrasis ofthe L{f'e of
Synıeon Stylites the Yoıınger, written between 999 and 1007.36
Ali this evidence, however, cloes not preclucle that a shoıier versioıı ofthe Life
of Theodore existed before the present one. In fact many plots come together in
our version of the L{fe, which for instance includes the stoıy of the martyrdom of
Michael the Sabai'te in the reign of'Abd al-Malik (685-705, that is, 100 years before
Ma 'mün).37 It appears thus that the final part of this composite L{fe of Theodore,
the conversion of the caliph to the Christian faith, may have had an autonomous
existence before it merged into the present version. Griffith has already suggested

JJ For tlıe atmosphere of debate during his caliphate see Griffith (1999), (2001a) and
Gutas (1998) 75-104. See also Chapters 23-24.
34 Abel (1949).
35 Griffith (2001b) 154-5 ..
36 Binggeli (2010) 96, note 69.
37 Peeters (1930). The caliph is called A.öpaµEABX in the Life §24. The name seenıs to
be used in the biblical sense as a substitute for the real one ofthe caliph. 1 anı therefore not
sure that the writer had the reign of'Abd al-Malik in nıind when he used it. For the striking
parallels of the Life of Theodore of Edessa with tlıe Bar/acım aııd Ioasaph see Kazhdan
(1988) and Volk (2003) 161-8, as well as Signes Codofier (2006) 104-5. Also revealing are
the siınilarities ofthe L{fe ofJohıı ofEdesscı to mır text, as it concerııs nıainly the discussion
witlı tlıe Jew at tlıe court and the conversion of tlıe caliplı. For tlıis see Laıııoremıx and
Klıairallalı (2000) ancl fi.ırtlıer below in tlıis sectioıı.
418 . Tlıe E111peror Tlıcoplıilııs anıl ılıe Eası. 829-841

tlıat tlıe autlıor or Llıe lexl, tlıe ınonk Basil of Saint Sabas who speaks in the first
person at ımıny points of tlıe narrative, was living at the beginning of the ninth
cenlury and ınay lıave had personal contact with Tlıeodore Abü Qurra. Basil coulcl
even lıave ınodellecl llıe L[(e of Tlıeodore on the biography of Abü Quıı-a himse!CR
in facl, tlıe lıistorical clebate hele! belween Abü Qurralı ancl caliph Ma'mün
at IJarriin in 829,'' provicles a goocl pattern for tlıe similar cliscussion between
Theoclore ancl "Mauias" that takes place in the original Greek Life, tlıus facilitating
tlıe identification of the caliph with Ma 'nıün in later Arab versions.40 Accorclingly,
it appears as a possibility that tlıe original core ofthe present Greek L[fe was based
loosely on facts dating back to the beginning of tlıe ninth century, Abü Qurrah 's
own Lime. Wlıcther lhe inspiration came from a previous source or tlırouglı oral
reports can110l be establishecl witlı any certaiııty, but what matters here is that tlıe
autlıor of tlıe l[le of Theodore, wlıoever he was ancl whenever he wrote, clid not
freely invenl the scenario for his "hagiograplıic novel", but probably profüecl from
previous recorcls. To put clistance between the facts and the reaclers, tlıe author coulcl
have been lıelpecl by the plıysical, not just the temporal, remoteness, if we assume
tlıat tlıe present L[fe was coınposecl in Constantinople by a Melkite emigrant who
was Llıinking ·mainly ofan imperial readerslıip:11 Tlıis woulcl perınit a clating oftlıe
writing ofthe present l[l'e closer to tlıe events it supposeclly clescribecl.
Tlıere is a furtlıer point favouring tlıe idea tlıat tlıe stoıy ofthe conversion oftlıe
caliplı to Christianity had alreacly arisen in the nintlı century. Certainly, the Melkite
hopes ofa Byzantine reconquest materialized first in the tenth centuıy, but at this
time the idea ofconveıting the caliph to the Christian faith was surely unthinkable,
mainly as a result of the slow but steacly conversion of thousands of Melkites to
Islan, during the previous two centuries. There was no way back in this process,
whereby by the middle ofthe tenth century the vast majority ofthe population was
already Musliın. This is the opposite situation to the one we find at the beginning
ofthe ninth centmy, when Christians remained the main coınımınity in the Middle
East. Only at this time was it conceivable that the conversion of a caliph could
eventually reverse the surge of lslamization and bring baclc the times of Christian
supremacy.42 The hopes ofunification ofthe Christian lands expressed in the Letter
ofthe Three Patriarchs, as we already saw in Chapter21.7, tally perfectly with these

38 Griffith (2001b) 153-4.

39 Dick ( 1999). See also Dick (1990-1991).
40 Griffith (2001b) 155-8.
41 Griffith (1986) 133 aııcl (2001b) 154, Signes Coclofier (2006) 100-101. For possible
connections with the "Basil" who figures as author of the Lefler to Theophi!os see Chapter
21.8.
42 For the steacly rhythrn of conversions to Islam cluring the first Abbasicl age see
Den net ( 1950} ancl Bulliet (1979}, especially tlıe chapters clevotecl to lraq (pp. 80-91) ancl
Syria (pp. 104-13}, wlıere tlıe Muslinıs nıacle up 50 perceııt oftlıe populatioıı by the thircl
quarter of lhe niııth ·ceııtury. See also Moroııy (1990) aııd, for the conversioıı to lslanı in
Syria aııcl Palestiııe. Levlzioıı ( 1990).
 Apocazrpıics aııd !:.rııccıaıinııs ıı/'Pnliıic·al Clıaııgc: -119

expectations, which the above-nıeııtioned apocalyplic prophecies made even nıore

forceful . Not coincideııtally, the clear disgusl expressed by a Christian poleınicist
like Kindi in froııt of the iııcreasing mass of coııverts to lslanı appears in his work
side by side with the apocalyptic expeclatioııs ofa suclcleıı enci ofAbbasid power,43
in fact, there are otlıer stories speaking of conversions of Musliın lcaders to
Christiaııity dating from tlıe beginııing of the niııth century. Perlıaps ılıe nıost
conspicuous is tlıe L{fe of.John ofEdessa, written c. 900 (ifnot earlier) according to
its editors Lanıoreaux and Khairallah:14 I n the L/fe, of whiclı Arabic and Georgian
versions survive, tlıe protagonist, bislıop John ofthe Edessa (perhaps tlıe sanıe John
who appears as addressee of Abü Qurra 's treatise On tlıe ve11eratio11 of tlıe /ıofı,
ico11s), after winııing a debate with a Jew on nıatters of faitlı in froııt of f:larüıı aİ­
RaslıTcl (786-809), succeecls in raising tlıe caliph 's daughter from the dead afrer slıe
has been in the grave for 110 less tlıan 47 clays. Inıpressed by tlıis miracle,

[tlıe caliplı] coınınandecl excursions iııto the lancl of tlıe Romans cease and lhat
tlıe customs and l'estivals of Clıristiaııity be practicecl opcııly. He also liftccl
oppression froııı lhc people in gent:r::ıl . lndeed, if it had not been tlıat his co­
religionisl woulcl lıave lıalecl to lıear İl, he ıvoulcl lıave enterecl lhe Christian faitlı.
He also orclerecl tlıat clıurches be built througlıout his clominion ancl tlıat Abba
John be given everytlıing he wantecl.45

As we see, Harün al-RaslıTd was also on the brink of converting to Christianity!

it almost appears as if tlıis stoıy had provided the inspiration for the L(fe of
Tlıeodore of Edessa, wlıose protagonist cornes from the saıne Syrian city. But
these are not the only texts wlıere Musliın lords are won over to Christianity. In the
final part ofthe Dialogııe of Abraharn ofTiberias (JbrahTm al-TabaranT) with 'Abd
al-Rabınan al-HashirnT (dated 820) soıne Muslims convert to Christianity after
hearing the arguments of the protagonist. Not surprisingly, they are immediately
beheacled by the emir.46 Rawl), a noble QurayshT nephew of the caliph Harün al­
RashTcl, was also martyred at this time by his uncle the caliph after being baptized
in the Jordan witlı the name of Antonios.47 In this case, unlike the others, there is
soıne eviclence supporting a historical core for the episode.48

43 Kindi establishes a ty pology of converts to Islaııı, wlıo accorcling to him come froın
aınongst uııcivilizecl Arabs, heretics, idolaters, Jews, Mazcleans, traitors, criminals and
social climbers; see Boltini (1997) 177-81, For his apocalyptic expectations see ibicl. 215.
44
Lamoreaux and Khairallah (2000).
4;
Laıııoreaux and Klıairallah (2000) 460.
4r, Marcuzzo (1986) §§ 566-84.
47
There are different versions of tlıis apparently popular Arabic passio. For them
see Peeters (1912), (1914), Dick (1961), Pirone (1999) ancl Monferrer Sala (2008). There
is a short appraisal of tlıe pcıssio in Vila (2009). See also Binggeli (2010) for the religious
significance ofRawl.ı's conversion to lslaın .
' See alsoSignesCodoiier(2013c) 167-9.
4
420 Tlıe Eı11peror Tlıeuplıilos a11d ıhe Eası, 829-84]

Certainly the L[te of Tlıeodore went beyond other histories of conversion in

that it ınade ofthe caliph a pious Christian. But, we are here a long way away from
the fantastic and wonderfı.ıl vision of the east rendered in the L[fe of Makarios
Roınanos. There, the three ınonk protagonists, setting off from a Mesopotamian
monastery, travel to far eastern regions finding ali kind of fabulous beasts (such
as kynokephaloi, unicorns, onokentaı.ıroi and dragons, among others) and nıagic
places before they meet the cave of the holy Makarios. Here, the novel has
definitely sacrificed the historical keme! for the entertainınent of the readers.
Accordingly, the account of the conversion of the caliph as rendered in L[fe of
Theodore follows a nıidclle way between historical and fictional hagiographic
narratives ofthc periocl ancl mı.ıst be approached with utmost care. Nevertheless, it
can be considered in a certain sense an historical source in so far as it reflects the
wishes and hopes of the Melkite comımınity in the first half of the ninth century, a
period ofturmoil ancl change where even the conversion ofa caliph to Christianity
seeıned conceivable. it is against this background that the projects and caınpaigns
ofTheophilos in the east rnust be set.
 SECTIONVII
Cultural Exchange with the Arabs

Byzantium and the lslamic world were destined to undergo cultural exchangcs
froın the very beginning of tlıeir coexistence in the seveııtlı ceııtury, when
the Arabs conquered the Byzantine laııds of the Middle East aııd Egypt. The
continuous presence in the lands of the cal iph ofChristians, bearers ofa strong
and long Greek cultural traditioıı, was uııdoubtedly a main factor in conııecting
the two cultural areas of orthodoxy ancl lslam beyoncl their political borders, but
also meant that the cultural assimilation tendecl to nın eastwarcls from tlıe Greeks
to the caliphate at first. 1
At the same time war between these two major powers never ceasecl cluring
tlıe periocl, for it was the natura! way to attain ideological supremacy. I-Iowever,
eınpires had to win their supremacy not only on the battlefield but also tlırouglı
the prestige of their religion, cultural lore ancl political structures. They could
not ignore what happened beyond their borclers without running the risk of being
overcoıne by emergent ideologies mightier than armies, whose rise they had not
been able to foresee in clue time. This lacl< first offoresight ancl then ofreaction to
the ascent ofislam- along with the obvious failure ofresources ancl great loss of
ten-itory- was one ofthe causes ofthe major crisis affecting Byzantium's identity
after the first halfofthe seventh century in the face ofthe Arab invasion.
The ninth century representecl a turning point in the attitude of Byzantium
towards the east and the reign ofTheophilos is a main link in the chain of events
that detennined this process.2 In this final section of the book we will briefly
comment on the character of this cultural exchange, mainly on the basis of
previous research.

1 For a panoramic ofthe Christians living in the caliphate see Griffith (2008b).
2 See for instance Wallcer (2012) 20-2 I: "The culminatioıı oflconoclast-era eımılatioıı
of Islamic models can be located in the secoııd quarter ofthe nintlı century duriııg the reigıı
ofTheophilos."
 Chapter 23
Some Preliıninary Matters

The existence of cultural exclıanges between orthodoxy and lslarn being

undeniable, their exact nature needs to be checked. We must obviously proceed in
two directions, considering both the Byzantine influence on the caliphate and the
opposite influence ofthe Arabs on Byzantium.
Modern research on the impact of Greel< literaıy and scientific tradition upon
the caliphate, especially at the time of the Abbasids, has left out Byzantiunı,
for it has considered as actors in tlıe process mostly the (predominantly Syrian)
Christians resident in Arab lands. Abbasid phillıellenisnı, as masterfı.ılly studied
by Dimitri Gutas in a book that is already a classic, has 110 word for Byza11tium. 1
Tlıis version ofthe events is as old as tlıe Abbasid propaganda that always stressed
the cultural bacbvardness of tlıe Byzantines, wlıo were 110 longer bearers of tlıe
old and prestigious Greel< culture. Suffice it here to quote a farnous passage oftlıe
Arabic intellectual Jai)i ,:: ( c. 776-869), a contemporaıy ofMa 'nıün a11d Tlıeoplıilos:

If the Musulrnans knew tlıat the Christians, and in particular tlıe Romans [i.e.,
the Byzantines] have neither sciences, nor literature, nor deep ideas, but are
just skilful with tlıeir hands in the potter's wheel, the woodwork, the sculpture,
the weaving of silk materials, they would not rank them among the cultivated
people but rather suppress their names from the Book of the philosophers and
the learned. In fact the Logic, the treatise On generatioıı and corruption, the
Meteorology and other works were of Aristotle, who was neither Christian nor
Roman; the Alınagest is a work by Ptolemy, who was neither Christian nor
Roman; the Ezıclidean GeoıııetıJ' is of Euclid, who was neither Christian nor
Roman; the Medicine is of Galen, who was neither Christian nor Roman; and the
same goes for the works ofDemokritos, Hippokrates, Plato ... 2

The influence of Islam upon Byzantium has traditionally tended to be seen

in tenns of religion, stressing for example the influence of Islamio aniconism on
Byzantine iconoclasm. This version of events is again as old as the Byzantine
iconophilia that disseminated it. At the same time, any substantial influence ofislam
on Byzantine literaıy and scientific culture has until recently usually been denied
in modern research, as in the classic study by Paul Lemerle, who considered the

1
Gutas ( 1998). Sidney Griffith is presently working on a much-demanded monograph
on the role the Christiaııs played in the Abbasid Reııaissance in philosophy aııd scieııces.
2 1 take the passage from tlıe French traııslatioıı of Allouche ( 1939) 134. For tlıe
polemics of Jai.ıi,,: agaiııst Clıristiaııity see tlıe overview ofThoıııas (2009).
424 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 819-841

Byzantine revival the sole result ofan intemal developınent, without any real iınpact
oftlıe ,\bbasicl plıilhellenism. \Ve can quote here his words for the sake of clarity:

il faut bien constater que si l'on peut parler d'uıı nıou\"enıent qui fit partiellenıent
passer l'hellcııisnıe aııtique dans l'islamisme, nous ıı'avons aucune preuve, ni
meme aucuıı indice, d'un mouveınent en sens iııverse, allant de l'lslanı vers
les pays de laııgue grecque, vers Byzance. Bagdad a dispose, a l'interieur du
califat, de nonıbreux ınanuscrits syriaques et de quelques manuscrits grecs, et
s'est peut-etre encore procure ceı1ains textes a Byzance, bien qu'il me semble
que les temoignages qu'on iııvoque a ce sujet soient souvent exageres ou meme
legenclaires: nous n'avons pas d'exemples de ınanuscrits veııus du califat dans
l'Eıııpire byzantin. En autres terınes, on coııstate a cette epoque une evidente
traıısmissioıı indirecte de l'hellenisme aııtique sur l'islamisme, mais aucuıı signe
d'uııe transmission indirecte de l'lıellenisıııe antique a l'hellenisme ınedieval,
byzantin, par le detour de l'Islam.3

Both approaches are in a certain sense valid. But they leave aside sorne
inıportant aspects that neecl to be carefully assessed if we want to go closer to
the whole truth, not just to a part of it. To begin with, nobody can deny today that
the blossoming ofHellenism in Baghdad since the beginning ofthe ninth century
stood a worlcl apart from the general abandonment and neglect of the classical
Greek heritage in contemporary Byzantiurn, especially if we value this heritage
not just in terms of knowledge of the ancient literature, but from the diffusion
of philosophy and sciences. Of course, the blackened panoramic of an ignorant
iconoclasm, promoted by the iconophiles, has been revisited over many years, in
fact since Lemerle's study. We can refer easily now to the studies of Paul Speck
or more recently of Paul Magdalino.4 Stili, this limited interest in astrology and
sciences in the iconoclast periocl, especially in connection with a cosmological
vision of the orthodoxy, does not sustain any comparison with the intellectual
effervescence in Baghdad.
It is therefore a priori unlikely that Byzantium as such contributed to the
development of the sciences in the Abbasid caliphate. This does not, however,
exclude the fact that the Byzantine emperors exploited the prestige ofthe Hellenic
culture which the empire continued to represent. ln fact, the passage of Jal)i?: we
quoted above is understandable in the context ofa polemic between the two worlds
and would perhaps never have been written ifthe supposed cultural backwardness
of the Byzantines were self-evident. Moreover, that the Byzantines continued to
enjoy some prestige in the Middle East is in fact evidenced by the appeal the three
Melkite patriarchs wrote to Theophilos, as we saw in Chapter 21.6. The same

3 Lemerle (1971) 29. See in general the second chapter of his book, "L'hypothese du
relais syro-arabe," 21-42.
4 See especially Speck ( 1974a), Magdalino (2006), but also Brubaker and Haldoıı
(201 1) för tlıe general coııtext.
 Soıııe Preliıııiııcırr ,\Icıııeı:ı· 425

could be said of the conversion of tlıe Persian Khurranıites to Clıristianity tlıat we

clealt witlı in Clıapter 9. Even the resistance of tlıe Byzantines against tlıc invasion
ofThonıas (backed by the Arabs: see Chapter 13) ancl the canıpaigns of the caliphs
Ma' ınün and Mu'taşinı (Chaptcrs 14-17) speak in a certain way for the strength of
the orthocloxy in the face of tlıe all-pervading threat oflslam.
Nevertlıeless, tlıese points certify more tlıe endurance of tlıe Byzantine model
before Islam than its diffusion.The nature of tlıe ırnıtual or bidirectional exclıange
is in nrnch need of careful research, whiclı could provide fresh eviclence and slıed
light on the matter. Many Arabic sources remain uneditecl or badly assessecl, so
that clependency ancl relations of the Melkites with Constantinople remain to a
great extent hypothetical.5 in Byzantium, for its part, the reception of ancient
autlıors, especially philosophers and scientists, may eventLİally yield new data if
approachecl not just as a process of textual transmission, but from tlıe perspective
of the icleological meaning of the texts, many of wlıiclı were copied and stuclied
simultaneously in both Byzantiunı and tlıe caliphate. 6 But the main problem
remains that many intellectual exchanges were not recorded by the more or less
"official" writers in both empires, insofar as they lived far away fronı tlıe frontier
aııcl ignored the spontaııeous processes of acculturaticin taking place in borcler
regions.7 A particularly iııteresting case, most relevant to mır purpose here, is tlıe so­
callecl Byzantiııe-Arabic froııtier epic, which attests the continuous clevelopment
of sinıilar literary patterııs at tlıe two sicles of the froııtier beyond the cultural
divide apparently alienating the two imperial powers: 8 the popular character of
this geııre is already a serious warniııg against considering the interaction process
only fronı the point of view of the ruling elites, ignoring the part played in it by
the conımon population. Accordingly, nıuch research must be done before we are
able to constmct a holistic theory that could explain the nature of the intellectual
and cultural exchanges between the two enıpires. As is increasingly recognisecl,

5
Signes Codofier (2013b), (2013c).
6
A first step was provided by the overview ofMagdalino (2006). More on this point
below in Chaptcr 24.2.
7
This perspective of the "centre" is evident even in the account of the military
campaigns taking place in the frontier areas between the caliphate and tlıe Byzantine
Eınpire, as we saw in Chapters 13-17. Thus it was only the presence ofthe caliph in the
caınpaigns against Byzantium in the 830s that provides us with good and detailed reports
in the Arab sources of wlıat actually happened. This ınakes a striking contrast with tlıose
other military expeditions where the caliph was absent and of which Arab sources give
us scarcely any inforİnation. As for Byzantium, although the case is not so extreıne, it is
evident that the historians are better informed about Theophilos' private life aııd goings-on
in the capital than about the actual development of the campaigns led by tlıe eınperor in
Anatolia, a circumstance tlıat prompted maııy errors ancl duplications when tlıe historians
tried to order and identify tlıe events mentioned in passing in their sources.
H We already argued in Clıapter 6.4 for a popular origin for tlıe sources about Manucl
the Arıııeniaıı. For tlıe comıııon roots oftlıe Byzaııtine-Arabic epic see Canan! (1935) ancl
( 1961).
426 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe East, 819-841

nıaterial culture empires play a role in this attempt but I anı unable to deal properly
with tlıis field in tlıe context of the present book.9
Benjanıin Jokisclı does not appear to follow ali these caveats in his recent book
entitled Islaıııic lmperial laıv, which is directly relevant to the problems we are
discussing here. Despite its siınple (and uninfonnative) title, the book is mainly
concerned with the "intertwinedness" ofByzantine and Islamic cultures during the
first four centuries of the history of Islanı. The main thesis of the work, to follow
the autlıor's own words, is as follows:

lslamic law caıne into beiııg as a cohereııt and uııiversal legal systeın at the
end of tlıe 8th ceııtury. it was not developed by i11depeııdeııt religious scholars
(iurists' law), but codified in Baghdad on behalfof the state (imperial law) 011 the
pattern of the Coıpus !ııris Civilis of Justiniaıı I. This conclusion is the outcoıne
ofa ınore systeınatic type of reception analysis, which presupposes text-based
receptions and a highly coınplex network of textual, terminological, structural,
conceptioııal, societal and clıro11ological parallels.

The codification of lslaıııic law aııd the shift from iınperial to jurists' l.aw must
be seeıı in a context, which both goes beyond the narrow context of lslam and
includes non-legal fielcls such as theology, politics and philosophy. One factor
essential for the understanding ofthe early history ofIslamic law is Byzantium.
From the outset, the Islamic and the Byzaııtine Empires fonned part of one
and the saıne historical context, their theological, political, cultural and legal
developments being inseparably connected with each other. in both states
religion became a highly political problem, which ultimately culminated in the
triumph of orthodoxy and the subordination of the state to religious law. The
following points help to illtistrate this intertwinedness.10

These words may perhaps flatter the ears of the Byzantinists, for therein is
recognized the influence that the Byzantine political model of a centralized
state exerted upon the Abbasids through the codificatory system of Roman law.
However, there are many unfounded presuppositions in Jokisch's thesis that force
us to question his conclusions.11 Certainly, it behoves the legal historian to confirm
or deny the validity ofthe parallels drawn between Islamic and Roman (Byzantine)
law, a question that surpasses by far the more limited scope ofthe present research.

9 See for example the remarks ofBrnbaker and Haldon (2011) 34 7 about Byzantine
silks, whose subject matters "are indicative of cultural - and perhaps technological -
exchange between the caliphate and Byzantium." It is perhaps not coincidental that la.biz;,
in the passage quoted above, singled out the silks as one of the supposed skills of the
Byzantines. For an overview 011 material culture see Brnbaker and Haldon (2001) 3-164.
111 Jokisch (2007) 617.
11 See Brandes (2010) for a thorouglı and disqualifying review of Jokisch 's thesis that
1 mostly subscribe to.
 Sunu: Pre/i111iııarr MalfC'l's

But perhaps a few words can be said aboul the ınacro- ancl nıicro-lıisloric analysis
nıade by Jokisch. They may perlıaps serve as a warning about thc eli ffo.:ulty of
establishing clear-cut lines when speakiııg of cultural history.
Paraphrasiııg Dickens, one coulcl say that Jokisch establishes a 'Talc or Two
Enıpires" basecl apparently on the assunıption that many events in one powcr
founcl an immecliate counterpart in the other.1� But tlıe events conıparcd an: in most
cases ofa very clisparate nature, like the coınpilation ofthe Ekloge by the lsauriaııs
(dated 741) and the plan to codify lslamic law (begun in 756). To refer to tlıe rcil!;ıı
ofTheophilos, Ma 'ınün 's eclict on the creation of Qur'an and the initiation of ılıe
Mibna (the so-called Inquisition) in 833 is seen as the event fosteriııg a supposed
iconoclastic edict ofTheophilos dated in 833. 13 Moreover, Jokisch considers tlıal
the polemic on icons in the Byzantine Enıpire clirectly affected the ideological
parties at Baghdad, for he compares the triunıplı of clyotheletisnı al the sixtlı
ecumenical council (680-681) with the secondfitna of the Alicls (680-692); tlıe
Abbasid revolution (749) with the couııcil of Hiereia (754); or even tlıe scventlı
ecunıenical council (787) with the beginning of the Mu'tazila. Tlıc ambitious
schenıe collapses when each single itenı is scrutinizecl.
Something similar can be said of Jokisch's attempt to coııııect tlıe revival of
Greek letters and culture in Byzantiuın not only with a more or less pcrnıanenl
stay of some Byzantine intellectuals in Baghclad (taking as model tlıc fanıous
enıbassy of Photios in Baghclad, where, according to Heınnıerdinger he wrote his
Bibliotlıeke), but also with theArab origins of some of the most reputed intellectuals
of Byzantium. He thus identifies Leo the Philosopher with la.bir ibn 1::layyan, the
Geber of the medieval west, basing this on very superficial coinciclences and a
lacl< of detailed çircumstantial evidence about their lives, which were apparently
contemporary;' 4 or Photios with a certain Fathyün who lived in Baghdad at the
time and became the teacher of lbn K.ullab, an outstanding theologian who died
c. 855. 15 John the Grammarian is also made to spend the first part of his life in
Baghdad. 16 The details provided about these personages in the previous pages of
our study, if not just a swift look onto the Prosopographie der ınittelbyzantinischen
Zeit or the Prosopography of the Byzantine Eınpire, are enough to immediately
consign these prosopographical identifications to the realms of fantasy.
More prudent and calculated steps are needed in order to establish a close
connection between persons, icleas, works and events in Byzantiurn and Islam.
We will assess anew the evidence, for the most part already well known to
scholars, in order to get a rnore balanced impression of cultural trends than the
one Jokisch provides in his study. We will begin with some brief rernarks about
the ways through which the Byzantine Empire might have triecl to exert or defend

" See especially Jokisch (2007) 439-5 l 5.

13 Jokisch (2007) 500-501.
1� Jokisch (2007) 347-57.
15 .fokisch (2007) 357-86.
11• .lokisch (2007) 353-5.
428 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilns aııd tlıe East. 829-841

its cultural supremacy on the east at the time (Chapter 24.1 ). Then we will proceed
to assess tlıe influence of the east on Byzantine literary culture itself, basing this
mainly on conclusions reached by previous scholars (Chapter 24.2).
 Chapter 24
A Bidirectional Exchange?

24.1 Byzantine Cultural lnfluence in the East

. The first question to be asked is whether the prestige of the Byz::ıntine Empire in
the east was limited just to political and religious matters or also extendccl to tlıc
cultural sphere. And especially, how could the Byzantines have "exportecl" tlıeir
"cultural goods" to the east?
First and foremost, this occurrecl tlırough the Melkites, who ::ıctecl in a cerlaiıı
sense as a Byzantine fifth column inside the Abbasid caliphate. it is revealiııg tlıat
one ofthe main representatives ofthe Melkites at the beginııing oftlıe nintlı century,
Miclıael the Synkellos of the patriarclı of Jenısalem, wrote c. 810-813 a ımıııual
ofGreek syntax that becanıe a reference work during the wlıole Byzaııtiııe pcriod
and eviclences the irnportance the knowledge of Greek had for tlıe orientals. 1 Since
Arabic was already the liııgua fraııca of the Melkites at tlıe time (as evicleııced
by the work of Abü Qıma), it is highly clubious that Michael wrote tlıis treatise
just to improve the liturgical or ecclesiastical Greek ofthe churclımen. lfthis was
his goal, the treatise is not fit for the task, for it is indeed classical Greek that is
taken as a basis for the exposition. As a consequence, the most frequent quotations
are taken from Homer, in fact dozens of lines, most frequently from the two first
books. 2 There are also single quotations ofAlkman, Menander, Aristophanes and
Epicharmos. In contrast, there are a fi,w cit_ations from the Old Testament (alrnost
ali of them from the Psalms) though slightly more from the New Testament (the
Gospels and the Pauline letters). Among the proper names, the Homeric heroes
figure prominently, in fact more than 30 of theın appear again and again in the
text, Achilles being the most quoted. Most frequent are the naınes of Plato (we
also have three quotations of his dialogues) and Socrates. In contrast Christian
personalities seldom appear, with the exception perhaps of Peter, Paul ancl John.
Obviously there is nothing new in Michael's grammatical knowledge or in his
quoting ofHomer, for he follows the classical grammar, as many other Byzantine
grammarians will do after him. 3 But if Greek grammatical writing cluring the
Byzantine period aimed at the understanding and imitation of the classical texts,
we must conclude that Michael's continued to have the same purpose. Since
according to the title Michael composed the grammar in Edessa ( crxı:;öıacr0dcra

1 Donnet ( 1982).
See index in Doıınet (1982) 521-2.
3
A histoıy of Byzaııtine granııııar is an urgeııt desicleratum. For tlıe moıııeııt see
Robiııs ( 1993 ).
430 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeophi/os aııd th!! Eusı. i/29-842

ev ·Eöfoan nıç Mı-:aorrorn�tlaç) at the request of the deacon Lazaros, we must

concludc that an accurate knowledge of ancient Greek was in demand there.
Considcring tlıe increasing interest in Greek philosophers and scientists in
conteınporary Baghdad, thc coınposition of this grammar could be perhaps be
connected ,,·itlı the atteınpt of the loca! Mel kite comnıunity to promote the study
of these ancient texts, for whiclı the othcr Clıristian churches (and especially
the Nestorians) were providing translations for Musliın intellectuals. in fact, the
deacon Lazaros is called "philosoplıer" (actually cpıtı.ôaocpoç Kai ı..oyo0ıh'rıç) in the
title ofthe work, although the exact ıneaning ofthis terın ınay be disputable.
The knowledge of ancient Greek literature itself, beyond the expertise
on scientific or technical works, continued to be regarded as a prestigious and
rewarding occupation. Suffice it to say that Homer was even used by Christians in
theological debates against the contenıporary Muslinıs, as appears in the reply to
lbn al-Munajjiın coınposed at a later stage by tlıe Melkite Qusta lbn Lüqa (835-
912), who compares the fonııation of Homer's text with the Qur'an and even the
poet lıimself with tlıe prophet Mul�amınad.4 Qusta lbn Lüqa thus betrays a first­
hand acquaintance with tlıe work of Homer and his reception, and even with tlıe
Peisistratid traditions about the genesis ofthe written version ofthe epic.5
in any event, ifthe Melkites were interested in preserving the study ofGreek as
a part oftheir cultural heritage, we can surmise that the Byzantines could have been
instruınental in helping them to accomplish this task. lt is perhaps not coincidental
that another ofthe Greek grammars written at this time is the sumrnary ofCharax's
canones on the noun and the verb by the Melkite patriarch Sophronios (c. 848-
860),6 to whom the Annals ofEutychios attribute the sending ofan epistle on icon
worship to the emperor Theophilos. 7 This survival ofGreelc in Melkite milieux of
the ninth centı.ıry could perhaps be a result ofa stili pervading Byzantine influence
in the Middle East, despite the increase in Christian conversion to Islam, despite
even the cultural blossoming in Baghdad, and, evidently, despite the increasingly
predominant use ofArabic instead ofGreek by the Melkites. 8

4
Qusta Ibn Lüqa, Letter to Jbn al-Mıınajjim §§ 148-52 and 208-11, trans. Samir and
Nwyia(l 981) 122-5 and 146-9.
5 For Homer among the Arabs and his translation into Syriac by Theophilos ofEdessa
(d. 785) see K.raemer (1956-1957). See also Strohmeier(! 980). For the Peisistratid edition
of Homer see the overview in Signes Codofier (2004b) esp. 237-94.
6
ı:coqıpovi.ou rrmpuipxou Aı..Eça.vopiaç npoç '"C0V appav 'Icoawrıv E1ttO'K07ı:OV
Taµıa0EWÇ crx6ı..w. crı'.ıvı:oµa EK 't())V. ı:oü Xapa.KOÇ rrpoç Eicra.yoµevouç ciç ı:oiıç 6voµanıcoiıç
Kai f'ırıµanıcoiıç Kav6vaç, in Hilgard (1894) 373-434.
7
For the person ofthe patriarch see in PmbZ #6847 and PBE s.v. "Sophronius 4". For
a discussion ofhis role in the composition ofan iconophile letter to Theophilos see Chapter
21.4. For the recent discovery of an interlinear paraphrase of the Iliad by Sophronios see
Nicolopoulos (2003).
� For a recent paııoramic overview of this issue, with bibliography, see Monfener
S:.ıln (2012a).
 .·l Bidirecıimıal E.rclwııgc? -131

This iııflueııce might also have been cxerted through the seııcling of Grcek
books to tlıe caliphate, whose historicity was questioııecl by Leıııerle, ;s we have
seeıı. Maııy reports lıave been preservecl, nıainly in Arabie sources, pointiııg to
the existeııce of what can be callecl the "cliplornaey of the book".'1 Manuscripts
containing the works of Plato, Aristotle, Hippokrates. Galen, Euclid and Ptolerny
were bestowed by the enıperor on the caliph as a token of goocl will, probably
in orcler to facilitate cliplomatic exchanges after tlıe eontinuous ıııılitaıy clashes
of the period. Most of tlıe items of information are related to tlıe person of
Ma'müıı and preserve no further clate, not eveıı nanıing the Byzantiııe eınperor
who was responsible for tlıe seııding of the texts, although we can surınise that
Tlıeophilos participatecl in tlıis practice. Tlıe increasiııg interest in the scientific
and philosophic heritage ofthe Greeks was undoubtedly the cause that ınoved the
Byzantine enıperors to responcl to the demancls oftlıe Abbasid caliphs by sending
them copies of the texts they wislıed for. Tlıis was not of course· the only way
for the Abbasids to obtain the books, for most of them were already preserved
in tlıe laııcls of the caliphate. Fuıihernıore, scientific expeclitioııs into Byzaııtine
territory are well clocunıented. An intellectual such as l:lunayn ibıı-lsl)aq, one
of the leacling translators of Ma'müıı, is saicl to lıave been in Coııstantinople to
inıprove his Greek and to fiııcl books for iınportant librarians of Baglıclad. His
woulcl not have been an isolated case. 111 Finally, Arabic law books of tlıe period
contain instructions about which books are to be preservecl among those pillagecl
fronı the Byzantines cluring a militaıy canıpaign: the texts ofnıedical aııd scientifıc
content are especially valued. 11
As we see, contemporary Arabic sources did not ignore the importance of tlıe
Byzantine Empire as a repository of old books. But did the Byzantines merely
content themselves witlı tlıe occasional sending ofthe requested books or clid they
also foster Greelc culture in the east more actively as a way of increasing their
cultural prestige? It is difficult to answer this question, as no Byzantine source has
been preserved where the sending of Greelc texts to the Abbasids is mentioned,
not even in passing. This cannot be a coincidence, but a result of some patriotic
stance ofthe Byzantine sources ofthe period, tlıe authors of which may have felt
uneasy about this transfer of their scientific heritage to the rival empire, where
Greelc ancient texts were intensively studied and researched whereas they were
generally neglected in Byzantium. We will considet below this "patriotic" reaction
as one possible trigger for what Lemerle called Byzantine humanism, but first we
will approach the question ofhow significant the Byzantine authorities understood
their sending of Greelc books to the Arabs to be.
The Byzantines apparently cl10se very carefully the books they sent as gitts to
the courts of the powers with which they had diplomatic exchanges. This is the

" Signes Codoiier (1996). Most ofthe passages I commented on there were collected in
the comprelıeıısive stucly ofEche (1967). See also Drocourt (2006) 121-4 aııd (2008) 69-82.
111 Signes Codoiier ( 1996) 170-71.
11 Signes Codoi'ier ( 1996) 161-2.
432 Tlıu Eıııp<!l"or Tlıeoplıilos cıııd tlıe Eası. 819-842

case in tlıe sendiııg of a copy of tlıe work of Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite

to tlıe Frankish court or Louis tlıe Pious in 827, during the reign of Theophilos'
father, Michael of Aınorion. 12 Dionysios, who attended the speech of St. Paul at
the Areopage according to the Acts ofthe Apostles 17.16-33, had later been made
the autlıor of several Christian treatises of a Neoplatonic flavour dating to the
beginning ofthe sixth century (the most influential among them being the Celestial
Hierarc/ıy), which in antiquity rivalled tlıe Gospels themselves, thus explaining his
popularity among tlıe Byzaııtines. This made tlıe text appealing enough to westem
Clıristians, but it was tlıe fact tlıat this Pseudo-Dionysios merged in tlıe nintlı
century with the Frenclı martyr Denis, the supposed founder ofthe Paris bislıopric,
tlıat turneci tlıe girt of his work by tlıe Byzantine ambassaclor into a extraorclinary
event, asserting at the same time the importance ofthe Greek-Byzantine lıeritage in
the cycs ofcontemporaıy Franks. Altlıough Hilcluin, abbot of St. Denis, near Paris,
is usually belci responsible for the identification ofbotlı figures, the future patriarch
Metlıoclios coulcl have playecl sonıe role in tlıe process.13 Also significant is that
the archpriest Leo of Naples obtainecl a copy of the Nove/ q/Alexaııder cluring an
embassy of his to Constantiııople at the beginning of the tentlı centuıy: although
tlıe text of'Pseuclo-Callisthenes stoocl a world apart from the lıistorical figure of
Alexancler tlıe Great, it reflectecl well the importance of the Maceclonian king for
the nıling clynasty of tlıe Maceclonians, whose founcler Basil I was presentecl by
Photios as a clirect clescendant of the famous Greek conqueror. ı-1 Again, in the
tentlı century, cluring the reigns of Romanos Lakapenos ancl Constantine VII, the
sencling to the caliph of Cordoba of the texts of the Dioscorides and the Pseudo­
Orosius' Adversııs paganos conveyed a clear political message, especially in the
second work, an interpolatecl version ofthe original Orosius which enjoyecl a broad
reception in al-Anclalus. 15
it is questionable whether we can extend or apply this model to the sencling of
books to the Arabs, insofar as the scientific and philosophical texts involved in this
exchange, in contrast to the cases we have just mentioned, were not conveyors of
a direct political message. Moreover, contrary to what happenecl in Cordoba in the
tenth century, where the Byzantines provided the Cordoban caliph with a Greek
translator for Dioscorides' text, the Abbasids had plenty of translators at their
disposal and could therefore do without any Byzantine help. Finally, the texts of
the ancient Greek philosophers could not be easily connectecl with contemporaıy
Byzantine culture, which was rather alien to most of them at the time, as JaI:ıiz;
rightly pointed out in the text we quoted at the beginning ofthis section.

12Lowden ( 1992) 250-51.

ı.ıLoenertz (1951) and Signes Cadofier (2007b) 411-12.
1•1
Pfister ( 1941), Frugani (1969) and Signes Codafier (2007b) 413-14. See alsa Th.
Coııt. V, 2-5.
ı; For lhe eınbassy see Signes Cadafier (2004a) 2 l 1-31 and 241-3. Far the text of
Orosius see Levi della Vida ( 1954) and lastly Schilling (2009). wilh further bibliagraphy.
 A /3idirecıioııcı/ Erchaııge:' 433

Uncler tlıese circumstances it is cloubtful tlıat the Byzantiııes sent tlıe books
clemaııclecl by the Arabs as luxtıı)' copies of ole! exemplars. macle on purposc for
the occasioıı of the eınbassy, as appears to be the case in tlıe cases quotecl above. 16
The possibility ımıst then be envisagecl tlıat the Byzantiııes sent the very aııtique
originals of the Greek texts the Arabs were clemancliııg, since they were initially
not especially interested in ecliting or stuclying theın. it must alsa be taken into
account that the Abbasid translators paid serious attentioıı to the quality aııd age
of the maııuscripts they usecl as a basis for their work, so that it was not enough
for them to have just one copy of a given author. Tlıey triecl to obtaiıı better copies
of the works in orcler to produce better traııslations. A paradigmatic exanıple of
tlıis proceclure is the iınpressive list macle by 1-;lunayn ibn-ls!Jaq of ali the works
of Galeıı, witlı their correspoııcling translations, wlıere he gives frequently details
about the goocl or bad quality or content of tlıe nıanuscripts used. 17
it may at first seem unlikely that the Byzantiııes could have sent to the Arabs
old parchment copies of the requirecl scientific manuscripts iııstead of producing
new ones. However, this procedure does not go at ali against Byzantine cliplomatic
custoın. it suffıces here to quote just two cases. The first one is that of tlıe faınous
Codex Florenti11us, dating to the sixth centuıy and coııtaining tlıe ol dest preserved
copy oftlıe Digest. it was stili preserved in tlıe ninth century in Constantiııople, froın
wlıere it could have passed to Jtaly (to Aınalfi?) as a consequeııce of the Byzantine
reconquista of the southern part of tlıe peniıısula, as a gift from Constaııtinople
to sonıe of tlıe pro-Byzantine rulers of the area. 18 Anotlıer well-known example
is provided by the Codex Vaticamıs gı: 1209, dating to the fomtlı centuıy and
containing one of the oldest complete texts of the whole Bible. 1t probably canıe
to Rome in tlıe fifteenth century, as a gift of the Byzantine emperors during the
council ofFlorence in 1439. 19
As a consequence, it is theoretically conceivable that the Byzantines were
sending to the Arabs old manuscripts of ancient Greek philosophers and scientists
at a time when these texts were not objects of keen interest in Constantinople. It
is interesting to note, although it is an argument a contrario, that Arab sources
cease to mention the sending of books from the empire after the reign ofMa'mün,
and accordingly under Theophilos.20 As many interesting manuscripts were yet in
Byzantine lands and the Abbasid interest in Greelc science and philosophy continued

16
The original maııuscript ofthe text of Pseudo-Dioııysios sent by the Byzantines to
Louis the Pious has beeıı preserved until now: Par. gr. 437.
17
See Bergstrasser (1925) with an edition ofthe original text aııd a German translation.
18
For the conjecture and further bibliography see Signes Codofier and Andres
Saııtos (2007) 36-8. See Wilsoıı ( I 992) for the preseilce in the nıargin of a minuscule
Constantinopolitaıı gloss oftlıe ninth century.
19
See Skeat (1984), wlıo conjectured that a Iıasty restoration ofthe text took place in
Constantiııople slıortly before tlıe departure oftlıe inıperial enıbassy for ltaly.
"' With tlıe exception of tlıe Dioscorides ancl tlıe Orosius sent by Coııstaıılinc VII to
Cordob::ı.
-134 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeuplıilııs and ı!ıe Eası. 819--84:!

well after this date. it is tenıpting to suppose that sonıe kind of shift took place in
Byzantiunı during these years. in fact, it was Theophilos who appointed Leo the
Philosopher the head of the public school of the Forty Maı1yrs. He was later to be
the director of the Magnaura '"university" under the regency of Bardas. 21 Leo, as is
well known, is linked to the revival of the sciences and philosoplıy in Byzantium.
And to hiın are also linked the first preserved copies or the textual tradition of
such inıportant naınes as Ptoleıny, Archimedes, Plato and EuclidY But it is not
we but the Continu::ılor ofTheophanes who establishes a direct link between Leo's
career and the enci of the information ınentioning a flow of scientific manuscripts
lo the east. The story is well known and has been comnıented on time and again in
modern studies, bul İl is worth repeating here the principal lines.23
According to tlıe Continu::ıtor, Leo the Philosopher was the most prominent
expert in philosophy, arithmetic, geometıy, astronomy and even music of
Theophilos' time. but he lived in solitude and taught fronı a secluded location the
many students who canıe to hinı. üne ofthenı, well versed in geometry, was made
prisoner by the Muslims during a war uncler circunıstances the narrator seeıns not
to know of(ouK 018' ömuç), but in any case under the reign ofthe caliph Ma'nıün,
for he is namecl as tlıe reigning caliplı. il lıappenecl accordingly between 829 and
833, the years during which the reigns ofTheophilos and Ma 'nıün coincide. 24 The

21 Byzantiııe sources do not agree about tlıe clıronology oftlıe events. See PmbZ#4440
aııd PBE s.v. "Leo 19" as well as Lemerle (1971) 150-54, 158-60 aııd Speck (1974a) 1-13.
22 See lrigoiıı (1962) and Lemerle (1971) 169-72.
23 Th. Cont. lV.27 (185.15-191.3).
24 in the Logothete Leo's student is said to be in Amorion during its siege and,
beiııg an astronomer (auı:oç acrı:p6vo�wç), to have predicted to the caliplı, when he had
already prepared to retreat (Pou1crı0ev-roç ı'ırcoxo.ıp�craı ı:oü a�lepµou�lv�), that the city
would be takeıı in two days' time. The Muslims waited then until the city came to tlıeir
lıands through the agency of the Byzaııtine traitor Boiditzes. The student became thus
prisoner of the caliph and was conveyed to Baghdad. See Log. (A), Theophilos [130]
33-4 (227.237-228.254). Magdalino (1998a) 200-202 and (2006) 65 considers the
Logothete's version to be more realistic than the "almost hagiographic version" of the
Continuator, but the story in the Logothete appears to me as a conflation oftwo different
accounts. To begin with, if Leo's student encouraged the Muslims to wait for another
two days and in this way contributed to tlıe taking of the city, he placed hirnself on the
same level as Boiditzes, creating thus an unnecessary duplication ofthe traitor's role. in
fact, the Contiııuator says that Boiditzes betrayed the Byzantines at Amorioıı when the
Muslims had already thought ofretreating (µeUoucrtv 11011 rco.ıç avaxo.ıpetv). Furthermore,
the student's "astrological" prediction is obviously topical and somehow reflects the
astrological sympathies of the caliph to which Magdalino refers in his book. Finally, if
Leo's student is a traitor, the original patriotic message of the story (see below) is lost,
for iris he who recommends his master to the caliph! it seems to me therefore possible
that the Logothete had notice ofsome astrological prediction connected with the taking of
Amorion and attributed it to Leo 's geometıy student, perhaps as he ideııtified with Leo ali
tlıe profaııe scieııces; aııcl is not aslroııonıy a "'geonıetry of lhe universe"? Tlıe Logotlıete
was in neecl ot'a dating lo put the lıistory of Leo's stuclent in a chronological sequeııce,
 .·/ Hidirecıiona/ E.rc/ıange:' ..l.35

student's Musliııı master told his Greck slave aboul tlıe caliplı 's ı ııeı ı 's iı ıterest
in geonıetıy, so tlıat tlıe studcrıt wantecl to be iııtroducccl tn tlıc ı ıı. since he also
h ad knowledge of this science. Tlıe caliplı agrecd aııcl brouglıt tlıe prisoner to
court, where the Muslinı experts ıııadc a clisplay oı· tlıcir cxpcrlisc in gcoınetry
by drawing triangles ancl quaclranglcs and rcfcrrirıg to tlıe Euclicliarı canons.
However, they did not produce th e cause and the reaso�ı ortlıcir teaclıirıgs or ofthe
naıııes given, whereby th ey showed tlıeir "ignorancc arıd lack of knowleclge, and
not an accurate sense of the language" (a�ta0iav mi üyvoırı.v, rıU' oı'ı an:vonırn
y1ı.6m:ııı; moı; i:xovn::ı;). Leo's studeııt noticed lhis arıd rebukcd tlıc Musli ııı experts
for taking ııo h ccd of th e reasons of th e rules tlıey just describccl, thus barriııg thc
way for the progress of tlıe science. Th e studeııl cxplairıcd to tlıcııı nıeticulously
lıow the ı ıaıııes caıııe about that designatecl the differcı ıt concepts. Tlıe Musliıııs
were anıazed at this arıd "asked how ınany other learncd nıen likc lıiııı lıavc bccn
brought forwarcl by Byzantiunı" (ıip6mııv 6rc6aouı; to BuÇüvnov rnıııı'ırnuı; tpı::cpı;t
üv8paç Kai emanı�ıovaı;) . . The prisoncr told thenı tlıat tlıcrc were nıa ııy otlıcr
students \.vitlı his knowleclge, bul o ııly oı ıe master above tlıe ı ıı, Leo. 25
T h e caliph wrote to Leo pronıising him t he lıiglıcst lıoııours i r h e ca ı ııe ıo
Baglıclacl. H e stressecl tlıat: "lf this lıappeııs, tlıe wlıolc racc of tlıe Sarraceııs
will benci his ııeck before hiııı" (et yap oÜt(ı) tOUtO ytvqrnı, rnuç m'ıx{;vo:ı; CTOl
ıctı.ıvd yevoç iircav to tcı)V :EapaKııvföv). Tlıe stucleııt successf'ully carried tlıc letter
to Constantinople aııd after a ıııoving anagnorisis, his maste r Lco decidecl to
reveal tlıe nıessage's coııteııt to tlıe logotlıete of tlıe clroıııos, for it coul<l lıave
been clangerous to Iıinı to cleal secretly with the caliph Y' Tlıe logotlıete subnıitted
the letter to t he enıperor, wlıo had no previous kııowleclge of Leo 's nıerits.27
Theophilos then put Leo in charge of tlıe Churclı of the Forty Martyrs with a
public post as teacher. The caliph clicl not desist froııı contacting Leo, lıoweve r,

for whiclı the story provicled no clue. lt is perhaps for tlıis reason tlıat tlıe Continuator
clıose to include tlıe episode under tlıe reign ofMiclıael III in tlıe context ofhis narrative
oftlıe life ofLeo.
25
See Signes Codofier (2002) 420-21 for a stoıy told across niglıts 307-8 of tlıe
Thousaııd cınd One Nights, where tlıe leamed scientists ofthe caliplı Ma'ınün are ricliculecl
by an unknown rag-wearing foreigııer who appears before his court. The anonynıous
foreigner is tlıereafter held by the caliph in tlıe lıighest lıonour.
16
The Coııtinuator expressly identifies Tlıeoktistos as the logothete, but tlıis provides
no lıelp for the dating. Altlıough we know that Theoktistos was Logotlıete at tlıe enci of
Theophilös' reign, we do not know the date of h is appointıııent, so that he could lıave
been in charge shortly after Theoph ilos' ascension to power, as he was an iıııportant figure
already under Michael II. See PmbZ #8050 and PBE s.v. "Tlıeoktistos 3."
27
Ifwe give credence to this fiction and Tlıeoplıilos indeed took notice ofLeo's ıııerits
only after the caliplı tried to invite lıim to Baglıdad, this could be furtlıer evielence for dating
tlıe episode at tlıe beginııing oflıis reigıı, for Leo nıiglıt have worked for Theoplıilos in tlıe
fortification ofLoulon between 831 and 832, as we arguecl in Clıapter 16.4. in fact, il'Leo
was a relative ofJohn, as we know, he must lıave been knownlo tlıc cıııperorala vcry early
stage, for Jolın was tlıe teaclıer ofTlıeoplıilos.
-B6 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeup/ıilos aııd tlıe Ecıst, 819-8,/2

and wrote to hiın anew confronting him with soıne geometrical and astronomical
questions. To these Leo answered in a wholly satisfactoıy way, so the story goes,
adding even further predictions to the problems requested. The perplexed caliph
decided then to write a letter to the emperor, in which he declared himselfready to
go to Constantinople as a student and friend (ıiPoutı.6�uıv �tev cdıı:oç a.<ptı<:fo0m crm,
i:pyov qıiı,ou te Ka.i �m0rırou ıiı<:ıı:tı.ılPÖ)V). However, since the caliph was impeded
from doing so because of his duties as nıler, he begged Theophilos to allow Leo
to come to Baghdad, even for a short stay, so that he could impart his science
and virtue to the caliph on a teaching basis, for Ma'rnün was highly impassioned
about this (ı:p6ıı:cp oıöa.crı<:a.1ı.ia.ç ı:�ç a.urou ıimcrı:��uıç µeı:a.füö6vı:a. ı<:a.i a.peı:ı'jç ı:cp
oüı:roç sxovn ıi�toi ıı:po,; ıiıceiva.ç ıipeımı<:&ç). The caliph added to this invitation that
Theophilos ought not to postpone his decision in regard ofthe fact that the caliph
neither spoke his language nor shared his faith, but rnust instead take into account
the importance ofthe person who ınade the offer. He even went on to promise him
20 centenaria and an everlasting peace treaty between the two powers. This is how
the emperor taclded the issue according to the Continuator:

Theophilos, however, considering it absurd and inappropriate to give one 's own goods
to others and to deliver to the people the knowledge ofessential matters by which the
race ofthe Romans is admired and honoured by ali the nations, did not comply with
his petition, but holding this man instead in higher honour, ordered John, who was
by then holding sway on the patriarchal throne, to appoint him to the metropolis of
the Thessalonicians,28 for he was füll ofwisdom and even close to him as a relative.29

28 lfwe accept the communis opinio, John the Grammarian would have been appointed
patriarch either in 837 or in 838 and accordingly Leo could have been in charge ofthe see
ofThessalonike only in the very !ast years ofTheophilos' reign. However, as we already
argued in Chapters 19. l and 21.3 (note 58)- to which I refer for bibliographical references
and a short discussion - it is not altogether clear that John became patriarch at so !ate a
stage ofTheophilos' reign and the possibility must remain open that he ascended the throne
as early as 832. As the caliph Ma'mün died in 833, the early appointment of John would
perhaps fit better in the chronological sequence of our story. Nevertheless, even admitting
that John was appointed patriarch in 838 and that Leo became bishop of Thessalonike
after this year, this does not necessarily question the dating of the story during the early
years ofTheophilos' reign. ln fact, after the first letter ofMa'mün Theophilos had already
appointed Leo as teacher ofthe Church ofthe Forty Martyrs. The appointment as bishop of
Thessalonike should have taken place some time later and surely not as a consequence of
a second letter ofMa'mün, as stated in the text, but in relation with the promotion ofJohn
to the patriarchate, be it in 832 or in 838. But the Continuator (or his source) obviously
summarizes the sequence of the events and presents the late appointment of Leo as bishop
as a result ofa second letter from the caliph, which provides a kind ofexplanation for Leo's
fı.ırther promotion.
29 Th. Cont. IV.27 (190.18-191.3): a'A.'A. · 6 0ı;;6cpt'A.oç ihorcov ıcpivaç ıcai ö.'A.oyov -ı:o
OLICEİOV OOUVUl B,EpülÇ KUAOV ıcai Tl]V T(İJV ÖVTWV yvciicrtV eıcÖOTOV TCOlllCTUl TOİÇ E0VECTl, Öt' �Ç
tO 'Poı�LO.irnv yevoç eau�u'ı.ÇEt(ll tE ı-;:ai Tl�lUW.l rca.pcı. rcü.aıv, eıcEivqı �u;v OlJI( BTCEVEUCTE, TOUTOV
 A /Jiclirecıioııal Exclımıge:' -U7

it goes witlıout saying tlıat tlıc story's purpose \\ as tn cou ı ıtcract i\rab
propaganda (as represe ı ıtecl by Jal)ifs quote at tlıc begiııııiııg oı· tlıis ı.:lıapter) aııcl
put the knowleclge of sciences iıı Byzantium at a lıiglıer le\·el tlıa ı ı in coııte ı ııporary
_
Baglıclacl. in tlıe story, tlıc calıph appcars alnıost clcspcrate to l!Ct iı ı tmıclı wiİlı a
learnecl Byzantine suclı as Leo, to whoın Theophilos lıacl paid hitlıcrtn 110 attc ı ıtion
at ali, as if he considerecl tlıe stucly of tlıe scienccs amoııgst tlıc Byzaııtincs as
soınething obvious to which no further inıportance slıoulcl be attaclıed. Howcver
wl'.en he realizes that the Byzantine k�ıowledge of sciences is covı.:tccl by the nıiglıt;
neıghbour, he proceecls to protect hıs "patrimoııy" by fı.ıııcling a public clıair for
Leo in tlıe Church of tlıe Forty Martyrs ancl prohibiting hiın froın traYclli ı ıl! ab roacl.
Tlıis patriotic stance is incleed similar to otlıer stories we know. Tlıe Co7�ıinuator
himself, for instance, telis us lıow tlıe ıniglıty Roman Kratcros, a cuııuclı. dcfratecl
an Arab in a single fight before tlıe emperor Tlıeophilos cluriııg tlıc celebratioı ı or
a triuınph in Constaııtinople.J0 Although the Arab ınacle a display or lıis skills by
handling two spears at the same time when ricling, Krnteros, wilh onc singlc spcar
at lıancl, "hurlecl the Saraceıı clown faster tlıan worcls can clescribe'', arter sayiııg
that "in war there is no need of such artifices" (ouöı� yu.p ı\v ırn)J:pıp rnminqç XPEirı.
aootı.caxiaı;). The image of tlıe rude soldier smiting witlı one strokc tlıc pc ıforına ı ıce­
oriented Arab warrior strikes us vividly and reminds us or siınilar sccncs in old
films: the subtleties of tlıe east give way before the plain-ancl-direcl approaclı ol"tlıc
west. But in mır case it also betrays some scorn for culture ancl arlilıcc. or perlıaps
even an inferiority complex.3'
The same willingness to surpass their proucl neighbours in the east appcars in
the narrative of the embassy of John to the Arabs as tolcl again by the Contiııuator.
This time, the Byzantine spends enoımous sums in gifts and gole! to impress his
hosts in Baghdad and makes a costly golden vessel, studcled with precious gems,
to be lost as if by chance. When the Arabs are already laınenting the loss, the
ambassaclor produces on the spot another vessel of the same value with a sign of
utter indifference that astonishes his hosts.32
However, in the case of the story of Leo and the calipb Ma'ınün tlıe rivalıy
of the two eınpires is expressly connected with the cultural arena and tlıis, as
far as I know, is quite exceptional for the time. We detect in fact in the sources
of the period an increasing awareness of the iınportance of the knowledge of
the sciences and philosophy of the past, as maybe is evidenced in some saints'
lives when speaking about the education of their heroes.33 But the clefence of
the cultural superiority of the Byzantines before the Arabs appears on ly, beyond

OE ota 'tl�lfjÇ rcıı.Eiovoç axo:ıv ı;ov 'Iwawııv -ı:oü rcaı;pwpxııcoü ,6-ı:ı:; 0p6vou ı'ı.vnrroıoı'.ı�lf.\10\'
ıca-ı:a ı;�v 0wcraıı.ovucewv �u,rp6rcoıı.tv, ıcai ciıç rcıı.ııpıı croıpiaı:; övm ıcai ciı,; oiımoı'.ı�tr::vov
wı'ıı:qı ıcaı;cı. cruyyeVEWV, XEtpOWVEtV EYKEıı.EDE,at.
ırı Fora comment on this passage see Chapter 8.2.
31 Th. Cont. III.23 (114.17-116.8). See Signes Codofier ( 1995) 504-6 .
.ı, Th. Coııt. 111.9 (95.19-99.3). See Sigııes Coclofier ( 1995) 412-14 .
.13 See Moffat ( 1977) aııcl Sigııes Codofier (2002a) 412-19.
-138 Tlıe Empcror T/ıeoplıi/os anıl ı/ıe Eası, 819-842

this source, in the Slavonic l(fe of Constantine, the apostle to the Slavs with his
brother Methodios. The saint, who is significantly presented as a student of Leo
the Philosopher (ancl of Photios), is sent to Baghclacl in an embassy,34 which he
makes into an occasion for a clebate with the Arabs.35 The debate is nıainly ofa
theological nature, as is to be expected in a hagiographic work, but it inclucles two
relevant short references to the profane wisdom ofthe Arab scholar who discusses
wilh Constantine the main issues of Christian cloctrine. In the first one, it is said
only lhat the Arabs were wise and expert in letters and that they knew "geoınetry,
astronomy and the other disciplines". it is from this apparent superiority that
tlıey try first to re fule Constantine in his defence of Christian dogma. When- they
repealedly fail in their purpose, they resort to their expertise in these fields and "to
put hinı to the test, nıade him thereafter answer ınany other questions about ali
the clisciplines they knew". Tlıe saint is said to have answered ali ofthe questions
and "have even defeated theın in these rnatters". Tlıe Arabs, apparently surprised,
ask lıiın how he could have known ali these things. Constantine answers through
a parable by saying that the Arabs are just clrawing water from the Byzantine sea
ancl concludes: "it is from us tlıat ali tlıe sciences come".
Tlıe passage vinclicates Byzantiurn, so to speak, which holds the patent on
tlıe knowledge on which the Arabs are made to clepend and even clainıs for
Constantine a better expeıiise than his learnecl rivals. But, as in Leo's stoıy, we are
dealing again with an apologetic text, for the Arabs do not apparently expect in
Constantine any coınpetence in the field ofthe sciences. This emphasis on cultural
supremacy appears as a novelty in the narrative ofConstantine's embassy, whereas
the shrewd tricks by which the saint overcomes the traps of his hosts are almost a
locus communis in the stories about embassies ofthe time. It suffices here to quote
the farnous report ofthe Andalusian poet Ghazal on his embassy to Constantinople
under Theophilos, a text full of cunning and witty replies of the Arab, who thus
ridicules the pomp and the haughtiness ofthe Byzantine court.36
Both the display of knowledge by Leo's student and the vindication of
Byzantium as the "repository" ofsciences by Constantine in front oftheir learned
Muslim hosts are essentially polemics against the claims of contemporary Islam
to be the sole and rightful heir to the scientific and philosophical heritage of
Greek antiquity. But at the same time these literary episodes prove exactly the
opposite of what they try to demonstrate, for emphasis on the cultural superiority
of the Byzantines would not be needed if this were in fact not questioned at ali.
As the backwardness of Byzantium in the field of sciences in the first half of

34 Perhaps during the regency of Theodora for Michael III after 843; see Lemerle
(1971) 160-63.
35
Life of Constantiııe, chapter 5 (354-8).
36 For a detailed analysis ofthe Arabic text ofthis embassy and its sources see Signes
Codoiier (200 l ). For an overview of commonplaces and literary embellishment of the
accouııts of the embassies to Coııstaııtinople between 800 and 1096 see Signes Cocloiier
(2007c). See also Chapter 18.2.
 .·/ Biılireı:tinııa! Exclıaııge:1

the nintl: century as coınpared with lslanı cannot be dcnied, \\'e tinci here
a clcar
explanatıon for these two UJ)ologcti · rca ily ıııatıers ıs
� c reıJoı·ts·. But ,,,ııat ·. t ı ıat t ı ıesc
.
reports express Byzantıne awareness ofthe cultural challcngL'. posed
_ by tlıe Arabs
and suggest at tlıe saıne tınıe that the Byzaı
· ııı·ııes be·ooan to pr.omu. le t ı ıe study o ı·
.
the scı�n�es as an answer !o the appropriation of the Greck lcgacy by
Baghdad.
The orıgıns of the Byzantınc "renaissance" , may be soLıglıt a ı oııg ti1e so-ca
iled
"road to Baghdad", although in a nıore subtle and indircct \\"ıy ti ı,ın
. t ra d't'
ı ıoııa
, ily
supposed. 37 We wıll consıder thıs poınt ın the next sectioıı.
• • • • •

24.2 The Road to Baghdad

As well as being worried about the growtlı ofa legitimate '·Rorııaıı" J:: ın pirc in llıe
west ( especially after the crowning of Clıarles the Grcat in 800 ). it is natııral lhat
the Byzantines also felt concemed about the increasing intcresl ul' tlıc Abbasicls in
the Greel< scientific and philosophic herilage. The Musliııı Eıııpirı.: tlıus leuiti ınatcd
its claims to a permanent rule over a vast Christian populaı inıı ()r tlıe iv! i71dlc Easl
that had partly sided witlı the new Arab lords in the afkrııı,ıllı oı· tlıc crnıqııcst
of tlıe seventh century against the "Chalkedonians" of Coıısl,ııııiııople.;' Pcrlıaps
the Melkite call to the emperor expressed in tlıe Letter ıo Tiıcııf!/ıi/os, il" iııdeecl
genuine (see Chapter 21 .8), expresses some concern for tlıe increasiııg isolalioıı
ofthe "Chalkedonians" in the Middle East, and not only the hopes for a reversal
of the status quo following imperial victories in the regioıı. But iıı aııy case, tlıe
claims ofthe Abbasid scholars to be tlıe intellectual heirs of antiquity unclerminecl
the rights ofthe Byzantine Empire to be the universal power. it was naturnl tlıat the
Abbasid "renaissance" worried Constantinople ai1d triggered a rcaction.
Paul Speck was perhaps the füst scholar after the influeııtial study of Paul
Lemerle to focus on the Abbasid "renaissance" of the ninth century as one of
the main causes tlıat moved contemporary Byzantines bacl< to the study ofGreek
science and philosophy during the iconoclastic period. 39 Speck's suggestioıı relied
on scarcely any source material beyond the famous letter ofMa'rnün to Theophilos
on behalfofLeo the Plıilosopher, for there was by then no direct evi elence available
wlıich could confirın his theories. However, as Paul Magdalino riglıtly remarked
some time later, when commenting upon the impact of the Abbasicl "reııaissance"
upon Byzantium:

How did this impressive cultural achievement impinge on tlıe coıısciousııess

of learned Byzantines? Hardly at ali, if one is tojudge froın their alıııost total
lack of comment, and their exclusive reference to tlıeir own past. However....
one cannotjudge the impact ofa foreign culture on Byzaııtiııe iııtellectual lil'e

37
Magdalino ( 1998a).
38 For the perception oflslanı by easterıı Clıristians see Hoylaııd ( I LJL/7 ı.
''' Speck ( 1984b), ( 1987) ancl ( 1998).
440 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/os cıııd t/ıe Eası, 829-842

simply by a literal reading or explicit conıments in Byzantine sources. üne has

to recogııize that rejection, wlıetlıer expressed tlırouglı adverse comment or
tlırough silence, may be a rlıetorica\ attitude, whiclı does not preclude reception
and may actually be used to disguise it. The important thing is to look carefully
at evidence for contacts. The fact tlıat such evidence actually exists at all for the
ninth century is remarkable.40

Magdalino found evidence in the fact that three intellectuals of the ninth
century known to have had dealings with the caliph - John the Graımnarian
and Leo Choirosphaktes in embassies and Leo the Philosopher through an
exchange of letters - were ali reputed to have promoted the study of astronomy
in Byzantium:11 He even succeeded in proving the growing interest in astronomy
in Byzantiuın towards the end of the eighth century, which he connected with
the figure of Pankratios, the father of John the Granınıarian and astrologer at
the Byzantine court in 792. Magdalino also pointed to the increasing number of
astrononıical tables at about the same period and attributed to the Grammarian a
cnıcial role in the recovery ofastronomical science. He finally suggested that the
Grammarian could have been responsible for Greek scholia to Ptolemy dating to
the years 829-830, which contain astronomical observations made in the caliphate
in 829. 4" As one scholion dates an astronomical observation made at Damascus
"approximately" (enıcr-ı:a) to the second regnal year of Theophilos, that is to
say, October 830 to October 831,43 Magdalino suggested that this circumstance
might point not to the year when the observation was actually made, but when it
was recorded by the scholion's source, which could have been the Grammarian
himself during his embassy to the east in this very same year.44 I am not sure
about the linking of the Grammarian with the scholion's source, for this latter
expresses some doubts about the dating of the observation which are not easy to
explain ifa contemporary recorded it and rather point to a faulty conversion from
a Hegira dating to a regnal year. This, however, does not diminish the importance
of the scholion as a witness to the awareness of Arabic astronomy amongst the
Byzantines in Theophilos' time.
In his study on Abbasid philhellenism Dimitri Gutas added new evidence
to support the Arab influence on the Byzantines' renewed interest in scientific
knowledge. He drew a table of ali the known Greek secular manuscripts of the
ninth century along with the dating oftheir con-esponding translation in the Islamic
world.45 The table shows an almost perfect con-elation between the Greek texts

40 Magdalino (1998a) 196.

41 Magdalino (1998a) 206-8.
41 Magdalino (2006) 55-65 .
.ıı Mogenet (1975) 309: Yf.YOVE 0€ ıml VECı.rtepa tı'ıprıcm; eıı:l ,&v föpaıcrıv&v EV
.6.a�u'mıcqı ıca,a rnuc; rnu 0EO<pLAOU xpovouc; ihEt ow,epqı ifyyıcrrn ,�ç pamAEiac; EKELVOU.
44
Magdalino (1998a) 209-10.
45 Gutas ( l 998) 181-6.
 A Bidirectioııa! Exclıaııge:' 441

that appear in the Byzantine manuscripts of the first half of the ninlh century and
the works which were translated into Arabic during the same period. Moreover,
almost ali the works copied in Byzantiunı during these 50 years are ofa scientific
nature, and indeed predonıinantly astronoınical and nıathematical. Faced with this
evidence Gutas concluded:

it seems clear that tlıe correlatioıı is causally related. There are two basic
alternatives: eitlıer the Greek maııuscripts were copied in imitatioıı or as a
response to the Arabic translation of tlıese works (lıowever this "inıitatioıı" or
"respoııse" is to be uııderstood as steınnıing organically froın Byzantine society
- a problem for Byzantinists to resolve), or they were copied because of specific
Arab denıand and under commission for tlıese works. it ınay not be a ınatter of
clıoice between the two insofar as both nıay have been operative:11'

Obviously the table drawn by Gutas is approximate and must be iınproved in

ınany points, especially because he did not take into account the miscellaneous
manuscripts that have been studied with some care and detail in the !ast years.47
However, on the whole it confirnıs tlıat no independent parallel interest in the sanıe
scientific authors could have arisen siımıltaneously in Constantinople and Baghdad
and that, considering the broad diınension of the Arab translation nıovenıent, tlıe
sense of the influence ran definitely westwards. Gutas' table also confirıns what
Magdalino la ter demonstrated, naınely that the study of astronoıny and astrology
in the period went far beyond the traditional interest in occult sciences that had
always attracted emperors anxious to know about the future, and was inextricably
bound to a cosmogonic vision of the world characteristic of the iconoclastic
orthodoxy and inherited from the period following the Arabic invasion.48
Any further progress in this field would inevitably go through a minute study
of the Greek manuscript evidence in search of links with the eastern world. I
would perhaps exclude the seccind alternative suggested by Gutas, namely that
some of the preserved Greek scientific manuscripts of the ninth century were
produced or copied in connection with Arab demand, for in that case we must
seek an explanation for theın being preserved in Byzantiu111 and not sent to the
east. An oriental origin seems a pıiori unlikely, as they could not be related to
the east either by manufactııre or by dependence of an oriental archetype.
That Byzantine ambassadors could be Iavished with books during their stay in
Baghdad is altogether likely, as the Byzantines also used books as gifts in their
diplomatic' exchanges, as we have seen above. But, as far as I know, no evidence
relating a Byzantine manuscript to an oriental archetype has been produced and

•
6
Gutas (1998) 184-5.
H Roncoııi (2007).
➔, Magclaliııo (2006) 33-54.
442 Tlıe Emperor T/ıeop/ıilos cmd ı!ıe Eası, 829-842

Hemmerdinger's theory that Photios composed the reviews for his Bibliotlıeke
basing it on books he consulted in Baghdad renıains today widely rejected.49
In any case, although we could prove the eastem provenance of some scholia
(as done so already with the scholia to Ptolemy) or even some texts, this is not
the evidence we nıust look for in order to prove the influence of the Abbasid
"renaissance" on Byzantiunı. Or to put it in other words: the scant evidence that
could eventually be collected for the eastern provenance ofthe Greek nıanuscripts
would not minimize the iınpact of the Abbasid "renaissance" on the Byzantines.
in fact, it is, as Gutas said, almost certainly in inıitation or response to the Abbasid
"renaissance" that the Byzantines began to copy and probably to transliterate into
minuscule the texts of the Greek scientists and philosophers who were for the
most part preserved in their own libraries, be they provincial or not. A search for
mamıscripts probably began in Byzantiurn at this time, but it is to be doubted that
it \Vent beyond the borders ofthe empire. Surely there were exceptions, and some
archetypes of our transınission could have come from the east, but this evidence,
ifany, has probably been tost with the passing ofcenturies.
Therefore rnanuscripts have not afforded substantive evidence for proving
beyond any reasonable doubt the clependence of the Byzantine revival on the
blossoming of sciences and philosophy in conternporary Baghdad. This dependence
remains however a strong likelihood, when one considers the wide cultural context
and takes into account some coincidental facts.
The so-called Magnaura school, founded after Theophilos' death by the kaisar
Bardas under Theodora's regency, may have been for instance a response to the
"House of Wisdom" or Bayt al-l:likma of Baghdad, probably a palace library
established by the early Abbasids as a particular bureau. This is not to say that
the Byzantine institution copied in any form the Arabic counterpart, for both
fünctionecl independently based on their own traditions. For the Abbasids the
Sassanid administrative model was a determinant,50 whereas the Byzantines relied
on the late antique chairs paid for by tl-1,e state and orientated towards the education
ofthe imperial officers, as we know, for example, in the reign ofTheodosios II.51
What matters is therefore not the conformation ofthe model itself, but the fact that
the Byzantine authorities apparently decided to revive the institutional support of
education after they took notice of the achievements of the Abbasid intellectuals
at the caliph's court. The school of the Forty Martyrs directed by Leo may have
been the first step in this process of Byzantine self-assertion before their eastern
neighbours. Since many Melkites, Jacobites and Nestorians played an active part

49 Hemmerdinger (1956) and (1971). His theory nonetheless finds echoes again and
again in modern literature. See recently Stronk (2010) 135-8 and above Chapter 23. For
an overview of Photios' career before his patriarchate see Treadgold (2002) with previous
bibliographical references. See also Ronconi (2013), who convincingly denies the existence
of Photios' embassy to Baghdad.
511
Gutas ( 1998) 53-60.
" Lemerle ( 1971) 63-4 aııd Speck ( 1974b).
 A Bidirecıioııal Exclıaııge? 443

in the translation of aııcient Greek works iııto Arabic and were even welcome at
the side of the caliphs in Baghdad,52 the Byzantine court may have felt a tlıreat
to its prestige amongst its fellow Christians in tlıe east wlıose con version rate to
Islam significantly increased during the ninth century, � s we saw in Chapter 22.
it is also not coincidental tlıat the Byzantiııe revival began with the study of
scieııces and philosophy, for which the figure of Leo the Philosopher represeııts
the most influential figure. Understandably enough, scientific texts constituted for
the Abbasids the most iııteresting or, alternatively, the most profitable part of the
ancient Greek heritage. Althouglı they were not ignorant of Greek literature and
authors like Homer were read, if not used in the polemics between Christians and
Muslims (as we saw before), the importance of Greek literature was obviously
secondary for Muslim scholars, who had their own poetic tradition in Arabic to rely
on. Inversely, however, the focus on sciencc or plıilosoplıy instead of on rhetoric
or history as a basis for the educatiori of the clites was anytlıing but obvious in
Byzantium. In fact, with the reintroduction of icon worship and especially witlı
the appointınent of Plıotios as patriarch in the reign of Miclıael III, a slow but
steady reorientation towards rhetoric trainiııg took place tlıat moved Byzantine
intellectuals away from tlıe "scientific model" pronıoted by tlıe iconoclasts. 53 The
subversive powers of science for the new proclaimed oıihodoxy54 surely unclerlay
tlıe change to a rlıetorical model uncler Plıotios, who tried to put some distance
between lıinıself ancl the previous iconoclasm. This process is not unparallelecl in
conteınporary Islam, where the controversial figure ofMa'nıün (to whom Aristotle
is said to have appearecl in a dreanı! 55) appeared in the later tradition as responsible
for the promotion of the heresy ofMu'tazila.
Therefore the iconoclasts were brancled as "Hellenes" ("E?ı.?ı.rıvı::ç), that is to
say, "pagans", not only for not aclhering to "orthodoxy", but also because they
fostered the study of ancient pagan wisdom and did not even shrink from playing
with mythological references. Indeed, in the poems of Leo the Philosopher Greek
gods appear as a subject matter, a circurnstance that moved some of his students
to criticize the old master for deviating from the Christian faith. It is doubtful that
iconoclast intellectuals of the ninth century went on to question their "Roman"
identity during their search for models in pagan Greek writers, but some of their
contemporaries apparently thought so because they felt outraged at their close
study of the ancients and considered it an offence against the orthodoxy.56 The
iconoclasts, who were already "Saracen-minded" (cmpaıcrıv6cppovı::ç) in the eyes
of the iconophiles, who linked iconoclasm with the aniconism of Islam,57 thus also

52 Gutas (1998) 136-41.

53
See Signes Codofier (2002a) 438-48 and Magdalino (2006) 68.
54
See Magdaliııo (2006).
55 Gutas (1998) 95-104.
56 References in Signes Codofier (2002a) 429-38.
57
See Vasiliev (1956), Crone (1980) and Signes Codofier (2013c) 137-40 for tlıe
clecree ofYazTd aııd its possible inıpact on Byzaııtiııe icoııoclasnı.
444 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos emel ılıe Eası, 829-842

became "Hellenes" by the ninth centı.ıry because of their approach to the Greek
sciences. Takeıı together, these two degradiııg epithets diffı.ısed by iconophile
propaganda ancl certainly arisiııg out of different circumstances, clescribe perhaps
accurately what the contemporaries might have thought about the cultural stance of
the iconoclast elites during Theophilos' reign. 58
This suspicious regard toward the blossoming of the sciences among the
iconoclasts as beiııg derived from the east is difficult to substantiate in the sources,
as already noted. We woulcl tike to know more about the imperial ceremonial at
the court and consider whether Theophilos paved the way for eastem influences
in some way or another. But tlıe only substantial evidence we know is in fact that,
afl:er his embassy in Baghclad,

... as sooıı as Jolın [probably the Gramrnarian] relurnecl to Theophilos, he

recountecl everytlıing about Syria ancl convinced lıim to constn.ıct the palace of
Bryas in reseınblance (6µoi(l)crtV) to Saracen abocles, in no wise cliffering from
thenı in its layout (crx�µa.) or clecoration (ıroıı<ııı.içı); ancl tlıis was overseen by
lıiııı and tlıe work carriecl out according lo Jolın 's description by a nıan wlıose
name was Patrikes and wlıo was clistinguislıecl by tlıe clignity ofpatrician.5"

As the identification ofthe Bryas palace remains disputed and the finclings macle
hitheıto provide no sufficient basis for an interpretation,60 it is idle to speculate
what kind of influence Islamic architecture could have had on it. The purpose of
coping with the architectural blossoming ofthe Abbasids being evident, we cannot
however be more precise about the function and particular purpose of the palace
and its annexed churches, built not in the political centre of the capital, but in its
Asian suburbs. 61
The same reserve applies to the supposed oriental patterns in the layout
or function of the new buildings Theophilos made for the imperial palace and
described with some detail in the final part of the book devoted to Theophilos by
the Contimıator.62

58 See Signes Coclofier (1996) 157 and 179.

59 Tlı. Cont. III.9 (98.14-21 ). Ibid. L10 (21.4-5) it is said that the emperor Tlıeophilos
took material for building Bryas from the monastery of Satyros in tlıe Asian stıburbs of
Constantinople.
60 Ricci (1998) argued against the identification oftlıe remains in Küçi.ikyali with the
palace, especially because they lookecl like a cloister, but it cannot be excluclecl that this
could lıave been a court ofa civil structure.
61 Keshani (2004) argues tlıat the palace was intended to send a ınessage ofByzantine
superiority over tlıe Abbasids ancl targeted ıııainly the Persian Khurramites serving as allies
ofthe eıııpire.
61 Th. Cont. III.41-4 (139.15-148.3). It would be interesting to consider whetlıer the
new palace Mu'taşiın built in Samarra, whose layout, contrary to what lıappens in Baghdad,
is more or less known througlı excavations, may yield some clue for unclerstanding tlıe
builcliııgs ıııade by Tlıeoplıilos in the lınperial Palace. Foran overview oftlıe palace rooıııs
 :/ Bidirecıi"ııal E.rclıaııge'.' 445

Agaiıı problematic is tlıe case oftextiles and silks ofllıe period witlı Sassaııicl
aııd lslamizing motives, especially lıuııting sceııes, for tlıeir dating is anythiııg
but sure. Recently Alicia Walker has suggested that texlual evidence (mainly
the Liber poııt(ficalis) seenıs to point to a surge in tlıe production of textiles
cluring the reign ofTheophilos, but her conclusions, however appealing, must be
approached with care.63
Especially intriguing is the function of the pentapyrgion, a piece of furniture
consisting offive elements endowecl with couples or crownecl by towers, built by
the emperor Theophilos to holcl the treasury of the crown and usually clisplayecl in
the Magnaura (or alternatively in the Chrysotriklinios).64 Long ago Ancln� Grabar
suggestecl that the famous c/ıiesola of the treasury of Saint Mark, a cnıciform
container suıınounted by five domes (one in the crossing ancl four at the edges),
might have originally been a perfume burner basecl on the model of an oriental
kiosk and added the pentapyrgion ofTheophilos as a possible source ofinspiration
for it.65 in a recent detailed study ofthe c/ıiesola, Mabi Angar has further clevelopecl
the thesis of Grabar, convincingly arguing that the chiesola was usecl as a pot­
pourri container ancl connecting it with the profane sphere ofthe Komnenian comi.
'She also suggests that the object had as a possible inspiration, not a Byzantine
churclı, but a civil architectural structure, probably a palace. 1-Iowever she also
mentions in her study pavilions as a source of inspiration for the chiesola without
referring to Grabar for this. 66 Considering the omnipresence of kiosk or pavilion
stnıctures in garclens in the Abbasicl period, it would be tempting to consicler
whether the ultimate �rchitectural source of inspiration for this perfume container
may be found there, although this would not prove anything about the enigmatic
pentapyrgion ofTheophilos.
More telling are perhaps some stories about tlıe direct contact Theoplıilos had
witlı ordinary people when riding tlırough the city on his way to tlıe Blachernai
palace. Tlıese stories, preserved by tlıe Continuator,67 present the emperor as an
approaclıable ruler, worried about the common concerns of his subjects, an image
very similar to the prevailing image ofAbbasid caliphs such as I:Iarün al-Rashid or

(with rnaps) see Northedge(1993). However, we must avoid overvaluing coincidences, as

when we find out through Northedge (1993) 153 that a tower used as a prison in the Jawsaq
(kiosk) palace ofSamarrii was called the "Pearl"(lu'lu'a) exactly as one hali(Mapyap[-rııc;)
bui.lt by Theophilos in the palace according to Th. Cont. III.43 (143.18-23). Again, the
racecourses discovered at Samarra - see for thern Noıihedge(1990) - have nothing to do
with the Hippodrome, but more sirnply with traditional horse racing amongst the Arabs.
63
Walker(2012) 23-27. For a rnore detailed report see Brubaker and Haldon (2001)
80-108.
64 For the sources and cliscussion of the function of the pentapyrgioı'ı cf. Dagron
(2005).
65
Grabar(l951) 50-53.
1'1'
Angar (2009), especially 150-51 for the references to pavilions.
''7 See for instance Tlı. Coııt. 111.4 (88.4-89.14). More details below in tlıe Epilogue.
446 Tlıe Emperor Tlıenplıilos cıııd tlıe East, 829-842

Figure 5 Organ. Heron of Alexandria, Pneumatica I.42

Ma'mün in the tradition preserved in the Thousand and One Nights.68 The lavish
setting for the official receptions of ambassadors might also be related to the aim
to surpass the caliph's court. I refer particularly to the automata of lions, birds
and griffins along with a golden organ, which were ali set in motion or made
to play in the presence of foreign ambassadors.69 The organ and the automata
imply a prerequisite knowledge respectively of the Pneıımatica and Aııtomata of
the Hellenistic work of Heron of Alexandria. Chapter 42 at the end of Boole I
of the Pneıımatica deals significantly with "constrnction of an organ" (opyuvou
ıccı:raaıcsufı) (Figure 5). Some pages later, in Boole II, chapter 5, Heron describes
how to make metal birds sing with the air expelled from a container through pipes
opening at their beaks (see Figure 6).70 However, although Heron's texts may have
begun to be copied and studied in Byzantium at this time, no manuscripts of his
survive dating earlier than the tenth century. 71

68
Signes Codofier (2002a) 426-9.
69
Th. Cont. IV.21 (173.6-10) and De Cer. 11.15 (566.11-570.10).
70
The images are taken from the edition of Schmidt (1899a) 205 and 220.
71 According to Schmidt (1899b) the oldest ms. of Heron 's Mechaııica and Aııtoıııata
is Marciaııus 516, datiııg not earlier thaıı the twelfth century. Schöne ( 1903) lists the mss. of
the Dioptrica, tlıe oldest being Paris. Supp. Gr. 607 oftwel�h or thirteenth century. To tlıe
 ,./ /Jiclirccıioııal Erclıcmge:' -1-17

Figure 6 Singing birds. Heron ofA!exandria, Pneıllnatica If.5

We know through the Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadıın, written in the tenth century,
that Ma'mün commissioned members ofhis court to collect scientific manuscripts
in Byzantium with the knowledge of the emperor. 72 Among the persons who
supposedly travelled to Byzantium and later worked on the collected works,
mention is made of the three Banü Müsa brothers, wlıo composed, based on
Heron ofAlexandria and Philon of Byzantium, numerous works and mechanical
devices. 73 Especially impressive is their so-called Boole of irıgenioııs deııices,
composed perhaps c. 859, wlıere they accurately describe the operation of l 00
machines of their own which involved subtle combinations of pneumatics and
aerostatics. The manuscript tradition of the work is accompanied by illustrations
in the manner ofthe works ofHeron. There we frequently find mechanical anirnals
in action, siınilar to those used in the Great Palace at Constantinople, although

tenth century dates the Seragliensis Gr. 1 of the Topkapi palace according to Perez Martin
(2009) 59-60, who includes reproductions. See also Schöne (1903) Vfl-XI aııd 1leiberg -
(1912) XII-XIII.
72 Fihrist 584.
73
For a thorouglı study on the work, including traııslation and reproduclion or tlıe
original illuıninatioh, see Hill ( 1979). Tlıere (p. 21) tlıe moclels of Heron are listed frnnı
wlıiclı the Banü Müsa took their inspiratioıı.
448 The Eıııpemı· Tlıeoplıilos emel the East. 829-842

they rernain in botlı cases slatic, in contrast with the developınents oflater Arabic
authors. '4 Special rneııtion is deserved, however, of the automatic hydraulic ftute
player constructed by tlıe Banü Müsa and that Teun Kotsier considers the "earliest
kııown desigıı ofa programmable machine". The author holds that although tlıis
work was influeııced by his Hellenistic predecessors, "it contains notable advances
on the Greek work". in fact, the Banü Müsa "ingeniously used small variations
in air and water pressure aııd they used conical valves as automatic regulators".75
As research of tlıis level is uııparalleled in Byzantium at the time, it would
be temptiııg to conclude that Theophilos' devices were inspired by contemporary
interest in mechanics at the Abbasid court aııd especially by its application for
cerenıoııial uses in the palace. in fact, the embassy of Ma'mün to Byzantiunı
in search of scientific books ımıst have preceded his later campaigns against
Theophilos in the very !ast years of his reign (830-833 ). 76 However, although it
caııııot be coiııcidence that both courts simultaneously used mechanical devices
to impress potential visitors and it is also undeniable that the Arabs made much
more progress in the field, one canııot really assert that it was the Byzantiııes
who copied the Abbasids when they placed autoınata at court. The Gesta Karo/i,
written towards the enci ofthe ninth century, does iııdeed meııtion the sending of
an organ to Charles the Great by the emperor ofConstantinople. 77 Moreover, the
use of_organs "in imperial ceremonies at Byzantium is attested fronı the beginning
ofthe eighth century,78 so in that case it seems clears that Coııstantinople provided
the pattern for the Abbasids. It could lıave been the same with the construction of
sophisticated automata used at court receptions, although it is equally conceivable
that the Abbasids further developed their interest in autoınata before the Byzantines
did the same.
Be this as it ınay, the point is that there seems to have been a means of
communication between Constantinople and Baghdad that ran in both directions
and speaks for continuous emulation at both courts. Future research must therefore
always keep an eye on Baghdad when considering the intellectual background of
the iconoclast emperors.

74 Hill (1979) 22-3.

75
Koetsier (2001) 589-90, based on Fam1er (1931).
76
in the Fihrist the emperor with whom Ma'mfın corresponded, is identified only as
someone the caliph "had sought aid opposing". ls this to be understood as a reference to the
support giveıı by the caliph to Thomas, as we argued in Chapter 13. 1.
77 Notker Balbulus, Gestcı Korali 11.6. See also Signes Codofier (2007c) l 94-5.
7" See Herriıı ( 1992) 104-5 and Berger (2006) 64-9 with references.
 Epilogue
The Iınage of Theophilos as a Ruler

Based on the analysis in the previous sections of tlıis study we should now be
able to form a provisional picture of the emperor as a nıler as he is portrayed
through the Byzantine sources, be they contenıporary or not. Obviously a nıorc
conıprehensive study will be needed in order to make a definitive assessnıent
of the historical role played by Theophilos, an assessınent based on objective
standards, which will take into account other aspects ofTheoplıilos' governnıenl
excluded froın the present analysis (centred in his eastern policy) and will give
due relcvancc to econoınic and geostrategic factors thal are appreciable oııly in tlıe
long term and not in the short run ofhis sote reign of 12 years and sonıe montlıs.
The words that follow ımıst therefore be intended as a preparatoıy step for tliis
future study without predeterminiııg its conclusions in any form.
As we have seen, despite the serious blow to the empire's prestige caused by tlıe
capture and destruction ofAmorion by Mu'taşim in 838, the image ofTheophilos
as a general and comınander was not substantially darnaged, perhaps because tlıe
practical consequences of this campaign were not so irreparable as the Arab ancl
Greek accounts claimed: indeed the caliph faced a difficult situation during his
retreat (Chapter 17.5), which culıninated in the usurpation by his nephew 'Abbas,
whom the sources portray as negotiating with Theophilos the conditions of a
permanent truce (Chapter 18.1). Even at1er Amorion, Theophilos did not cease
to carry out vigorous diplomatic activity to counteract the effects of the military
defeat of 838, which included bold militaıy actions in tlıe east (Chapter 18.2-3).
The emperor was even able to initiate an understanding with the Rus in 838, when
his alliance with the Khazars, which he had carefully fostered since the beginning
of his reign, was probably at risk because of the pressure of the caliphate on the
Turkish khagan (Chapters 19-20).
Thus the emperor was able to preserve the prestige he had gained in the
campaigns against Ma'mün in 830-833 - where despite occasional setbacks he
successfully confronted tlıe mighty Arab troops in Anatolia that were led by the
caliph himself, a fact not valued enough in modern research (Chapter 14) - and
further developed in his campaigns of 834-837, which culminated in the taking
of Sozopetra, an achievement which reverberated in Arab sources and rewarded
Tlıeophilos with the second triumph of his rei.gn (Clıapters 15-16).
In fact, it is the execution of the 42 martyrs ofAmorion tlıat mostly damagecl
tlıe prestige ofByzantium, as the empire could not prevent leading officials ofthe
irnperial aımy from being slain by the caliph at Sanıarra. This event, however,
took place not during the reign ofTlıeoplıilos, but cluring tlıe regency ofTlıeoclora
450 Tlıe Eııl{ıemr Tlıenplıi/os aııd ı/ıe Eası. 819-841

and the minority of Michael 111, in the year 845 and by order of the then reigning
caliph \Vfithiq (842-847). This was a clramatic failure of tlıe Byzantine diplomacy
of the restored "orthodoxy", which could not achieve the release of the high­
raııkiııg prisoners at Samarra, contrary to what had happened almost regularly on
previous occasioııs. it is thus understandable that this fa.et promoted the writing of
several hagiographies or "Acts" to the glory ofthe new martyrs, where Theophilos
appears alternatively characterized as a pious emperor or as a furious iconoclast.
Certaiııly, the ultimate causes for this sad event nıust have been discussed at the
time, although we do not get even tbe slightest glinıpse ofthe debate in these texts,
for ali the hagiographies are patriotic in their staııce and tenci to make the Arabs
solely responsible for the treacherous ımırder ofthe martyrs when they supposedly
resistecl their conversion to lslam.
it is further significant that after the victoıy of Amorion no further Abbasid
caliplı invacled Byzantine territoıy, the emir of Melitene being for many years
the main eneıny of the empire ancl responsible for the attacks into Anatolia. in a
certain sense the canıpaign of 838 was clesignecl to conıpensate for the inactivity
of the caliphate in the face of the aggressive campaigning of the Byzantines in
eastern Anatolia between 834 ancl 837 ancl to retaliate for previous clefeats, but
clid not pretend to occupy Byzantine territory as had stil! been the case during
the reign of Harün al-RashTd. Probably Ma'nıün was the last caliph who ever
thought ofa permanent occupation ofAnatolia. He first tried to oppose Byzantium
indirectly by means ofthe clubious figure ofThomas the Slav, who had the backing
of tbe Abbasids and even admitted Arab troops into his army (Chapter 13). Only
after Thomas was defeated did Ma'mün decide to lead in person his armies into
Byzantine teıı-itoıy, although he could not march deep into it as his father had done
decades earlier, but had to stop in Cappadocia, where he tried vainly to fortify
some strongholds and take them as a base for further expeditions. It can therefore
be suspected that in contemporaıy eyes, after the catastrophic consequences of
the civil war between Michael and Thomas, the reign ofTheophilos represented
a definitive tum in the relations with the caliphate, paving the way for the future
expansion to come in the tenth centmy. The unrest at the eastem frontier during the
reigns of Leon V and Michael II (considered in Chapter 2) - a circuınstance that
probably leci to the usurpation ofThomas with the support of the caliph - almost
disappeared, significantly, in Theophilos' reign.
But it is not just to his command of the annies at war but to his leadership of
the empire that Theophilos owed his fame. As a ruler the emperor certainly met
with some opposition from aristocratic sectors, who regarded with diffidence his
approach to the "barbarians" as supporters ofhis government (Chapter 8). Persians
were probably meant by this, for Theophilos made ofthem one ofthe most reliable
forces in his campaigns in the east, taking advantage ofthe longstanding opposition
ofthe leaders ofthe Khurramite moveınent to the caliphate (Chapters 9-1 O). Clear
evidence ofthe importance the Klrnrramites assuıned is provided by their rebellion
against the emperor after thedefeatofArnorion in 838 (Chapter 12). That:Theophilos
could crush this usurpation without ınuch trouble ancl dismantle the Khurraınite
 Epilogııe 451

army speaks also lor his having a firın grasp of power despite the erisis provoked
by tlıe taking of the dynastic city. Theoplıobos. wlıo had been nıadc onc tlıe pillars
of the eastern policy of the emperor and successively appointed kaisar and nıler
(ı=:soucnu.arııç) over the Persians (Clıapter 11), was tlıus relegated to obscurity and
fiııally executed without the positioıı ofthe eınperor being appareııtly at risk at any
time. Tlıis coııfirms that the strategy of relyiııg on foreign troops was correctly
pursued, for they could have beeıı put aside or replaced in case of danger, as they
did not involve otlıer sectors of tlıe government agaiııst the reigning enıperor. 1 This
was in fact the saıne policy followed by Ma 'ınün and Mu'taşim when they created
a new elite ofTurkislı soldiers, wlıo could act as vanguard in the claslıes against
tlıe Byzaııtines (Chapter 17.5). in the long ternı tlıese units represented a threat to
tlıe caliplıate because they were given control of tlıe new capital at Saıııarra. But
this evolution was not applicable to Byzantiuın. Furthermore, as the decision of
Theoplıilos to coııtact the Rus as ıııercenaries in tlıe !ast years of his reign proves,
the Byzantines continued to resort to new foreigners to reinforce their iane! arınies,
thus avoidiııg having to rely on a privilegecl military unit pernıanently setlled in
the capital (Chapter 20. I ).
The influeııce ofthe Arıııeniaııs at court was probably seeıı by contenıporaries on
a differeııt level, for it concerııecl ıııore the fanıily aııd conııııercial links Theophilos
needed to exert his power tlıan a conscious policy of pronıotiııg Arnıenians to
high posts in tlıe admiııistration regardless of their persoııal coıınectioııs. Thus
Theophilos appears paradoxically to conııect with the figure of Leo the Arıııenian,
as wlıose avenger he saw himself (Chapter 3) to the extent eveıı of opposing his
father's second marriage and dyııastic plans of connecting the dynasty witlı tlıe
!ast Isaurian Constantiııe VI (Chapter 6). The influential Amıenians at court were
thus linked with the family of his wife Tlıeodora (Clıapter 4) and could not prosper
furtlıer without the emperor's favour, as is clear from tlıe case of the Mamıel tlıe
Annenian, perhaps the most prominent figure of Theoplıilos' reign (Chapter 5).
Consequently, it is to tlıe disagreements among the members of tlıis Armenian
group that we must turn for the grounds for the usurpation of Alexis Mousele,
the only one who could Iıave represented a threat to tlıe imperial ambitions of
his fatlıer-in-Iaw Theophilos (Chapter 7.2). Tlıis does not exclude, lıowever, that
the eastern policy of Tlıeophilos could have been determined by tlıe Amıenian
faction around tlıe emperor, altlıouglı tlıe evidence for this is scanty, tlıe nıere
campaigııiııg of Theophilos in Armeııian lands in 834-835 not necessarily being
explained by his lıaving Annenian advisers (Chapter 15).
Beyoncl tlıe parties in action at the couıi or in tlıe army, the iını.ige ofTheoplıilos
as a ruler is also inextricably bound to his religious policy, a point that has been
for its most part deliberately left out of tlıis study. However, beyoncl tlıe iıııage of

1
As we lıave seen, Tlıomas tlıe Slav is not to be identified with the leader of the
tourınarclıes of the plıoideratoi, Tlıoıııas tlıe Armenian, so tlıat tlıe civil war was not
triggerecl by tlıe disaffectioıı of tlıe easterıı Aııatoliaıı troops of tlıe federates againsl tlıe
reigııiııg enıperor (Clınpter 13.1 ).
452 T!ı<? Emp<?mr Tlıeoplıilos aml ılıe Eası, 819-841

a fierce persecutor of iconophiles which appears repeatedly in the hagiography

of the period, and beyond the demonization of John the Grammarian, one of
the most prominent intellectuals of the time and Theophilos' loyal supporter,
a more pragmatic approach to the issue is possible, one that takes into account
that political leaders as well as emperors took decisions not only according to
their innermost convictions but also considering the conventions of power. lt
is with this idea in mind that we considered at the beginning of this study the
reestablishınent of iconoclasm by Leo the Armenian and its defence in a mild
form by his successor Michael the Amorian as the result ofa political calculation
and not only of religious partisanship. The bad reputation of an emperor like Leo
was surely influenced by his iconoclasm, but also deterınined by other factors of
his govenıment that probably led to his assassination by fom1er allies (Chapter !).
The approach of the Melkites in the Near East to the reigning emperors in
Constantinople must also have been ruled by pragmatism. Contrary to the
prevailing consensus, there must have been, if not iconoclastic, at least aniconic
tendencies in ınany sectors of the Melkites at least during the eighth and ninth
centuries. 2 Accordingly, Greek iconophile leaders faced increasing difficulties
after the council of Nikaia il in 787 to involve their counterparts in the Melkite
hierarchy in a clear condemnation of Byzantine iconoclasm, as made evident by
the con-espondence of Theodore Stoudites.3 it is this circumstance that explains
that the so-called Letter of Theophilos, a fairly interpolated text with a dossier of
passages in favour of icon worship, contains a direct appeal of the three Melkite
patriarchs to the emperor to put the territories of the Eastem Church under the
control ofthe empire. This appeal seems possible ifthe patriarchs were pragmatic
enough to put aside religious controversies with Constantinople in order tö get its
support. Since direct references to icons are absent from the original core of the
work, this confim1s that the text was manipulated after Theophilos' death in order to
present the Melkite prelates as uncompromising defenders oficon worship in front
ofthe !ast iconoclastic emperor (Chapter 21 ). Although a Byzantine reconquista of
Melkite lands in northern Syria did not take place until the tenth century, this does
not mean that expectations ofa political change did not exist at the time, and there
is some evidence for this in the sources ofthe period (Chapter 22).
In any case, a pragmatic approach to the issue of the icons may explain that
the prestige of Theophilos did not suffer as a result of his official iconoclasm.
Certainly, dynastic propaganda put forward by Theodora after the death of her
husband may have contributed to promoting a positive image of the emperor to
future generations, contrary to what was done with his son and successor Michael
III, whom the Macedonian dynasty depicted as a drunkard and debauchee, as he
appears especially in the fourth book ofGenesios and the Continuator. But it is to
be doubted whether this propaganda alone could have rescued Theophilos from

Sigııes Codoiier (2013c)

.ı SigııesCodoiier(2014).
 Epilugııe 453

Figure 7 Tlıe London

Clıarioteer silk (detail),
perhaps presenting
Theophilos as a charioteer.
Victoria and Albert
Museum T.762-1892; see
Muthesius (1997) 58-64.
© Victoria and Albeıi
Museum, Landon.

discredit ifhe had not indeed been a popular emperor.4 Many ofthe sources about
hiın and his entourage used by these two historians ofthe Macedonian period (or
by the chronicles ofthe Logothete group) are not easily reducible to a single work
but appear to proceed from a disparate number oftexts, ifnot from oral reports. 5
Moreover, some stories that figure in the historical sources are hard to reconcile
with the official propaganda. Let us consider them now in some detail.
Many stories depict Theophilos in a familial environment, either rebuking his
wife (a sainted woman for the orthodox) for making profit through trade despite
being an empress; or prohibiting icon worship to his daughters after the youngest
one innocently betrays their activities when mentioning to her father the "dolls"

• Markopoulos ( 1998) concentrates mainly on the rehabilitation process ofTheophilos

for the Church due to the ageııcy of his widow Theodora, who contributed to spread the
stoıy oflıis coııversion to orthodoxy on his deatlıbed.
5 For tlıe oral reports usecl by our two autlıors see Sigııes Codoiier ( 1995) 643-7.
454 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeoplıilos ancl tlıe Eası. 829-8./1

witlı wlıich she used to play: or even paying attention to tlıe confidences ofa court
jester wlıo also reveals to hinı that Tlıeodora secretly worships icons.6 We face
here anecdotes tlıat confroııt us with the human side ofthe ruler, although, given
tlıeir naivety, they can not have originated in official propaganda.
in otlıer cases, tlıe informatioıı given appears to be ofa more public nature,
as when Tlıeoplıilos appears competing in the hippodrome for his triumph of
837, leading the clıariot of' tlıe greens and beating his rivals to the enthusiasm
of the people wlıo hail him, shouting: Katı.ôiç �tı.0Eç, acn'ıyKprrn cpaKrcova.pıı,
'\velconıe, incoınparable charioteer". 7 Obviously Theophilos was following here
a pattern ofhis iconoclastic predecessors (especially Coııstantine V "Kaballinos")8
aııd showing soliclarity witlı the people gathered at the hippodrome (Figure 7).
However, it is the historical fact tlıat remains here, independently ofthe judgment
it cleserves. Curiously enouglı, the role .ofTheophi los as a charioteer is presented
in a neutral way in the Logothete, whereas his son Michael HI is heavily criticizecl
in the Continuator on account ofthe same inclination.9 it appears tlıat it was only
later iconoplıile propaganda that discredited iconoclast emperors for their taking
part in the chariot races ofthe hippoclrome.
Apparently also inclependent of imperial propaganda is the already
coınmented-on story that presents Tlıeophilos forbiclcling Leo to travel to the
caliphate to coınply with tlıe caliph 's cleınancl. Instead tlıe emperor, so the story
goes, preferred to put Leo at the head of a school in the Church of the Forty
Martyrs. The anecdote syınbolizes the Byzantine revival of classical scholarship
but it woulcl have scarcely been based on an official report, for the indications
are too vague and general, devoid of any kinci of chronological precision. The
cultural activities of Leo become tangible only during the reign of Michael III
when the Magnaura school is founded and the different disciplines promoted there
are named. ıo In any case, even ifofficial propaganda was behinci the story ofLeo
and the caliph, it tallies well with the evidence ofthe cultural revival that emerges
from the sources of the period summarily considered above (Chapter 23.2). In
fact, the official reports transmitted by the Continuator about the edifications of
Theophilos, mainly at the imperial palace of Constantinople,11 are unparallelecl
in the ninth century before the Macedonian dynasty, and speak strongly for an
emperor devoted to promoting the imperial glory through his buildings, as was
also the case with Justinian.
But the most important stories connected with Theophilos are those that depict
him as a righteous and just emperor. Certainly, we cannot discount the official
propaganda at work behind some of the stories, but the sources are so disparate

6
Th. Cont. IIl.4-6 (88.4-92.17). See Signes Codofier (1995) 373-91.
7 Log. (A) Tlıeoplıilos [130] 24 (223.162-166).
8
Rochow (1994) 9, 136 and 142.
" Th. Cont. IV.36 ( 198.3-199.7)
10 An overview of Leo's biography in PnıbZ #4440.
11 Th.Cont. 111.8,4 1-44(94.19-95. 18, 139.15- 148.3).
 Epilogııe 455

aııd conıe from such differcnt types oftcxts that in the cnd oııc canııot avoid thc
impression that this inıage ofthc cnıperor, albeit officially promoted. ınadc a deep
inıpression on contenıporaries and was tlıus transınittcd to posterity. 12
Especially revealing is tlıe case of tlıe slıort trcatisc cnlitled "Aboul tlıe goocl
cleeds of enıperor Theoplıilos" (flepi rcüv ô.ya.0oı::p)'ıcüı· 81:orpilov fJrwıUcvç, cditccl
by Regel as De Theophili imperatoris henefcıctis). At its beginning tlıc text briefly
praises Theophilos for repairing the walls of the city as well as tlıe nıonasteries
outsicle the walls and the church of the Blaclıernai, cxposcd to pillaging by
enenıies. But inımecliately after, the text presents Tlıeophilos as a Kprrııı; öiKmoı;
Kcı.i apwrnı;, "best and just judge", ancl reports two storics that prove tlıc point
and make up the rest of the text. In the first one a praepositus is burnt alive in thc
hippodrome for seizing a ship that was the property ofa widow; Theophilos also
punishes the quaestor with lashes, deccı!vcıtio ancl banishıııent for beiııg slow in
impleınenting the Iaw.13 In the following, Ionger story the abuses oftwo ınagistroi
against an adjoining nunnery whose property they covet are minutely clescribed.
The oikonoınos ancl thc nuns dcnounce them before tlıe enıperor, who calls for a
trial ancl threatens the magistroi with clecapitation. Out of fear of the emperor's
justice, the nıagistroi tlıen come to a private agreement bcfore the trial. When thc
trial nıeets at the Magnaura the emperor, after sunımoning tlıe oikononıos, who
had not appearecl, verifies tlıe agreement ofthe parties ancl lets tlıeın go, forgiving
the magistroi. 14 A conclucling paragraph emphasizes again the sense ofjustice of
the otKmoıcphııı; n:avu, "mostjustjuclge", ancl states tl1at wrongdoing disappearecl
from the empire during his "reign. 15
This short pamphlet is written in a very plain, popular language, with a simple
syntax that deviates from the use of classical grammar (mostly in the rection of
the verbs). It contains just two stories preceded by a preamble and followed by
a conclusion, too little material for an official panegyric. Moreover, the details
provided are too concrete for an invention, as for example when the droungarios
sends his mandatores to look for the oikonomos and the mıns and finds them at
the market (ev np cp6pq:ı) purchasing a dish and glass set of silver (oıcrıcon:o-ı:fıpm
apyupü) and some books for the nunneıy. Finally, if the text derived somewhat
from official propaganda, tlıe emperor would have never been said to follow the
"heresy of his father" (-rfjı; naı:pııcfjı; aipfoı::coı;). 16 The popular flavour of this short
piece points rather to a popular source, even an oral report, not dissimilar to tlıe
stories preservecl in the so-called Patricı of Constantinople. 17

12 As is well known, Theophilos appears as a judge in the Hades in the Tiınarion, a

satirical dialogue ofthe twelfth century edited by Romano (1974). Further details in Dielıl
(1931). The best overview ofTlıeoplıilos' justice is Gkoutzioukostas (2004) 56-7 and 60-65.
13 De Tlıeoplıili beııefactis 40.17-26.
14 De Tlıeoplıili benefactis 40.26-43.5.
15 De Tlıeoplıili beııefactis 43.6-19.
16 De Tlıeoplıili bene.fcıctis 40.3-4.
17
See Preger (1901 ), Cameron aııd Herrin ( 1984) ancl Berger ( 1988) (2013 ).
456 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos emel ı/ıe Eası. 829-842

But there is nıuch more than that, for nıany other stories reporting Theophilos'
strict sense ofjustice are scattered among very heterogeneous sources. Let us now
review the evidence.
The first act ofTheophilos' reign, the public punishment ofthe killers ofLeo V,
was made to symbolize the theıne of justice presiding over the new reign (Chapter
3.3). This measure was in fact a risky step, for Theophilos' father, the source
of the legitiınacy of his power, was aınong the conspirators who profited froın
Leo's death. The eınperor is fı.ırther shown displaying justice on the street, when,
on the occasion of his riding through the streets of Constantinople, he answers
the spontaneous petitions of the citizens meeting him. Thus he gives back to a
widow the horse he is mounted on as soon as he is infoımed by her that the aniınal
belonged to her deceased husband from whom it was taken by a unscrupulous
general who in tum gave it as a present to the emperor as if froın himself. The
general, perhaps no lesser than the conıes of the Opsikion thema, is punished and
beaten, and the widow and his sons rewarded for the damage. 18 in another story
it is Petronas, the brother of his wife Theodora, who is now subjected to severe
blows by Theophilos because he put up a building in front ofthe house ofa widow
leaving her without natura! liğht, thus contravening Roman law. 19 Fuıthermore,
the eınperor does not shrink froın setting fire to the ship of his own wife Theodora
when he is informed that she was making a profit by selling its cargo. By doing
so, Theophilos protested in front ofhis attendants, saying: "Who has ever seen an
emperor ofthe Romans or his wife as merchant?"20
Again, these stories, taken from historical sources, do not fit with what one
would expect from official propaganda. They have a popular flavour, if not a
hagiographical tone. No wonder then that we find similar tales in the Lives of
saints of the period. This is the case, for example, of the Life of Peter ofAtroa,
written by his disciple Sabas shoıtly after 843 and, accordingly, based on fresh
memories ofa well-known thaumaturge of the age who died in 837.21 One of the
acquaintances of Peter of Atroa is a consul, whose family he helped on several
occasions, for instance delivering successively his wife and a nephew frorn a
demonic possession during the reign of Michael and the usurpation ofThomas.22
Later, under Theophilos,23 this sarne consul is falsely accused of conspiracy

18 T
h. Cont. III.7 (92.17-94.18). in Log. (A) Theophilos [130] 31 (225.204-226.224),
where the petitioner himself is the owner of the horse and the comes finally dies in the war
after fleeing in combat as a coward.
19
Log. (A) Theophilos (130] 10 (218.51-219.66). For dispositions concerning
distances between buildings see Codex 8.10.12, later copied in Proclıiron 38.4-6, 8 and
Eisagoge 39.2-5.
20 Th. Cont. III.4 (88.10-89.14).
21 For Sabas see PmbZ#6447 and PBE s.v. "Sabas l ". For this L/(e see also Efthymiadis
(2006) l 60-81.
"" Sabas, Life ofPeter ofAlı'Oa (1) §§34-6.
z.ı Perlıaps in the fourtlı year of his reign, as is stated in Sabas, L//'e of ?eter ofAtroa
(I J §62.
 Epilogııe 457

against the eınperor (rov aürov ürranKov ürr6 nvrnv mıKocpavrıı0tvrn nıı pamAd
0c0ıpiı.(f) ötaPAıı0ııvm CıJÇ EKEivqı EmPouAeuovrn) and takes flight. Whilst in hiding
he is visited by a perfidious relative (called siınply ya�tpp6ç in the L(fe) who tries
to convince hinı to give himself up to the emperor, while in fact he was secretly
corresponding with Theophilos and arranging the handover of the supposed
conspirator. Thus the relative succeeds in detaining the consul in a monastery
before handing him over to the eınperor. The saint, on hearing of this, huıTies to
the monastery where he finds the consul cowering and fearing for his life. He then
prophesies that the eınperor will not execute the consul but just punish him with
a fine. Turning then to the traitor, Peter also proclaims tlıat God will duly reward
him for his acts. in fact, Theophilos does spare the consul's life, just imposing
a financial penalty (xpıwı'm,ıv �t6vov ı'.ırr�veyıcev Çrıµiav), whereas "the tortuous­
ıninded relative who accompanied the consul was subjected to a not low nuınber
of blows by the emperor" (aüroç Öf; 6 roı'.ır(f) crt<:oıı.ıoıpp6vwç mı�mopeucra�tevoç
ya�tPpoç m'ırou oü raiç ruxoucrmç µacrnl;ıv rrapa mu pamıı.tmç ıca0urrepıı.ı)0ıı).24
it is not only Theoplıilos' clemency (a virtue praised in ınany emperors) in
pardoning tlıe consul, but his deep sense of justice in punislıing tlıe relative for
his betrayal tlıat ınust be highlighted in this story. Theophilos seeıns to follow the
old maxim "Rome does not pay traitors" in punishing the treacherous relative,
despite the fact that he only handed a conspirator over to the eınperor.25 it appears
to be the same line ofconduct that led Theophilos to punish the murderers ofLeo
the Armenian at the very beginning of his reign, although they were the same
persons who put his father Michael on the throne and were thus responsible for the
establishing ofthe Amorian dynasty (Chapter 3.3). But now the source that telis
this stoıy is an iconophile Lije written by the monk Sabas, who not only witnessed
most of the events he reports in his work, but even appears to have personally
known the unnamed consul (this being perhaps a reason for silencing his name),
whose words he reproduces more than once in direct speech, as iftelling Sabas in
person what actually happened to him.
A veıy similar history appears in another iconophile hagiography, the Life of
Aııtonios the Yoıınger, written many years after the death ofthe saint in 865 by an
eyewitness to his later deeds. The saint, called Jolm before he took the monastic
orders with the name ofAntonios, assumed the representation (EK rrpocroırrou) of
the strategos ofthe Kibyrrhaiotai at Attaleia during the war between Michael and
Thomas. During this period he combated fiercely the paıiisans ofthe rebel (labelled
as apostate by the author of the Life), to the point of their complete annihilation
(ı::iç aıpavıcr�tov rrerroirıKe). 26 Under Theophilos, some former partisans ofThomas
came to the court to denounce the abuses of John when he was EK rrpocroırrou at
Attaleia (he had taken orders in the meantime), for they had suffered injustice

24
Sabas, Life ofPeter ofAtroa (1) §64.
25
Based on the betrayal and assassination ofthe Lusitanian rebel Viriatus by men of
his eııtourage, as tolcl in Eutropius' BreFicrrium 4.16.
'6
L(fe ofA11/011ios tlıe Yoımger §§ 10-12.
458 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/os cıııcl ılıe Easl, 829-842

at his hands and been dcprived of their money and goods (ci:ıç ü.otK.,ı0ıivrEÇ ı:m·
aürnu KU.i rfov i8foıv ctiı:üCiTEpT]0ııvm; xpıwcmııv rn Kal KTl)�tarcov). Theophilos,
again, instead ofignoring their claims - for as we have seen Thoınas had been the
enemy of his father and received the support of the caliph in his attempt to seize
the imperial throne - ·'after making an inquiry and being inforıned ... (mı06µı,voç
oe Kai µa0ciıv) orderered his attendants to give back their rights to the persons who
had suffered injustice at his cause" (EK�AEDCTE rnuç 8tacp�povraç aurqı foı:ooouvm
rniç 8�0Ev a81Kı10dat ra ıoıa). Furthermore, he ordered John to be brought before
him for justice. When John finally appears before Theophilos, he claims to have
done notlıing other than to prosecute Thomas' partisans "as being enemies ofthe
eınpire ofyour father and combatants oftlıe Christians" (ci:ıç tx0pouç rfjç �am1ı.Eiaç
mu 1mrp6ç crou ımi ıı:oAE�ıiouç rôıv xpıcrnavôıv) when he confiscated his properties
ancl handed them over to the solcliers ofthe empire.27
As we see, the issue at sta:ke was one ofordinary justice and concemed the final
destination ofthe goods and properties confiscated from sorne subjects ofthe ernpire
during the difficult tiınes ofthe so-called civil war. üne cannot avoid the impression
Lhat some excesses were made during John 's tenure of office that went far beyond
his duties as representative ofthe inıperial adnıinistration in Attaleia. As a ınatter of
fact, Theophilos fouııd John guilty of the charges, for he handed him to the officer
"in charge of petitions" (Eni rôıv oE�CTECüv) Stephen, who in turn put him in prison.28
However, things did not enci here, for Stephen apparently tried to get money
from the prisoner in order to release him and subjected the saint to severe blows
without, alas, any positive result. When Theophilos heard about ali this, he
released the mistreated prisoner on the spot and punished the corrupt servant with
blows, confiscation of his property and banishment from the city.29 The justice of
the emperor is made again more remarkable by the fact that it is described by an
iconophile author writing rnany decades after his death.
Certainly there are also many hagiographic sources heaping insults on
Theophilos but it is always because of his persecution of icon worshipers.30 The
saıne insults appear again directed against Leo the Armenian, who is unanimously
depicted as a rude and savage ruler by historical and hagiographical sources.31 But
in his case, positive evidence as a ruler is hard to find except for a brief statement
about him made by the patriarch Nikephoros (Chapter 1.2). And, most important
for our case here, Genesios and the Continuator devote a whole chapter to the
harsh penalties imposed by Leo on his subjects, including frequent mutilation.32

27 Life ofAııtonios the Yoııııger §31.

ıs Life ofAııtonios the Yoııııger §32.
29 Life ofAııtonios tlıe Yoııııger §§32-3.
30 Markopoulos (1998) 41.
31 See Signes Codofier (1991), (1994) for the degrading epithets given to Leo in the
icoııophile sources ofthe period, especially in iconophile hagiographies.
ıı Gen. 1.15 (13.83-91) and Th. Coııt. 1. 14 (25.20-26.8). See Signes Codofier (1995)
117-20.
 Epilngue 459

This makes a strong contrast with Theophilos. However, Leo also tried to cultivate
an image ofa just emperor, as suggested by a story told again by Genesios and
the Continuator that remains fairly unusual among hundreds of passages written
to discredit him. The version as reııdered by the Continuator can be translated as
follows:

He wished to be called a lover of justice (oıKa!OcruVT]ç tpmmiç ı..eyecr0m

tpouı..ı,w), tlıough he was not oııe; nevertheless, he soııglıt after this and, sitting in
the Lausiakos, he delivered maııy juclgements by lıimself. ünce someone brought
before him a clıarge conceming tlıe tlıeft ofa wife, to wit tlıat a certain notable
persoıı had unjustly stolen tlıis person's wife and that "Despite nıany attempts 1
lıave not even been allowed to speak to tlıe Praefect." And wlıeıı tlıe Praefect,
wlıo presented himself fortlıwitlı, avowed that the case was thus, Leo brought lıinı
to account, dismissing lıim from his ofiı.ce aııd veııting great aııger upon lıim; and
he conınıancled tlıat tlıe adulterer slıoulcl be lıaııclecl over to tlıe law.33

Was Theophilos' love for justice moclellecl on the image of his predecessor?
·we have already argued in Chapter 3 that there was some coııtinuity between both
reigns clespite the fact that Leo was ınurdered by the accoınplices ofTheophilos'
father Michael. Certainly, love for justice is too frequent a cliche for emperors
to consider it distinctive ofa given reign. However, the fact that both emperors
are presented in their function of orclinary ju<lges facing concrete demands of
particular citizens is far from common at that time. Moreover, the Continuator
applies to Theophilos almost the same words he uses for Leo when he states that
right froın the beginning ofhis reign Theophilos "wanted to be known as a fervent
Iover ofjustice and rigorous guardian ofthe laws of the state" (rfjç 8ucaıocruvrıç
&crn:ı::p i;�mupoç lpam:ı'jç ıca?ı.Eicr0aı Pou?ı.6µı::voç ıcai v6�tmv dvaı <pı'.>?ı.al; n:01ı,ınıc&v
a.ıcpıp�ç). 34 This is of course for the Continuator just an excuse put foıward by
Theophilos to punish the forrner conspirators against Leo and thus prevent new
uprisings in the palace. But the coinciclence with Leo's image remains.
It would be to push the evidence too far to speak of a common political
program ofthe emperors ofthe second iconoclasm on this scant basis alone. But
we can perhaps reasonably conclude that Theophilos' aim ofjustice was displayed
beyond the usual standards ofhis immediate predecessors until it became almost
proverbial in later times. What may have contributed to this was his accessibility
to his subjects when riding through the city as well as his punishrnent ofthe rnighty
and powerful, whoever they might be, including friends and family and even close

33 Tlı. Cont. 1.30 (30.19-31.6). Gen. I.I 6 (14.16-33) has the same story with minor
variaııts.
34
Tlı. Cont. III.1 (85.1-2). This reference to Tlıeoplıilos' ainı of justice is lackiııg
in tlıe corresponding passage of Genesios. This autlıor too refers only in passing to tlıe
riglıteousness of the decisi ons taken by Leo in Gen. I.16 ( 14.I 6, by nıeans oftlıe aclverb
ouw.ioıç).
460 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos and ı/ıe Eas/, 829-84:!

supporters of the Amorian dynasty. We have also seen how he knew to be ınerciful
even with coııspirators, as in the case of the (falsely?) accused consul of the Life
of Aııtonios the Yoıınger. But this was not a siııgle case: Manuel the Arınenian,
after a long exile among the Arabs, returned to the emperor's favour (he even
acted as godfather to one ofTheophilos' children) and becaıne his right-hand ınan
during most of his reign (Chapter 5); His son-in-law Alexios Mousele was ııever
punished in spite of the repeated (perhaps not wholly unfounded) accusations
directed against hiın of pretending to the throne (Chapter 7.2); Theophobos, also
part of the imperial family, continued to enjoy soıne support from the emperor
arter the failed rebellion of the Persians in 838, and was only executed under
obscure circuınstances when the emperor was approaching death (Chapter 12.2).
Oriental sources confirm that Theophilos' fame as a righteous emperor had
nothing to do with official propaganda, for they have preserved two further stories,
unknown to Greek authors, which clearly speak for the emperor's sense of justice.
The first one has lo do with the plundering of Sozopetra and has been transmitted
by the Arab lıistorian Ya'qübı, who states that after the defeat of Amorion
Theophilos sent ambassadors to Mu'taşinı promising to "deliver the men who
comnıitted atrocities at Zibatra because of the wrongdoing of the patricians". As
we alreacly saw in Chapter 17.4 this was not necessarily a message of huıniliation
on the paıi ofTheophilos, who could have learnt of the carnage made in Sozopetra
by the Khurraınites and considerecl that appropriate punishınent ofthe wrongdoers
could facilitate an agreeınent with the caliph. 35
Even more telling is an episode repoıied by Tabarı that took place after the
defeat of the emperor at Anzes in 838. When Theophilos retreated to the position
of the main army he had previously left in the rear at the Halys river, he found
that most of the soldiers had deserted in the meantime on heaıing of the defeat
of the emperor's contingent. The coınmander of the troops, although a relative
of the emperor himself, was deemed responsible by the emperor for the flight of
the soldiers and executed on the spot.36 By this exemplary measure Theophilos
probably avoided being accused of partiality before a meınber ofhis faınily who
held a high post. As the Continuator and Genesios teli us (and we saw in Chapter
17.2), Theophilos was consequently able to pardon the rest ofthe officers despite
their' cowardice, after they confessed their faults amidst tears, for he needed their
help to continue facing the Arab invaders.37

35 Mich. Syr. 536, trans. Chabot (1899-1910) vol. 3, 95-6 says that Theophilos
repented for the plundering ofSozopetra and confessed his offence to the caliph in a letter.
3" TabarT III.1243, trans. Bosworth (1991) 106.
-'' Th. Coııt. il1.32 ( 128.22-129.7) aııd Gen. il1.14 ( 48.60-49.66).
 A Chronology of Theophilos' Reign

The following chroııological table nıay provc useti.ıl as a guide for the reader, who,
in order to trace the sequence ofevents in the present book, is obliged to skip pages
and junıp back and foıih through the different chapters, for we have adopted a
thenıatic arrangenıent in our exposition. However, and without obviously denying
the practical side of the present chronology, l would tike to stress here that the
chronological orcleriııg ofthe events is not just a routine corollaıy of the previous
cliscussion, useful for the political histoıy or even custonıary in works ofthis kind,
but that it is the conditio sine qua non for unclerstancling historical processes. As a
nıatter of fact, causes ancl consequences of given events afford us the main clues
as to their interpretation. And these causes ancl consequenccs cannot be obtainecl
witlıout cstablishing a proper chronological order. Therefore the frequently teclious
discussion of chronology, which tlie present work may not have escaped, is a
necessaıy step for a correct assessnıent of the events uncler cliscussion. lt can be
saicl without any exaggeration that the present chronological table, if proved to be
coJTect, can be consiclered one of the major results of our researclı, for it will allow
future scholars to reassess the historical processes uncler review.
lt ımıst also be saicl that in orcler to establish this chronological table a carefı.ıl
and cletailed analysis ofthe sources was neecled, whereby not only the bare facts or
eventually their intrinsic likelihoocl was taken into account, but also the stnıcture
of the texts ancl the process ofthe construction of naJTatives by their authors. As a
consequence, we detected that the absolute or relative dates given by the historians
of the period must often be reconsiderecl, for they were the result of dcductive
thinking by these authors, who clid their best to order the events according to
criteria we cannot always ascertain, but which are not necessarily correct.
So, for example, the chronology of the campaigns of Ma'mün as given by
TabarI was coJTected after being contrastecl with the Greek sources (Chapter
14.1-3). We ruled out as well the existence of a campaign ofthe Melitenians in
835 mentionecl by Michael the Syrian, for it was a clear case of a misplaced or
misclated excerpt creating a duplicate (Chapter 15.5). The same was the case with
the cluplicate Michael made of the campaign against Sozopetra in 837 (Chapter
16.1). The · exile of Manuel (Chapter 5.3, 5.5), the campaign at Charsianon of
Theophilos (Chapter 14.2) ancl the embassy of Petronas Kamateros to the Khazars
(Chapter 19.1) were also not dated according to the order randomly given them by
Genesios and the Continuator (who tried to construct a coherent naırntive out of
disparate sources without any dating), but to a more adequate understanding ofthe
sequence ofthe events, which was gained through a cross-referencing and detailed
comparison ofthe sources.
462 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeop/ıilos emel tlıe East, 829-84:!

in otlıer difficult cases we were able to ascertain that the historians not only
put the events in the wrong place, but also ınisinterpreted them and "corrected"
secondary details of the story which rendered an accurate assessınent more
difficult. Thus, when they confused Theophilos' mother with his stepmother they
dated his marriage to 829 instead of 821 (Chapter 4.1 ); and when they identified
Thomas the Arnıenian with Thomas the Slav they were not able to unify the
different chronologies of these two persons (Chapter 13.1 ).
Curiously enough, whereas many modem scholars tend to accept uncritically
the chronology of Byzantine, Arab and Syrian authors, which ımıst indeed be
approached with utınost caution in this respect (as I think to have shown), they
frequently neglect stories told in these same sources, rejecting them in toto as
legendary or fantastical. This is sometimes done for no other reason than that the
stories did not tally well with the scholars' previous rationalist reconstruction of
the events. Often, no explanation is even given for the concoction of what these
scholars considered forgeries or fantasies with no historical basis, as if medieval
lıistorians were fond of inventing stories without motive or boıTowing them
without any questioning from undefined narrative sources.
On the contrary, I tlıink that we nıust mistrust chronological references that
are not secured by the agreement of several sources, yet we ımıst always look
for plausible grounds for the concoction of any single story before rejecting it
as "unlıistorical." It appears advisable to question dating and chronological
sequences provided by medieval historians, for it is part ofthe human condition to
err from time to time when trying to put in order events ofthe past, whereas there
are evident risks in applying strict rationalist thought when judging the historical
value ofgiven stories, for many ofthem are conveyed to us through literary forıns
and thus distorted and embellished for the use of contemporary readers, who, most
probably, perfectly knew the codes employed. Before rejecting these stories as
absurd or incoherent, we ımıst look for the codes in order to find out, ifpossible,
the history behind them, or to put it otherwise, the historical event that prompted
them. it is therefore risky to discard a story simply because we are not able to trace
the motivations of the persons who created it. As a consequence, to rely on form
and structures and be diffident about content would not only be methodologically
unsound, but, in fact, the opposite ofthe correct procedure followed by a medieval
historian. It would also be evidence of the low regard in which many Byzantine
authors are usually held.
It is by following this elementary approach that we were able to reinterpret
in the present book some stories transmitted by the sources and rejected by the
communis opinio until now as lacking any historical basis. Therefore we could, for
instance, find in the oral epic tradition ofthe time a convenient explanation for the
description ofthe activities ofMamıel theArmenian during his exile (Chapter 5.4).
We also established that the raising ofTheophobos as a little child in the imperial
palace was not the faney product ofa monkish hagiography, but accurately reflected
wlıat actually happened, thus making impossible the identification ofTheophobos
\Nith the Khurramite leader Naşr, who may however have been his father ( Chapter
 C/ıroıırılog_ı· .fo_ı

11.2). We were also able to accept tlıe version ofthc long stay nrThoınas thc Slav
among the Arabs, usually rejected as a legendary account. li1r it prn\·idccl the bcsl
explanation for the backing of his revolt by the caliplı Ma'ıııü ı ı (Chapter 13.1 ).
Again, we detected several layers in tlıe conıposition or tlıc /.cııcr ıo Tlıcop/ıilos
written by the three Melkite patriarchs tlıat providcd an cxplanatioıı. however
provisory, for a text usually approached witlı diffidencc by sclıolars and which
cannot be used anynıore as definitive evidence ofthe unanimous iconophile stancc
of the Oriental Church at tlıe time (Chapter 21). Fiııally, wc collectcd scattcred
evidence fronı among ınany sources, which unaniınously prcscnted Theophilos
as a riglıteous and just enıperor ancl contradictecl tlıe view tlıat this i ı nage was
merely constnıctecl by official propaganda put out by his widow Theodora arter
842 (Epilogue). it goes without saying tlıat ali tlıese conclusioııs dircctly allcct thc
chronology oftlıe events considered, as is reflectecl in the f'ollowi ı ıg tablc.
Tlıe following clıronology is to a great extent hypothetical and bascd on thc
conclusions made in tlıe corresponding chapter ofthe book. 1 have put in brackcts
at tlıe enci of every questionable reference the number oJ' tlıe chapter wlıere 1
dealt with tlıe issue. I woulcl suggest tlıat the reacler chcck ıııy nrgunıcnlalion first
before accepting the clates proposed in tlıe table. A usel'ul altcrııative chrö ı ıology
ofTheophilos' reign is provicled by Vasiliev ( 1950) 438-440.

800-803 (c.): Birtlı ofTheophilos. Leo the Arnıenian acts as lıis godf'atlıer.
Botlı Leo and Theophilos' father Michael of Aıııorioıı serve as solcliers
under Bardanes the Turk (Chapter 3.1).
803 (19 July): Bardanes the Turk, an Armenian strategos, rises up in arıııs
against emperor Nikephoros. The rebellion will enci some weeks later
with Bardanes tonsured ancl retired to a monastery on tlıe island of Protc
(Chapter 3.1).
808 (February): A conspiracy against Nikephoros leci by tlıe quaestor and
patrikios Arsaber is suppressed by tlıe emperor. Leo the Arnıenian, wlıo
must have rnarried Arsaber's dauglıter Theodosia before (Clıapter 3.1), is
banished from Constantinople.
811 (26 July): Death of the emperor Nikephoros I on the battlefield during
his campaign against the Bulgarians. His son Staurakios is proclaimecl
emperor.
812 (11 January): Death of the emperor Staraukios, Nikephoros' son, as a
consequence of his .wounds. Michael I Rhangabe is proclaimecl emperor.
Leo·the Armenian is recalled fronı his exile and appointed strategos ofthe
Anatolikoi (Chapter 3.1).
813 (12 July): Leo the Armenian is crowned emperor by patriarch
Nikephoros after the resignation of Miclıael 1. Manuel tlıe Arnıenian is
appointed strategos of the Armeniakoi (Chapter 5.2).
815 (13 March): Patriarclı Nikeplıoros is deposed by Leo V. Begi ııning of
tlıe second iconoclast period.
464 Tlıı! Eıııpemr Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 829-842

819 (Spring): Manuel the Armenian is contacted by the rebel Naşr ofJazTra,
shortly before caliph Ma'müıı makes his entry into Baglıdad (August)
(Chapter 5.2).
819 (Summer): Thomas the Slav contacts Ma 'mün in Baghdad and receives
his support in invading the Byzantine Empire (Chapter 13.1).
820 (Spring/Summer): Thomas the Slav invades Anatolia with the
assistance ofMuslim troops and the peoples ofthe Caucasus (Chapters 2.3
and 13).
820 (25 December): Leo V is killed at the palace by a group of conspirers,
among whom there were former partisans of his. Michael of Amorion is
crowııed emperor (Chapter 3.2).
821 (12 May): Theophilos is crowııed co-emperor with his father Michael.
Theophilos' marriage with Theodora is probably celebrated the same day
(Chapter 4.1).
821 (end)-823 (beginning): Siege of Constantinople by Thomas' troops.
821-824: Manuel the Armenian goes into exile (Chapter 5.3, 5.5).
822 (Spring): Thekla, Theophilos' eldest daughter, is born. She is ııamed
after Theophilos' mother (Chapter 4.1).
822-823 (c.): Occupation ofCrete by Andalusiaııs (Chapter l 3.3 ).
823 (Autumn): Thomas the Slav is taken prisoner at Arkadiopolis and
executed.
824 (c.): Thekla, the first wife of Michael II, dies. Michael il man-ies
Euphrosyne, daughter of Constantine VI (Chapter 6.1 ).
824 (c.): Birth of Theophilos' first son, who is called Constantine after
Constantine VI, the father ofTheophilos' stepmother (Chapter 7.1).
825-826 (c.): Maria, the youngest of Theophilos' daughters, is bom
(Chapter 7.2).
826-827: Euphemios rebels in Sicily against Michael II.
829 (2 October): Michael dies of kidney failure and Theophilos becomes
sote emperor.
829 (Autumn): Theophilos crowns his son Constantine co-emperor
(Chapter 7.1). Euphrosyne, Theophilos' stepmother, is banished from the
palace (Chapter 6). The murderers ofLeo V are punished (Chapter 3.3).
829-830: John (the Grammarian?) is sent to Baghdad in an embassy. There
he contacts Manuel the Armenian, the empress Theodora's uncle, who was
exiled among the Abbasids (Chapter 5.4).
830 (Sumıner): First campaign of Ma'mün in south Cappadocia, where
he takes Koron. A second army, leci by 'Abbas, Ma'mün's son, enters the
Byzantine frontier probably crossing the Antitaurus range through the
passes ofAdata or Melitene (Chapter 15.1 ). Manuel the Armenian betrays
'Abbas and comes back to the Byzantines. He is forgiven by the emperor.
831 (c.): Embassy of Petronas Kamateros to the Khazars for building the
fortress ofSarkel (Chapter 19.1-2).
 Chmııologı• 465

83 I (Autumn?): Constantine, Theophilos' son and co-cmperor, dics

(Chapter 7.1).
831 (September): The emperor defeats Muslim troops from Tarsos,
Mopsuestia, Adana, Eirenoupolis and Anazarba. Triuıııph ofTheophilos in
Constantinople (Chapter 14.2). A kaisar, most probably Theophobos, takes
part in the triumph (Chapters 7.2 and I I .3).
831 (September) to 832 (Spring): Fortification of Loulon near the Cilician
Gates (Chapter 14.4).
832 (2 I April): John the Grammarian appointed patriarch? (Chapters 21.3
and 24.1).
832 (Spring/Summer): Second canıpaign of Ma'mün in south Cappadocia
against Tyana, Herakleia and the /V[atamır. Again his son 'Abbas
accompanies him. Theophilos may have been either defeated by 'Abbas or
put to flight before joining the battle (Chapter 14.3).
832-833: Betrothal of Maria, Theophilos' daughter, to Alexios Mousele
(Chapter 7.2).
833 (Spring/Summer): Tlıircl campaign of Ma'mün in south Cappadocia.
Upon his return the caliplı clies unexpecteclly ancl Mu'taşim comes to power
(Clıapter 14.7).
833 (November-December): Start of the final campaign of Mu'taşim
against the Khurramites (Chapter I 0.1).
834 (Beginning): Khurramites are enrolled in the Byzantine army (Chapter
1O.1). Their leader Naşr is appointed tounnarches of the phoideratoi
(Chapter l 0.2). His son Theophobos is appointecl exousiastes of the
Persians (Chapter 11.4).
834 (Spring/Summer): The Khu11"amites campaign in the region ofBasean,
perhaps as allies ofBagarat Bagratuni (Chapter 15.1--4).
835 (Spring/Summer): Caınpaign ofTheophilos in westem Armenia, in the
regions ofSper and Theodosiopolis (Chapter 15.1--4).
836 (Spring/Summer): An imperial army under the command ofTheophobos
and Bardas enters the Georgian principalities to help the curopalates Bagarat
Bagratuni and his allied Abasgians in their fight against the Muslim emir
ofTiflis, Isl)aq ibn Isma'ıl. The emir ofTiflis defeats them in the region of
Vanand, probably in Septeınber (Chapter 15.1--4).
836: The three Melkite patriarchs ofAntioch, Alexandria and Jerusaleın
write a letter to Theophilos praising him for his recent victories and
reqi.ıesting his miljtary intervention in the area in order to reunite again
Christian lands (Chapter 21).
837-838: Marriage of Maria, Theophilos' youngest daughter, to Alexios
Mousele, who is then appointecl kaisar (Chapter 7.2).
837 (Spring/Summer): Theophilos enters Syria, takes Sozopetra and
Arsamosata and besieges Melitene. A triumph is held in Constantinople
(Clıapter 16). A kaisar, probably Alexios Mousele, takes part in the triumplı
(Chapter 7.2).
466 Tlıc Empcror Tlıeııplıi/os aııd ılıe Easl, 829-842

838: Stay ofAlexios Mousele in Sicily as dux (Chapter 7.2).

838 (21 April): John tlıe Graııınıarian appointed patriarch (Chapters 21.3
and 24.1).
838 (Spring/Sunımer): Envoys of the khagan of the Rus arrive in
Constantinople probably by the Dnieper route (Chapter 20.1 ).
838 (Early Suııımer): Campaign ofthe caliph Mu'taşim in Anatolia. Defeat
ofTheophilos at Anzes, capture ofAnkyra and, on 12 August, ofAmorion
(Chapter 17).
838 (Late Summer): Conspiracy in Constantinople against the emperor
(Chapter 7.2). Uprising of the Persians and proclamation of Theoplıobos
as emperor (Chapter 12).
838 (Late Sunınıer): Conspiracy of Abbas against Mu'taşinı with the
understanding of enıperor Theophilos (Chapter 18.1 ).
838: The Khazars strike for the first time dirhams bearing the name of the
nıint (Arçl al-Khazar, "Land of the Khazars") the Turkish tamgha, and an
invocation to Moses (Chapter 20.2).
838: Theophilos sends the anıbassador Karteros to Cordoba, to the court of
'Abd al-Rabman (Chapter 18.2).
839 (18 May) The emperor Louis the Pious receives at lngelheinı an
embassy of the Byzantines which was accompanied by some emissaries of
the k.hagan of the Rus (Chapter 20.1).
839 (c.): Abü Sa'Td leads an expedition into Byzantine territory depaıting
from Cilicia and with the help of the people of Mopsuestia under the
command of general Bashır. Two encounters with the Khurramite leader
Naşr, who is defeated and killed (Chapter 18.3).
839: 'Abd al-Rabman sends the ambassador Ghazal to Constantinople, to
the court ofTheophilos (Chapter 18.2).
840: Theodosios Baboutzikos is sent by Theophilos to Yenice to prepare a
naval offensive against the Arabs (Chapter 18.2).
840 (c.): Naval expedition ofTheoktistos in Abasgia? (Chapter 17.2).
840 (c.): The Byzantine navy attacks the port ofAntioch (Chapter 18.3).
842 (1O Januaıy): Death ofTheophilos.
 Abbreviations

AASS Acta Saııctorum

AB Aııa!ecta Bo!!aııdiana
BBA Ber!iııer Byzaııtiııisclıe Arbeiteıı
BBOM Birminglıam Byzantine and Ottoman ı\ıloııograp/ıs
B Byzaııtion
BF Byzantinisclıe Forsclıungen
BGA Bib!iotheca geograplıorum ara bicorıım
BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
BS! Byzantinos/avica
BZ Byzantinisc/ıe Zeitsclır(fi
CFHB Coıpusfontiıım !ıistoriae Byzantiııae
csco Corpus scriptorwıı c!ıristianoruııı orieııtaliwn
DOP Dıımbarton Oaks Papers
El Encyclopedia ofIs!am
FBRG Forsclnıııgen zur byzantinischen Rec/ıtsgesc/ıic/ıte
FM Fontes Aıfinores
GRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies
ILO Jııstitut de Lettres Orientales
JÖB Jahrbııch der österreichischen Byzantinistik
LbGr Lexikon zıır byzantinischen Gri:iziti:it
Jv/GH lvfonıımenta Gerınaniae Historica
OCA Orientalia Christiana Analecta
OCP Orienta!ia Christiana Periodica
PBE Prosopography ofthe Byzantine Eınpire 1: (641-867)
PLRE Prosopography oftlıe Later Roman Empire, 3 vols., Cambridge
1971-1992
PınbZ Prosopographie der mittlereıı byzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung
(641-867)
PGM Patrologia Graeca (lvfigne)
PO Patrologia Orientalis
RE Paıılys Realencyclopi:idie der classischen Altertıımswissenschaft
REB Revııe des Etııdes Byzantines
SA Scriptores Arabici in CSCO
ss Scriptores Syriaci in CSCO
TIB Tabula Jınperii Byzantini
TM Travaux et Aıfemoires
vv Vizantijskij Vı·emenik
 Sources

Acta ofDavid, Symeon and Geoıge - Van den Gheyn (1899)

Acta Martyrum Aınorie11siu111 - Vasil' evskij and Nikitin (1905)
Advers11s Co11sta11tinum Caba!liııuııı (CC )- PGM95, cols. 309-44 1
Andreas Daııdolo, Clıronica - M uratori (1728)and Pastorello (1938)
Anna Komnene, Alexias - Kambylis aııd Reinsch (2001)
A1111a!es Bertiniani - Waitz (1883)
Anııa!es regııi Francorzıııı - Kurze ( 1895)
Arethas, Scripta minora - Westerink ( 1968-1972)
Astrononıus,L[fe ofLoııis the Pioııs - Pertz ( 1828a)
Bar Hebraeus, Chronograplıy- Budgc ( 1932)vol. 2
Book of!Cart 'fi - Tlıomson ( 1966)2
Book of tlıeSources Goeje aııcl Jong (1869)
Clıroııic!e of !vfonembasia - Lemerle (1963)
Chroııicle of 1234 Chabot ( 1916)
C/ıroııic!e ofSa!erno - Pertz ( 1839)
Chroııicon Vııltzırnense - Feclerici (1925-1938)
Constantine V II - cf. De ceriınoniis, De administrando iınperio
Constantine VII, Three treatises - Haldon (1990)
Contiııuator (ofTheophaııes)- cf. Theophanes Continuatus
Continııatio Constantinopolitana - Mommsen (1898)
De adıninistrando iınperio (DAI) - Moravcsik and Jenkins (1967)
De cerinıoniis (De ceı:)- Reiske (1829-1830)
De Theophili benefactis - Regel ( 1891)40-43
Digenis Akrites - Jeffreys (1998)
Eutychios, Annals - Pirone (1987)
Fihrist - Dodge (1970)
Genesios (Gen.)- Lesnıüller-Werner and Thum (1978)
George the Monk (Georg. Mon.)- Boor and Wirth (1978)
Ghewond -Arzounıanian (1982)3
lfııdüd al- 'Alam - Minorsky (1970)

This is the long version; the short one is unedited but it is discussed by Auzepy
(1995).
Sixth part of the Georgian Clıroııicles translated into English by Thomson in this
volume, with references to the pages ofthe original Georgian text.
3 English translation of the Amıenian original; quoted by chapters and pages of the
English translation; 1 use for comparison the translation of Roger Beclrosian, available at
h ttp ://rbedrosian .coın/ ghew iııt.lıtııı.
470 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıi/os anıl ılıe Ecısı. 829-842

Ibn al-AthTr - Tornberg ( 1851-1876)

lbn l:fayyan, Mııqtabis - Yallve Bermejo ( 1999)4
lbn Khurradadhbih - Goeje ( 1889)
lbn Mufarrij, Histoı:v of the patriarc/ıs - part 3: Evetts ( 191O); part 4: Evetts ( 1915)
lbn Rusta - Goeje ( 1892) 3-229
lbn Tayfür - Keller ( 1908) vol. 1
lbn al-Tiqiaqa - Derenburg (1895)
lgnatios, L{fe of George ofAınastris - Vasil'evskij ( 1893) 1-73
--, Life of Gregoıy Dekapolites - Makris (1997)
--, L!fe of Nikeplıoros - Boor ( 1880)
John Diakonos,Chroııicle - Pertz ( 1846)
Kitab al-'Uyün - cf. Book of theSoıırces
Legeııd (}fSergiııs Babırö - Roggeına (2009)
Leontios, L[f'e ofStepheıı theSabaite (Arabic) - Laınoreaux ( 1999)
Leontios, l[le ofSteplıeıı theSabaite (Greek) - Pien ( 1723)
Letter ta loııis tlıe Pious - Wernıinghoff ( 1908)
Letter ta Tlıeoplıilos - Munitiz, Chıysostomides, I-larvalia-Crook and Dendrinos
( 1997)
L[f'e ofAııtoııios the Yozınger - Papadopoulos-Kerameus ( 1907) nr. 12, 186-216
L[fe c!f'Athcıııcısicı ofAegincı - Carras ( 1984)
L[l'e ofCoııstantine- Dvornik (1969)
l[fe ofEuthymios - cf. Methodios, Life ofEııthymios
Life of George ofAmastris - cf. lgnatios, Lffe of George ofAmastris
l{fe of Gregoıy Dekapolites - cf. Ignatios, Life of Gregoıy Dekapolites
Life of loannikios - cf. Peter, Life of loannilcios and Sabas, Life of Joannikios
Life of Leon ofCatania-Acconcia Longo (1989)
Life of Loııis the Pioııs - cf Astronomus, L[fe of Loııis the Pioııs
Life ofMakarios of Pelekete - cf. Sabas, Life ofMakarios of Pelekete
Life ofMakarios Roınanos - Vasiliev (1893) 135-65
Life ofMethodios-PGM 100, 1243-62
Life ofMichaelSynkell os - Cunningham (1991)
Life qf Nikephoros - cf. Ignatios, L{fe ofNikephoros
Life of Peter ofAtroa - cf. Sabas, Life of Petros ofAtroa
Life of Philaretos - Founny and Leroy ( 1934).
Life ofStephen theSabaite - cf. Leontios ofNaples
Life ofStephen the Yoıınger - cf. Stephen Diakonos
L[fe ofTheodora - Markopoulos ( 1983).
Life ofTheodore ofEdessa-Poınyalovskij (1892)
Logothete (A) (Log.) - Wahlgren (2006)
Malalas - Thurn (2000)
lbn al-Makin - Erpenius (1625)
Martyrdoın ofAııtonios - Dick ( 1961) and MonfeJTer Sala (2008)

� Facsiıııile editioıı, quoted by tlıe pages of tlıe maııuscript.

 Soıırces 471

Mas'üdT, Tlıe Mecıdoırs of Gold - Barbier ele Meynard (1861-1877)

--, Kitöb at-tanbılı Goeje ( 1894)
Methodios, Life ofEutlıymios - Gouillarcl (1987)
Michael tlıe Syrian (Miclı. Syr.) - Chabot (1899-191 O) vols 2--4
Nikaia il (Mansi) - Mansi (1758-1798) vols 12-13
Nikaia II (Laınbertz) - Lambertz (2008)
Nicholas Mystikos, Letters -Jenkins ancl Westerink (1973)
Nikephoros, Slıort Hist. - Mango (1990)
Notker Balbulus, Gesta Karoli - Pertz (] 828b)
Noutlıesia gerontos - Melioranskij (1901)
NuwayrT -Amari (1857) 423-59
Peter, L(fe ofloamıikios - Van den Glıeyn (1894)
Photios, Eisagoge - Zacharia von Lingentlıal (1852)
--, Letters - Laourdas ancl Westerink (1983-1988)
Pseuclo Syrneon (Ps. Sym.) - Bekker (1838) 601-760.
Qusta Jbn Lüqa, Letter ta lbıı al-Mımqjjim Samir ancl Nwyia (1981) 81-168
Sabas, L[fe ofloanııikios -AASS Nov 11.1, 332-383.
· --, L(le of Makarios ofPelekete Van elen Gheyn (1897)
--, L(fe ofPetros ofAtroa (/) - Laurent (1956)
--, L(le ofPetros ofAtroa (2) - Laurent (1958)
Severus Jbn Muqaffa - cf. lbn Mufarrij
Scriptor lııcertus (Serip. ine.)- Beldcer (1842b)5
Skylitzes (Skyl.) - Thurn (1973)
Stephen Diakonos, Life ofStephanos the Yoıınger -Auzepy (1997)
Syııaxariııın Coııst. - Delelıaye (1902)
Synodicon vetııs - Duffy ancl Parker (1979)
TabarT - Goeje (1879-1901)
Theodore Stoudites (Theod. Stoud.), Letters - Fatouros (1992)
--, Parva Catechesis -Auvray (1891)
Theophanes (Theoph.) - Boor (1883)
Theoplıanes Continuatııs (Th. Cont.) - Beldcer (1838) 3--481 and, for book V,
Sevcenko (2011)
Vardan the Great - Thomson (1989)6
Ya'qübT, Histoıy - Houtsma (1883)

5 We consider the corrections to the text made by Browning ( I 965).

" Englislı traııslatioıı of the Armeııian origiııal.
 Bibliography

Abel A. (1949), "La portee apologetique de la 'Vie' de St. Theodore d'Edesse''

BSI 1O, 229-40.
Abitbol M. (2009), Histoire dıı Maroc, Paris.
Abouııa A. and Fiey J.M. (1974), Anonyıııi Aucıoris Clıroııicoıı ad A. C. f 234
pertiııens (CSCO 354 = SS 154 [French translation ofvol. 2, iııtroductioıı aııcl
notes], Louvain [for the Syriac text see Chabot (1916)].
Acconcia Longo A. (1989), "La Vita di S. Leoııe vescovo eli Cataııia e oJi
incantesimi del Mago Eliodoro", Rivista di - Sıucli Bizaııtini e Neoelleııici -7�1 ,
3-98.
Acheimastou-Potamianou M. (1989), "1-lagios loaııııis Theologos at Adisarou".
in Chatziclakis, Drandakis, Zias, Acheimastou-Potamianou aııcl Vasilaki­
Karakatsani (1989) 50-65.
Aclontz N. (1965), "Sur l'origine ele Leoıı V, empereur de Byzance", in Acloııtz N ..
Etudes Arıııeno-Byzcmtines, Lisboııııe 1965, 37-46, first priııted in Amıeniuccı
1927.
Afinogenov D.E. (1994), "KwvcrravnvounoAtÇ ılnicrıconov EXet, The Rise ol' tlıe
Patriarchal Power in Byzantium from Nicaenum Il to Epanagoga. Part 1: From
Nicaenum II to the Second Outbreak oflconoclasm", Eıytheia 15, 45-65.
-- (1996), "Kwvcrı:avnvounoAtÇ ılnicrıconov EXEt. The Rise of the Patriarchal
Power in Byzantium from Nicaenum II to Epanagoga. Part il: From the Seconcl
Outbreak oflconoclasm to the Death ofMethodios", Eıytheia 17, 43-71.
-- (1997), "The Bride-show of Theophilos: Some Notes on the Sources",
Eranos 95, 10-18.
-- (2001), "The Conspiracy ofMichael Traulos and the Assassination ofLeo V:
History and Fiction", DOP 55, 329-38.
-- (2003-2004), "The New Edition of the Letter of the Three Patriarchs:
Problems and Achievınents", J:vppeucra 16, 9-33.
-- (forthcoming), Mnogoloznxi Svitok, the Slavonic Translation ofthe Letter of
the Three Patriarchs ta Theophilus, Paris.
Agati M.L. (2003), Il !ibra ınaniscritto. Introdıızione alla codicologia, Roma.
Ahrweiler'H. (1965), "Sur la carriere de Photius avant son patriarcat", BZ 58,
348-63.
-- (1977), "The Geography of the Iconoclast World", in Bryer and Herrin
(1977) 21-7.
Alekseenko N.A. (1996), "Un tounnarque de Gothie sur un sceau inedit ele
Cherson", REB 54, 271-5.
Aleınany A. (2000), Soıırces ofthe Alans. A Critica/ Compi/cıtion, Leiden, Boston
and Cologne.
474 Tlıi! Eıııpaor Tlıeophilos and ılı<! Eası. 819-841

Alexakis A. ( 1996), Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and its arc/ıetype, Washington.
Alexandcr P. ( 1958), Tlıe Patriarclı Nicep!ıorııs of Consıanıinop/e: Ecc/esiastical
Policy emel lmage IYorslıip in the Byzaııtine Empire, Oxford.
Allouclıe I.S. (I 939). "Un traite de polemique christiano-ımısulnıane au IXe
siecle", Hesperis 26, 123-53.
Amari fvl. ( 1854), Storia dei ıııusu/mani di Sicilia, Florence, vol. 1 (reimpr. Catania
1933).
-- ( 1857), Biblioteca arabo-sicu/a: ossia Raccolta di testi arabici ehe toccano
la geogrqfıa, la storia, le biogrqfıe e la bibliografia de/la Sici/ia, Leipzig.
Ameııgual i Batle J. (1991), E/s origens del cristiaııisme a fes Balears i el seu
dese11Fo!upa111e11t_fıns a l 'epoca ımısu!mana, Palnıa de Mallorca.
Aınoretti B.S. (1975), "Sects and lıeresies", in Frye R.N. (ed.), Tlıe Cambridge
Hisıoıy oflran, vol. 4, Cambridge, 481-519.
Angar M. (2009), "Vom Argyrokastroıı zur Ecc!esia wgenti. Über eine
architekturiınitierende Silberschıniedearbeit im Kirchenschatz von San
Marco", ı\ıliııeilungen zur Spötaııtiken Arclıiiologie ımd Byzaııtinisc/ıen
Kımstgescchichte 6, 137-63.
Anomerites G. (2009), Bu(o.vrıv6 na.pKo Tpcl.)'(J.frı.ç No.çou. 'Ev(J.ç vıfaıcvrııc6ç
r:Jpı/()"Kt:vrııc6ç Mixnprı.ç ar17v Kt:vrp11cı7 No.ço, Athens.
Arzhantseva 1. (2007), "The Alans: Neighbours of the Khazars in the Caucasus",
in Golden, Ben-Shammai and R6na-Tas (2007) 59-73.
Arzoumanian Z. (1982), Histoıy of Lewond, the Eminent Vardapet of tlıe
Arınenians, Winnewood.
Auvray E. (1891), T heodori Stııditis Parva Catechesis, Paris, 1-471.
Auzepy M.F. (1988), "La place des moines a Nicee II (787)", Byz. 58, 5-21,
reprinted inAuzepy (2007) 45-57.
-- (1992), "L'analyse Iitteraire et I'historien: l'exemple des vies de saints
iconoclastes", BSl 53, 57-67 [we follow the corrected version published in
Auzepy (2007) 329--40].
-- (1994), "De la Palestine a Constantinople (VIlle-IXe siecles), Etienne le
Sabane et Jean Damascene", TM 12, 183-218, reprinted in Auzepy (2007)
221-57.
-- (1995), "L'adversus Constantinum Caballinum et Jean de Jerusalem", BSI
56, 323-38, reprinted inAuzepy (2007) 59-75.
--(1997), La Vie d'Etienne le Jezıne par Etienne le Diacre (BBOM3),Aldershot
--(1999), L 'hagiographie et l 'iconoclasme byzantin: le cas de la Vie d'Etienne
le Jeııne (BBOM 5),Aldershot.
-- (2000), "Gothie et Crimee de 750 a 830 dans !es sources ecclesiastiques et
monastiques grecques", Materialy po Arkheologii, Jstorii i Etnogra.fii Tavri 7,
324-31, reprinted inAuzepy (2007) 199-207.
--(200l a), "Le sabaıtes et l'iconoclasme", in Patrich (2001) 305-14, reprinted
in Auzepy (2007) 209-20.
 Bihliogrııplı_ı· 475

--(200 l b) "Les ls mıriens et l'espace sacre: l'eglise et les reliques",

_ in Kaplan
M. (ecl.), le scıcre eı so:ı i11scriptio11 dcıns /'espace a By::aııce et en Occideııt,
_ _
Parıs, 13-24, reprınted ın Auzepy (2007) 341-52.
--· (2004), "Les enjeux de l'iconoclasme", in Crisıianiıa d'Occideııte e
Cristianita d'Orieııte (Settiıııane di Stııdi di Spoleto 51), Spoleto, 127-69,
reprintecl in Auzepy (2007) 261-83.
-- (2007), L 'histoire des icoııoclastes, Paris.
Baranov V. (2010), "The cloctrine of the lcon-Euclıarist for the Byzantine
iconoclasts", Stııdia patristica 44, 41-6.
Barbier de Meynarcl Ch. (1861-1877), Maçoııdi. Les prairies d'or, Paris, 7 vols.
-- ( 1977), "The Paulicians ancl Iconoclasm", in Bıyer and Herrin (1977) 7-13.
Barnarcl L.W. (1974), The Graeco-Roıııan and Orienta/ Backgrowıd ol tlıe
lcoııoclastic Coııtroversy, Leiclen.
Bartikian Hr. (1994), "Oı 0uÇavnvoi xouppa�lircç ıcaı ıı Ap�ıı;via", Symıııeikta 9,
115-32.
Bashear S. (1991), "Qibla Musharriqa and füırly Muslim Prayer in Churches", Tlıe
i\ılus/im Wor/d 81, 267-82.
Baylıom-Daou T. (2008), "AI-Ma'nıün's Allegecl Apocalyptic Beliefs: A
Reconsicleration of the Evidence", Bul/etin of tlıe Sc/ıool of Orienta/ emel
Afi·ican Studies 71, 1-24.
Beclc H.-G. (1965), "Byzantinisclıes Gefolgschaftswesen", Bayerisc/ıe Akcıdemie
der Wissenschajien. Philo!.-lıist. K!asse. Sitzııııgsberichte 5.
-- (1971), Gesc!ıiclıte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur, Munich.
Bekker I. (1838), Tlıeophanes Contimıatus, loaıınes Cameniata, Symeon Magisteı;
Georgiııs Monaclnıs, Bonn.
-- ( 1842a), Leo Gramnıaticus, chroııograplıia, B01111.
--(l 842b), Scriptor iııcertus. Historia de Leone Bardcıe Arıneniifilio, in Bekker
(1842a) 335-62.
Beldiceanu-Steinherr I. (1981), "Charsianon kastron/Qal 'e-i I:.farsanös", B 51,
410-29.
Belice K.. (1984), Galcıtien zmd Lykcıonien (TJB 4), Vienna.
-- and Mersich N. (1990), Phıygien und Pisidien (TJB 7), Vienna.
Belke K. and Restle M. (1984), Gcılcıtien ıınd Lykcıonien (Tabula Jmperii Byzaııtini
4), Vienna.
--and Soustal P. (199 5),DieByzcıntiııerıınd ilıreNcıchbcırn. Die De administrando
imperio gencınnte Lehrschrijt des Kaisers Konstcıntinos Porphyrogennetos
fi'ir seinen Sohn Roıncınos (Byzantiııische Geschichtsschreiber 19), Vienna.
Berger A. (1988), Untersııchııngen zıı den Pcıtricı Konstcıııtimıpoleos, B01111.
-- (2006), "Die akustische Dirnension des Kaiserzerenıoniells. Gesang,
Orgelspiel und Autornaten", in Bauer F.A. (ed.) (2009), Visucılisierzıngen
von Herrschaft. Friihınitte!cılterliche Residenzen. Gesta!t ımd Zereıııoniel!.
Interncıtionales Ko!!oqııizım, 3.14. Jzıııi 2004 Jstanbııl (Byzas 5).
-- (2013) Accoıınts ofMedievcıl Constaııtinople. The Patria, Waslı ington.
476 71ıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos a11d ılıe Eası. 829-842

Bergstriisser G. (1925), f-lwıaiıı ibıı-lsbcıq, Über die syrisc/ıen uııd arabisc/ıen

Galeıı-Überset::ungen, Leipzig.
Besevliev V. (1980), Die proıobulgarische Periode der bulgarisclıeıı Gesc/ıiclııe,
Aınsterdaın.
Beyer H. (1860-1874), Urkımdeııbuclı zur Gesc/ıichte der jetzt die preussischeıı
Regieruııgsbezirke Cobleıız und Trier bildeııdeıı Territorieıı, Coblence, 1860-
1874, 3 vols.
Binggeli A. (201O), "Converting the Caliph: A Legendary Motif in Christian
Hagiography and Historiography of the Early lslamic Period", in
Papaconstantinou A. (ed.) (201O), Wiüiııg 'True Stories ·. Historians aııd
Hcıgiograplıers in tlıe lale Aııtique aııd Medieval Near East (Czı/tııral
Eııcowıters in lale Antiquity aııd tlıe lvfiddle Ages 9), Turnhout, 77-103.
Blöndal S. and Benedikz B.S. (1978), Tlıe Varangians ofByzantium. An Aspect of
Byzantine lvfilitaı:ıı Histoıy, Cambridge, 2nd ed.
Bonner M. ( 1996), Aristocratic Violence and Ho{v Waı: Studies in the Jihad and
tlıe Arab-Byzantiııe Froııtier, New Haven.
-- (ed.) (2004), Arab-Byzantine Relations in Ear(v fslamic Tiıııes (The
Formation of the Classical Jslamic World 8), Aldershot.
Boor C. de (1880), Nicephori arclıiepiscopi Constantinopolitaııi opuscula
/ıistorica, Leipzig, reprinted in 1975.
--(1883), Theophanes. Chronograp/ıia, Leipzig.
--and Wirth P. (1978), Georgiııs Monachııs, Chronicon, Leipzig, 2nd ed.
Bosworth C.E. (1987), The Histoıy ofal-Tabari, vol. XXXII: Tlıe reıınifıcation of
the 'Abbasid Caliplıate, Albany 1987 (translation ofthe Arabic original).
--(1991), The Histmy of al-Tabari, vol. XXXIII: Storm and Stress along the
Northern Frontiers of the 'Abbasid Caliphate, Albany 1991 (translation ofthe
Arabic original).
-- (1992), "The City of Tarsus and the Arab-Byzantine frontiers in Early and
Middle 'Abbasid Times", Oriens 33, 268-86.
Bottini L. (1997), Al-Kindf, Apologia del cristianesimo (Patrimonio Cııltıırale
Arabo-Cristiano 4), Milan.
Brandes W. (201O), review ofJokisch (2007), in BZ l 03, 216-30.
Brett M. (2011), "Egypt", in Robinson (2011) 541-80.
Breydy M. (1983), Etııdes sur Sa 'id ibn Batriq et ses soıırces, Louvain.
-- (1985), Das Annalenwer!c des Eııtychios von Alexandrien; aıısgewahlte
Gesc/ıichten ıınd Legenden kompiliert von Said ibn Batriq ıım 935 A.D.
(Cotpııs Scriptorıım Christianorııın Orientaliıım vol. 471, Arabic text, and
472, German translation), Louvain.
Brokkaar W.G. (2002), Sapientissimi imperatoris Leonis oracııla et Anonyıni
narratio de vero imperatore. The Oracles of the Most Wise Emperor Leo and
the Tale of the Trııe Emperor, Amsterdam.
Brook K.A. (2006), The Jews of Khazaria, Lanham (1st ed. 1999).
Brooks E.W. (1901), "The rnarriage ofthe eınperor Theophilus", BZ l O, 540-45.
 Bi/ı/iograplı_ı· -l77

-- ( 1913 ) ...The Arab occupation ofCrete". Eııglis/ı Historical Revieıı• 28,431

43.
--, Guidi 1. aııd Chabot J.B. (1905), Clıroııica Minorcı ili (CSCO 5 == SS
5·
CSCO 6 == SS 6), Louvain, 2 vols.
Brosset M.-F. (1874-1876), Col/ectioıı d'lıisıoriens Armenieııs. Di.x oııvrcwes sıır
I '!ıistoire de l'Arıııeııie et des pays adjaceııts dıı Xe au· X!Xe siec!e, tadııits
de l'Arıııeııieıı et du Rıısse avec des iııtrodııctioııs lıistoriques et des ııotes
critiqııes, liııguistiqzıes et ec/aircissaııtes, Saint Petersburg, 2 vols (reprint
Anısterdam 1979).
Brousselle 1. (] 996), "L'integration des Armeniens dans l'aristocratie byzaııtiııe mı
IXe siecle", in L 'Arıııenie et Byzance. Histoire et cıı/ıııre, Paris, 43-54.
Browning R. (1965), "Notes on the Scriptor Inceıius de Leone Armenio", B.vz 35..
389-411.
Brubaker L. (ecl.) (1998), Byzantiwıı in the ninth centwy: Dead ar aliFe? Pcıper.ı·
,li-0111 the T!ıirtieth Spriııg Symposiııııı of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham,
March 1996 (==Society far the Proınotion of Byzaııtiııe Stııdies. Publications
5), Alclershot.
-- and Halclon J. (2001), Byzcmtiıım in the !conoclasl Em (c. 680-850): Tlıe
Soıırces. An Annotcıted Sıırvey (BBOiV/7), Birminglıam.
ancl Halcloıı J. (2011), Byzantium in the fconoclasl Em (c. 680-850): A
Histoıy, Cambridge.
Brunclage J.(1962), The Crusades: A Docıınıentaıy Histoıy, Milwaukee.
Bıyer A. (1966-1967), "Some notes on the Laz ancl the Tzan", Bedi Kartliscı.
Revııe de Kartve!ologie 21-2, 174-95 and 23-4, 161-8, reprinted in Bıyer
(1988) nr. XIVa ancl XIV b.
--(1988), Peoples and Settleınent in Anatolia and the Caucasııs, London.
-- and Herrin J.(ecls) (1977), fconoclasm. Papers given at the 9th Symposiıım
ofByzantine Stııdies, University ofBirmingham, March 1975, Biıminghaın.
Bıyonis Sp. and Chrysos E.(eds)(2001), Oı 01corezvoi wcaveç wv Bv(a.vriov (7oç-
9oç az.), Athens.
Budge E.A.W. (1932), The Chronography of Gregoıy Abü '!-Fara}, 1225-1286,
the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician Comınonly Known as Bar Hebraeus,
being the First Part of his Political HistoıJı of tlıe World, translatedfi-0111 tlıe
Syriac with an Historiccı! Introdııction, Appendixes, cınd an Jndex, Accoınpanied
by Reprodııctions oftlıe Syriac Texts in tlıe Bodleian Manzıscript 54, London, 2
vols.(reprint Aınsterclam 1976, Piscataway, New Jersey 2003).
Bulliet R.W. (1979), Conversions ta Islcıın in the Medieval Period: An Esscıy in
Quantitative Histoıy, Cambridge(Mass.).
Buıy J.B. (1890), "The Relationship of the Patriarclı Photius to the Enıpress
Theodora", English Historical Review 5, 255-8.
--(1892), "The Identity ofThomas tlıe Slavonian", BZ l , 55-60.
--(1906), "The Treatise De administrando imperio", BZ 15, 517-77.
-- (1909), "Mutasim's March tlırough Cappadocia in A.D. 838", Joıımal ol
Hellenic Studies 29, 120-29.
478 Tlıe Eıııperor T/ıeoplıi/os cıııd ılıe Eası. 829--842

-- (1912), A Hisloı:ı: of tlıe late Roman Empire from ılıe Fail of Eirene ıo tlıe
Accession of Basil I (802-867), Landon.
Cachia P. and Watt W.M. (1960-1961), Eıı(vclıius q(Alexandria: Tlıe Boole q/t/ıe
Demonslration (Kitöb al-Bıırhön), 2 parts (CSCO 192 = SA 20: part 1, Arabic;
CSCO 193 = SA 21: part 1, English; CSCO 209= SA 22: part 2, Arabic; CSCO
s21O= SA 23; paıt 2, English), Louvain 1960-1961.
Cameroıı Av. (1992), "Cyprus at the Time of the Arab Coııquests," Emm:piç rı7ç
Kvj[pwxı7ç Ew.ıpr::io.ç lın:op11<evv J;j[ov&iıv 1, 27-50, reprinted in Av. Cameron,
C/ıanging Cultııres in Ecır(v Byzantium, Aldershot 1996, 11° VI.
-- and Herrin J. et al. ( 1984), Constantinople in tlıe Earö1 Eig/ıtlı Cenllıı:)I: Tlıe
Parastaseis syntomoi clıronikai, Leiden.
Canard iYi. (1932), "Un personnage de roman arabo-byzantin", Revue A.fi-icaine,
1-14, reprinted in Canard (1973) nr. II.
-- (1935), ''Delhemnıa, epopee arabe des guerres arabo-byzantines", Byz I O,
283-300, reprinted in Canard ( l 973) nr. 1.
-- (1961 ), "Les principaux personnages du roman de chevalerie arabe !)at al­
H inıma wa-1-Battal", Arabica 8, 158-73.
-- (1973), Byzcıntiııııı and the !vluslims qf' the Near Ecısl, Landon.
Carra de Vaux B. ( 1896), El-!vlaçoııdi. Le livre de l 'avertissement et de la ı-eFision,
P aris (reprinted in Frankfurt am Main 1986).
Carras L. (1984), "The Life of Athanasia of Aegina: A Critical Edition witb
Introduction", in Moffatt (1984) 199-224 (text 212-24).
Chabot J.B. (1899-1910), Chronique de Michel le Syrien patriarch Jacobite
d'Antioche (1166-1199), 4 vals, Paris.
-- (1916), Anonymi Auctoris Chronicon ad A.C. 1234 pertinens [Syriac text]
(CSCO 81= SS 36; CSCO 82= SS 37), Louvain, 2 vols.
-- (1937), Anonymi Auctoris Chronicon ad A. C. 1234 pertinens [Latin
translation of vol. 1] (CSCO 109 = SS 56), Louvain [for vol. 2 see Abmına and
Fiey (1974)].
Charanis P. (1961), "The Armenians in the Byzantine Eınpire", BS! 22, 196-240,
reprinted with tbe same title in Lisbon 1963.
Chatzidakis M., Drandakis N., Zias N., Acheimastou-Potamianou M. and Vasilaki­
Karakatsani A. (1989), Naxos, Athens.
Cheynet J.C. (1992), "Quelques remarques sur le culte de la croix en Asie Mineure
au Xe siecle", in Ledure Y. (ed.) (1992), Histoire et czıltııre chretienne.
Homınage iı Monseigneıır Yves Marchasson par !es enseignants de la Faculte
des Lettres, Paris, 67-78.
-- (1998), "Theophile, Theophobe et !es Perses", in Lampakes St. (ed.),
Byzantine Asia Minor (6th-l 2th centııries), Athens, 39-50.
Cbolij R. (2002), Theodore the Stoudite. The Ordering qfHoliııess, Oxford.
Christides V. (1984), The Conqııest of Crete by the Arabs (c. 824), Athens.
Chrysostomides J. (1997), "An Investigation Conceming the Authenticity of the
Letter of the T!ıree Patriarchs", in Munitiz, Chıysostomides, Harvalia-Crook
and Dendrinos ( 1997) xvii-xxxviii.
 Bibliogrcıı1lı_ı· -179

Cobb P.M.(2001), Conte11tio11 in Abbasid Syria, 750-880, Albany.

Cook D. (2002), "An Early Muslim Daniel Apocalypse", :lrabica .ı9, 55-%.
Corrias P. aııcl Cosentiııo S. (ecls) (2002), Ai coı?(İni de//'iıııpero. Storia, arte e
arclıeo/ogia de/la Sardegna bi:::aııtina, Cagliari.
Corrigan K. (1992), Visııa/ Po/eınics in ı/ıe Niııtlı-Cenııııy Byzaııtine ?sa/ters,
Carnbriclge.
Coseııtino S. (2008), Storia defi 'fta/ia biwııtina (Vf-XI seco/o). Da Giııstiniano
ai Normanııi, Bologna.
Crimi C. (1990), Miclıe/e Since/o per la restaıırazione defle l'enaraııde e sacre
iınıııagini, Roma.
Crone P. (1980), "lslarn, Jucleo-Christianity ancl Byzantine lconoclasnı", Jerıısaleııı
Studies in Arabic and Jslaın 2, 59-95.
--ancl Hincls M. (1986), God :S Ca/iplı. Re/igious Autlıoriıy iıı tlıe Fiı;ı·t Ceııı11ries
oflslam, Cambriclge.
Cumont F. ( 1894), Anecdota Brııxe//ensia. Chroniques by:::antines du ıııa1111scriı
11376, Gancl.
Cunııingham M.B. (1991), The L{le of l\ı/iclıae/ tlıe .�rnkellos, Belfast.
Curta F. (ed.) (2008), The Ot/ıer Europe in ılıe Mide/le Ages. ,frcırs, 811/gars,
Khazars, and Cumans, Leiclen and Bostan.
Dagron G. ( 1996), Empereur et pre/re. Etude sur le "cescımpapisme" byzrmıiıı,
Paris.
--(2005), "Architecture interieure: 'le pentapyrgion '", T M 15, 109-17.
-- Riche P. and Vauchez A. (eds) (1993), Eveques, ıııoines et eıııpereurs (610-
1054) (Histoire dıı christianisıne des origines a nosjours 4), Paris.
Darrouzes J. (1981), Notitiae Episcopatıını Ecclesiae Constcıntinopo/itanae. Text
critiqııe, introduction et notes, Paris.
Delehaye H. (1902), Synaxariıım Constantinopolitaınım. Propylaewn ad Acta
Sanctoruın Noveınbris, Bn.ıssels.
Dennet D.C. (1950), Conversion and the Pal! Tax in Early Js/am, Cambridge.
Derenburg H. (1895), Al-Fakhri. Histoire du khaf(fat et dıı vizirat, depııis feıır
origines jıısqıı 'iı la chııte dıı khalifat abbaside de Baghdiidh (I1-656 de
f'hegire, 632-1258 de notre ere), avec des prolegomenes sur fes principes du
goııverneınent, par Jbn al-Tiktakii, Paris.
Deroche V. (1994), "L'Apologie coııtre !es Juifs de Leontios de Neapolis", TJVJ
12, 45-104.
Detorakis Th. and Mossay J. (1988), ''Un office byzantin inedit pour ceux qui sont
morts a la guen-e, dans le Cod. Sin. Gr. 734-735", Le Museon 101, 183-211.
Dicle I. (1961), "La passion arabe de S. Antoine Ruwa!J, neo-martyr de Damas
(t25 dec. 799)", Le Museon 74, 109-33.
-- (1990-1991), "La discussion d'Abü Qurr� avec !es ulemas ınusulınans
devant le calife al-Ma'mün", Parafe de l 'Orient 16, 107-13.
-- (1999), La discııssion d'Abu Qıırra avec /es ulemas ımısıılınans devant le
cal{je af-Ma 'miin, etııde et edition critiqııe (=Mııjiidalat Ahı Qurrah ma 'a al­
mutakal!imııı a/-muslimTnfi majlis cıl-khalf/cılı ul-Ma 'ıniiıı), Aleppo.
-180 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeuplıilos um! ılıe Eası, 819-841

Dickie E. (2007). Aııcieııt Greek Scholarslıip. A guide ta fiııdiııg, readiııg, a11d

1111clerstanding scholia, commeııtaries, lexica, cıııd grcımıııcıticcıl treatises ji-0111
tlıeir begiııııiııgs to tlıe Byzcıntiııe period, Oxford.
Diehl Ch. ( 193 l ), "La !egende de l'enıpereur Theophile", Se111i11ari11111
Kondakoviaııwıı 4, 33-7.
O itten H. ( 1993), Etlıııisclıe Versclıeibungeıı zwisclıen der Balkcıninsel ıınd
Kleinasieıı vom Ende des 6. bis wr zweiteıı Hö(fte des 9. Jahrhuııderts (BBA
59), Berlin.
Dodge 8. ( 1970), The Fihrist of al-Nadim. A Tenth-Centwy Sıırvey of Mııslim
Culıure, New York, 2 vols.
Dölger F. ( 1950), "Der pariser Papyrus von St. Denis als altestes
Kreuzzugsdokument", in Actes du Vle Congres lnternalional d'Etııdes
Byzcııııines. Paris 27 Juillet-2 Aoııt I 948, Paris, vol. 1, 93-102, reprinted in
Dölger ( 1956) 206-12.
-- ( l 956), Byzcıııtinische Diplomatik, Ettal.
Donner F. ( l 981), Ear�v !slamic Conquests, Princeton.
-- ( 1998), Narratives of !slamic origins: the begiımiııgs of lslaınic historiccıl
ııriting, Princeton.
Donnet D. ( 1982), le traite de la construction de la phrcıse de Michel le Syncel/e
de Jerusalem. Histoire dzı texte, edition. trcıduction et comıııentcıire, Brussels
and Roıne.
Drocouıt N. (2006), "Ambassadeurs etrangers a Constantinople: moyens de
contacts, d'echanges et de connaissances partielles du monde byzantin (Vllle­
XI le siecles)", in Clement F., Tolan J. and Wilgaux J. (eds), Espcıces d 'echanges
en Mediterranee. Antiqııite et Moyen Age, Rennes, 107-34.
-- (2008), "La diplomatie medio-byzantine et l'Antiquite", Anabcıses 7, 57-87.
-- (2009), "La place de l'ecrit dans les contacts diplomatiques du haut Moyen
Age. Le cas des relations entre Byzance et ses voisins (de la fin du Vlle siecle
a 1204)", in L'aııtorite de l'ecrit azı Moyen Age (Orient-Occident). Actes dıı
XXX!Xe congres de la Societe des historiens medievistes de l'Enseigneınent
sııperieıırpııblic (Le Caire, 30 avril-5 mai 2008), Paris, 25-43.
Duchesne L. (1912-1913), "L'iconographie byzantine dans un document grec du
IXe siecle", Roma e l 'Oriente, 222-39, 273-85 and 349-66.
Duffy J. (2002), "Recovering a Byzantine Author: Sophronius of Alexandria",
unpublished conference paper at the Twenty-Eighth Annual Byzantine Studies
Conference, Columbus (Ohio).
-- and Parker J. (eds) (1979), The Synodicon vetııs, Washington (CFHB 15).
Dufrenne S. and Canart P. (1988), Die Bibel des Patriciııs Leo: Codex Reginensis
Grcıecııs 1 B, Zurich.
Dulaurier E. (1883), Histoire ııııiversellepar Etieııne Açogh'ile de Daran, Paris.
Dunlop D.M. (1954), The Histoıy ofthe Jewish Khazars, Princeton.
Dunn A.W. (1983), A Haııdlist of the Byzantine Lead Seals and Tokens (and of
Westerıı and Jslamic Seals) in the Barber lnstitııte qf Fine Arts, Birmingharn
1983.
 Bibfiograplı_ı· -181

Dvornik F. (1969), Les legendes de Constantin et de Methode ı•ııes de By:::cıııce,

1-Iattiesburg (1st ecl. Prague 1933 ).
-- et al. ( 1962), Coııstantine Poıplıyrogeııit11s. De adıııinistrando i111perio.
Voluıııe il: coııııneııtaıy, London.
Ebied R.Y. and Young M.J.L (1977), '"An Unrecordecl Arabic Version ofa Sibylline
Prophecy", OCP 43, 279-307.
Eche Y. ( 1967), Les bibliotlıeques arabes publiques et seıni-publiqııes en
Mesopotaınie et en Eg; pte aıı Moyen ıige, Damascus. ·
Efthymiaclis St. (2006), "Le miracle et les saints clurant et apres le second
iconoclasme", in Kaplan (2006) 153-73.
Eid I-1. (1992), Lettre du cal{fe Hôrüıı al-Rasici a / 'eınpereur Coııstantin V!, Paris.
Epstein A.W. (1977), "The 'iconoclast' Churches of Cappadocia", in Bryer and
1-Iwin (1977) 103-12.
Erpenius Th. (1625), Historia Sarcıcenica, qua res gestae Mıısliınarıım, inde a
ı\ıfıılıamınede primo imperii et religioııis ımıslimicae auctore, usque ad initiuın
imperii Atabacei, per XL!X imperatorıım s11ccessioııeın.fide!issiıııe explicantw;
insertis etia111 passiın Christianorıım rebzıs in Orieııtis potissimııın ecclesiis
eodem tempore gestis. arabice o/im exarata a Gergio ElmacinofiJ. Abııljaseri
Elaınidif Abulmaccıreıııif Abultibi, et Latiııe rede/ita opera et studio Thoınae
Erpeni, Leiclen.
Evetts B. (191 O), "History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexanclria.
Part 3: Agatho to Michael I (767)", PO 5, fasc. 1, 3-215 (=257-469).
--(1915), "History ofthe Patriarchs ofthe Coptic Church ofAlexanclria. Part 4:
Menas I to Joseph (849)", PO 1 O, fasc. 5, 359-551 (=473-665).
Falkenhausen V. von (1978), "La dorninazione bizantina. nell 'Italia meridionale
dal IX ali 'XI secolo", Bari.
Fanner H.G. (1931), Tlıe Organ of the Ancients ji-om Easterıı Sources, Hebrew,
Syriac and Arabic, London.
Fatouros G. (1992), Tlıeodori Stııditae epistıılae, Berlin (CFHB 30).
Federici V. (1925-1938), Chronicon vııltıırnense del Monaco Giovanni (Fonti per
la storia d'Jtalia 58), Torino, 3 vols (reprinted in 1968).
Fishbein M. (1992), Tlıe Histoıy of al-Tabari, vol. XXXI: The war between
brothers, Albany (translation ofthe Arabic original).
Flusin B. (1995), review ofGauer (1994) in REB 53, 361-3.
-- and Cheynet J.-C. (2003), Jean Skylitzes. Empereurs de Constantinople.
Texte tradııit et annote, Paris.
Fourmy M.-H. ancl Leroy J. (1934), "La Vie de S. Philarete", B 9, 85-170.
Frank R.I. (1969), Scholae Palatinae. T he Palace Gııards of the Later Roman
Empire, Rome.
Franklin S. and Shepard J. (1996), Tlıe Emergence ofRus 750-1200, London ancl
NewYorlc.
Fried J. (2006), Donation of Constantine and Constitzıtııın Constantini. Tlıe
Misinterpretation ofa Fiction and its Original Meaning (Milleııııiıım Studien
3), Berlin and NewYor!<.
482 Tin• E111perur Tlıeoplıi/os aııd tlıe Ecısı, 8]\!--842

Fnıgoni A. ( 1969), "La biblioteca di Giovanni ili duca di Napoli (dal Prologus
dell'arciprete Leoııe al Romanzo di Alessandro)", A1111ali de/la Scııo/a specicıle
per aıdıivisti e bib/ioteccıri defi 'Universitiı di Roma 9, 161-71.
Füeg F. (2007), Coıpııs of tlıe Nomisıııcıta ji-0111 Ancıstasius II to Johıı / iıı
Constcıııtiııople, 7 I3-976. Strııctııre of the issııes. Coıpus of coiıı finds.
Coııtribııtioıı ta tlıe icoııogrcıplıic cmd monetaıy histoıJ', Lancaster and London.
Gaisford T. ( 1842), Georgii Clıoerobosci epinıerismi in Pscı/mos, Oxford.
Garsoi'an N.G. ( I 960), The Pau/icicın Heresy. A Stuctv of tlıe Origin cınd
Deı·elop111eııt of Pcııı/icicınism in Armenicı cınd the Eastern Provinces of the
Byzaııtiııe Eıııpire, The 1-lague and Paris.
Gauer H. ( 1994 ), Texte zum byzcıntiııischeıı Bilderstreit. Der Sy11oclalbrief
der drei Patricırcheıı des Ostens voıı 836 und seiııe Verwand!ııng in sieben
Jahr/ıııııderıen (Studien wıd Texte zıır Byzantiııistik 1 ), Frankfurt a.M.
-- (1999), review of Munitiz, Chrysostomicles, Harvalia-Crook and Dendrinos
(1997) in BZ 92, 146-50.
Gay J. ( 1917), l 'Jta/ia meridiona/e e / 'impeıv bizaııtino. Dafi 'avvento di Basi/io I
alla resa di Bari cıi Norınanni (867-1071), Florence (1st ecl. New York 1904).
Gebharclt E. ( 1967), Gregorii Nysseni opera, vol. 9.1, Leiden.
Geffcken J. ( 1902), Die Orcıcula Sibyllina (Die griec/ıisclıen christlichen
Schr{liste/ler 8), Leipzig.
Gelzer H. ancl Burckharclt A. (1907), Des Stephanos von Taran armenische
Geschichte, Leipzig.
Gero S. (1975), "The eucharistic doctrine of the Byzantine iconoclasts and its
sources", BZ 68, 4--22.
Gervers M. and Bikhazi R.J. (eds) (1990), Conversion and Continııity. Jndigenoııs
Christian Coınınıınities in Jslamic lands, Eighth to Eiglıteentlı Centııries
(Papers in Medieval Stzıdies 9), Toronto.
Gkoutzioukostas A.E. (2004), H a:rcoııov17 oıa.ıco.ıoavv17ç ı:n:o Bv(avrio (9oç-12oç
aıcvveç). Ta ICO(Jfll/Ca oııcaıooowca opyava ıcaı oucaı:n:ıjpıa 7:1/Ç rcpwrevovaaç
(Bv(avrıva ıceipeva ıcaı pdeı:ai 37), Thessalonike.
Goeje M.J. de (1879-1901), Annales qııos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohamıned ibn
Djaı-ir at-Tabari, Leiden, 13 vols.
--(1889), Kitab al-ınasalilc wa 'l-mamalilc aııctore Abu '1-Kasiın Obaidallalı ibn
Abdcı!lah Ibn Khordddhbeh, Leiden.
--(1892), Kitab al-a 'lak an-nafisa VII aııctore Abü Ali Ahmed ibn Omar lbn
Tosteh, et Kitab al-Boldan acutore Ahmed ibn Abf Jakzıb ibn Wddih al-Katib
a/-Ja/aıbi editio secıındcı (BGA 9), Leiden.
--(1894), Mas'üdI. Kitiib at-tanbfh wa 'l ischriif(BGA 8), Leiden.
-- and Jong P. de (1869), Frcıgıııenta historicoruın arabicorııııı. Toınııs priımıs
continens partem tertiaın operis Kitaba '/-Oyun wa 'l-hadiıi1c fi alchbiıri
'f-hakıii1c, Leiden.
Golb N. and P ritsak O. (] 982), Klıazarian Hebrew Docııments of the Tentlı
Century, Ithaca.
 Bihli,ıgrııplı_ı· -t83

Golden P.B. ( 1982), "The Queslion of the Rus· Qağanate", Arclıivuııı Eurasiae
Medii AeFi 2. 77-97, reprintcd in Pritsak (2003) nr. VI.
--(1992), An lııtrod11cıioıı /o ı/ıe Hisıory ofılıe Tıırkic People. Wiesbaden.
--(2003), Noıııac!.ı- aııd ılıeir Neiglıbours iıı ılıe Russian Sıeppe: Tıırks, Klıazars
aııd Qipclıaqs, Alderslıot.
-- (2007), "The Conversion of the Khazars to Judaisnı", in Golden, Ben­
Shamınai and R6na-Tas (2007) 123-62.
--, Ben-Shamnıai H. and R6na-TasA. (eds) (2007), T!ıe Wor/d of ılıe Klıawrs.
New perspectives. Se/ecıed papers ji-0111 ılıe Jerıısaleııı 1999 Jnterııaliona/
Klıazar Colloqııiwıı lıostecl by !he Beıı Zvi /11stit11te, Leiden and Baston.
Gordon M.S.(2001), Tlıe Breaking ofa Tlıousaııd Sword�. A Histoıy ofılıe Tıırkislı
ı\ıli/itaıy ofSaınarra (A.H. 200-275 / 8/5-889 C.E.), New York.
Gouillarcl J. (1966), "Fragnıents ineclits cl'un antirretique ele Jean le Granımarien",
REB 24, 171-81.
(1987), "La vie d'Eutlıynıe de Sardes (t831), une oeuvre clu patriarclıe
Methocle", T ravaux et lvfemoires 1O, 1-1O 1.
Gousset R. ( 1947), Histoire de / 'Arnıenie des origines cı J 071, Paris.
Grabar A. (1951), "Le succes cles arts orientaux ala cour Byzantine sous les
Macedoniens", Miiııc/ıner Jalırbuch der bi/dendeıı Kunsı 2, 32-60.
--( 1984), L 'iconoclasme byzantiıı. Le dossier archeo/ogiq11e, Paris.
Greenwood T. (2008), "Arnıenian neighbours (600-1045)", in Shepard (2008)
333-64.
Gregoire H. (1927-1928), "LesActa Sanctonım", Byz 4, 791-812.
--(1933), "Etudes sur le neuvienıe siecle", Byz 8, 515-50.
--(1934), "Mamıel et Theophobe ou la concurrence de deux monasteres", Byz
9, 183-204.
Grierson Ph. (1973), Leo JJI to Nicephorııs I1l (717-1081), vol. 3 ofBellingerA.R.
and Grierson Ph. (eds), Catalogııe of the Byzantine Coins in tlıe Dıımbarton
Oaks Collection and in the Witteınore Collection, Washington.
Griffith S.H. (1982), "Eutychius ofAlexanclria on the Emperor Theophilus and
Iconoclasm in Byzantiurn: a Tenth Century Moment in ChristianApologetics
inArabic", B 52, 154-190, reprinted in Griffith (1992d) nr. IV.
--(1985), "Theodore Abü Qurrah'sArabic Tract on the Christian Practice of
Venerating Images", Jozırnal of the American Oriental Society 105, 53-73.
--(1986), "Greelc intoArabic: Life and Letters in the Monasteries ofPalestine
in the Ninth Century: the Example of the Summa theologiae Arabica", B 56,
117-38:
--(1988), "The Monks of Palestine and the Growth ofChristian Literature in
0

Arabic", The lvlusliın World 78, 1-28.

--(1990), "Bashir/Beser: Boon Companion ofthe Byzantine Ernperor Leo III:
the Islarnic Recension ofhis stoıy in Leiden Orienta/ lvlS 951(2)", Le lvlııseon
103, 293-327, reprinted in Griffith (2002) nr. XI.
--(] 992a), Theodore Abü Qıırrah: The Jntel/ectııal Profile ofan Arab Christian
i'Vriter of thefirst Abbasid centuıy, TelAviv.
-184 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıcoplıilııs aııd ılıe Ecısı, 819--841

--(1992b), ·Theodore Abü Qurralı 's On the Veneration ofthe Holy Icons'', Tlıe
Scıcred Arı .Joıırııal 13, 3-19.
-- (1992c), "lınages, lslaın, and Chrislian lcons: A Moment in the Clıristian/
Muslinı Encounter in Early lslanıic Tinıes", in Canivet P. and Rey-Coquais
.I.P. (eds). la Syrie de Byzaııce a /'/s/aııı Vl/e-VI//e siecles. Actes du Col!oque
/111erııatioııal Lyon-;\ı/aisoıı de / 'Orient Mediterraneen, Paris-Jnstitut du
ı'v!onde Arabe, 11-15 Septeıııbre 1990, Damascus, 121-38.
--(1992d), Arabic C/ıristiani(v iıı tlıe Monasteries ofNintlı-Centw:,v Palestiııe,
Aldershot.
-- ( 1993 ), "Reflections on the biography of Theodore Abü Qurrah", in Samir
(1993) vol. 1, 143-70.
-- (1997), A Treatise on the Veııeration of the Hozı• Icons by Tlıeodore Abü
Qurralı, bislıop of Harran (c. 755-c.830 A.D.) (Eastern Clıristian Texıs in
Translation 1), Louvain.
-- (1999), "The Monk in the Emir's Majfü: Reflections on a Popular Genre of
Christian Literary Apologetics in Arabic in the Early lslamic Period", Studies in
ılrabic laııguage aııd Literature 4 (= Lazarus-Yafeh H., Cohen M.R., Somekh
S. and Griffitlı S.H., The Mqjlis. lııterreligious Encounters in Medieı1al lslam),
13-65.
-- (2001 a), "'Melkites', 'Jacobites' and the Christological Controversies in
Arabic in Third/Ninth-Century Syria", in Thomas (2001) 9-55.
-- (2001 b), "The Life of Theodore of Edessa: Histoıy, Hagiography, and
Religious Apologetics in Mar Saba Monastery in Early Abbasid Times", in
Patrich (200 l ) 147-69.
--(2002), The Beginnings qf Clıristian Theology in Arabic, Aldershot.
--(2007), "Christians, Muslims and the lmage of the üne God: Iconophilia and
Iconophobia in the World of Islaın in Uınayyad and Early Abbasid Tiınes", in
Groneberg and Spieckeımann (2007) 347-80.
--(2008a), "John of Daınascus and the Church in Syria in the Umayyad Era:
The Intellectual and Cultural Milieu of Orthodox Christians in the World of
Islam", Hııgoye: Joıırnal ofSyriac Stııdies 1 l .2.
--(2008b), The Chıırch in the Shadoııv of the Mosqııe. Christians and Mııslims
in the World qf/slaın, Princeton and Oxford.
Groneberg B. and Spieckerınann H. (eds) (2007), Die Welt der Götterbilder
(Beihefte zıır Zeitschrift fiir die alttestaınentische Wissenschaft 376), Beri in
and New Yorlc
Gronewald M (1968), Didymos der Elinde. Psalmenkomıııentar, pt. 2
(Papyrologische Texte ıınd Ablıandlııngen 4), Bonn.
Grousset R. (1947), Histoire de l 'Armıinie des origines iı 1071, Paris.
Grnmel V. (1930), "Recherches recentes sur l'iconoclasme", Echos d'Orieııt 29,
99-100.
-- (1935), "Chronologie des patriarches iconoclastes du IXe siecle", Echos
d'Orient 34, 162-6.
-- (1958 ), lcı chroııologie, Paris.
 Bihliogrcıplıy 485

Guilland R. (1971), "Patricienne a ceinture", By:antinoslaı•iccı 32. 269-75,

reprinted in Guillaııd(1976).
--( 1976), Titres et foııctioııs de / 'Empire by::antiıı, Landon.
Guillou A. et al.(eds)(1983), il Me::::ogiomo dai Bi::antini a Federico fi. Turiıı.
Guinot J.-N. (1980-1984), Tlıeodoret de C.ı·ı: Commeııtaire sur Isai"e (Soıırces
clırelieıınes 276, 295, 315), Paris, 3 vols.
Gutas D.(1998), Greek Tlıouglıt, Arabic Culture. Tlıe Graeco-Arabic Trans/ation
Movement iıı Baglıdad and Ecırzı' 'Abbösid Socie(v (2nd-4tlı/8tlı-l 0th
centuries), London.
Haldon J. (1984), Byzantine Praetoriaııs. Aıı Adıııinistrative, lnstituıional and
SocialSurvey of tlıe Opsikion aııd Tagmata, c. 580-900, 801111.
--(1990), Constantine Poıy;/ıyrogenitus. Three treatises 011 imperial ınilitaıy
expeditions (CFHB 28), Vieıına.
-- ( 1999), Waı.fare, State aııd Society in t/ıe By::aııtine Wor/d, 565-1204,
London.
--(2001), Tlıe By::a11tine Hlc.11:y, Stroud (Gloucesterslıire)(repriııted 2008).
--(2006), "Roads aııcl Conınıuııications in the Byzaııtiııe Empire: Wagoııs,
Horses, and Supplies", in Pryor .I .H.(ed.)(2006), logistic of Wcırfare iıı tlıe Age
of the Cnısades. Proceedings of a Workshop lıeld at the Centre.for Medieval
Studies, UniFersity ofSydney, 30Septeınber to 4 October 2002, Alclerslıot ancl
Burlington, 131-58.
and Kennedy H. (1980), "Tlıe Arab-Byzantine Frontier in tlıe Eiglıth and
Ninth Centuries", Zbornik Radova 19, 79-116, reprinted in Bonner (2004)
141-78.
Halm H. (1991), Das Reich des Mahdi. Der Aııjstieg der Fatimiden, Munich.
Hans L.-M. ( l 988), "Der Kaiser als Mürchenprinz. Brautschau und Heiratspolitik
in Konstantinopel", JÖB 38, 33-52.
Harlfinger D. (ed.) (1980), Grieclıische Kodikologie ıınd Textiiberlieferuııg,
Darınstadt.
Harvalia-Crook E. (1997), "Notes on the Language and Style in the Letter of
the Tlıree Patriarchs", in Munitiz, Chrysostomides, Harvalia-Crook and
Dendrinos ( 1997) xxxix-1.
Heiberg J.L. (1912), Heronis Alexandrini opera qııae sııpersıınt oınnia. Yol.
4: Heronis defbıitioııes cum variis collectionibus Heroııis qııae ferııııtur
geometrica, Leipzig.
Heijer J. den (1989), Mawlıüb ibn Manşiir ibn Mııfarriğ et l 'historiographie copto­
arabe: ·etııde sıır la composition de l'histoire des Patriarches d'A!exandrie,
Louvain.
Hemmerdinger B. (1956), "Les 'notices et extraits' des bibliotheques grecques de
Bagdad par Photius", Revue des etudes Grecqııes 69, l 01-3.
--(197J) "Photius a Bagdad", BZ 64, 37.
HeITin J. ( l 992), "Constantinople, Rome and the Franks in the seventh ancl eiglıth
centuries", in Shepard and Frankliıı(1992) 91-107.
Hewsen, R.H.(2001), Arıııeııia. A Historical Atlas, Chicago.
486 Tlıc Emperor Tlıcoplıi/os cıııd ılıe Ecısı, 819-842

Hibri T. El- ( 1999), Reiııteıpretiııg lslcımic Hisıoriogrcıplıy. Höriiıı cı/-Rcıshıd cıııd

tlıe Narrcıtive rıftlıe 'Abhösid Calip!ıate, Caınbridge.
-- (2011), ..The Empire in Iraq, 763-861", in Robinson (2011a) 265-304.
Hild F. and Restle M. (1981), Kappadokieıı (Kappadokicı, Clıarsianon, Sebcısteia
ııııd Lykaııdos), Vienna ( TIB 2).
-- and Hellenkemper H. (1990), Ki/ilden ııııd Jsazırieıı (TIB 5), Wien.
Hilgard A. (1889), Prolegomeııa. Tlıeodosii Alexandriııi caııones, Georgii
Clıoerbosci Sclıolia, Soplıronii palriarchae Alexaııdriııi exceıpla (Gramıııcıtici
Graeci iV. 1), Leipzig.
-- (1894), Clıoerobosci sc/10/ia in caııoııes verbales el Soplıroııii exceı7;/cı e
Clıarcıcis commentario conıiııeııs ( Grammatici Graeci IV.2), Leipzig.
Hill D.R. ( 1979), Tlıe Book of lııgeııioııs Devices (Kitöb al-Hiyal) by tlıe Banii
(sons o.f) ı\ılüsa bin Slıakir, Dordrecht, Boston and London.
Hinterberger M. (2001), Review ofMunitiz, Chrysostomides, Harvalia-Crook and
Dendrinos (1997) in JÖB 51, 439-42.
Hoffmann L. (ed.) (2005), Zwischeıı Polis, Proı:inz ııııd Peripherie. Beitriige zur
h_ı •zaııtinischeıı Geschichte uııd Kıılııır, Wiesbaden.
Honignıann E. (1935), Die Ostgrenze des byzcınıinisclıen Reiclıes von 363 bis I 071
nac!ı grieclıisclıeıı, arabisclıeıı, 5Jırisclıen ııııd armenischen Quellen, Brussels.
-- ( 1961 ), Trois ıneınoires postlnımes d'lıistoire et de geograplıie de /'Orient
c/ıretieıı, Brussels.
Houtsnıa M.Th. (1883), Jbn-Wadlıilı qııi dicitur Al-Ja'qııbı, Historiae, Leiden, 2
vols (reprint Leiden 1969).
Howard-Johnston J. (2000), "The De administrando iınperio: A Re-examination
ofthe Text and a Re-evaluation of its Evidence about the Rus", in Kazanski
M., Nercessian A. and Zuckennan C. (eds), Les centres proto-ıırbains russes
entre Scandinavie, Byzance et Orient. Actes dıı Colloqzıe International tenıı
au College de France en octobre 1997 (Realites byzantines 7), Paris, 301-36.
-- (2007), "Byzantine Sources for Khazar History", in Golden, Ben-Shammai
and R6na-Tas (2007) 163-93.
-- (2010), Witnesses ta a World Crisis. Historians and Histories o.fthe Middle
East in the Seventh Centııry, Oxford.
Hoyland R. (1997), Seeing Islaın as others saw it: A Sıırvey and evalzıation of
Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on Early Islaın, Princeton.
Hübschmann H. (1904), "Die altarmennischen Ortsnamen", Indogerınanische
Forschııngen 16, 197-490.
Humphreys, R.S. (2011). "Syria", in Robinson (201l a) 526-40.
Huxley G. (1978), "On the Vita ofSt John ofGotthia", GRES 19, 161-9.
Irigoin J. (1962), "Survie et renouveau de la litterature antique a Constantinople
(IXe siecle)", Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale Xe-Xlle siecles 5, 287-302,
reprinted in Harlfinger (1980) 173-205.
[vison E.A. (2008), "Middle Byzantine Sculptors at Work: Evidence from the
Lower City Church at Amorion", in Pennas Ch. and Vanderheyde C. (eds), La
sculptııre byzantine Vle-Xlle siecles. Actes dıı colloqııe international organise
 Bihliograp/ı_ı· 487

par la 2e Eplıorie des antiquites by:::antines et ! 'Ecole .fi'ançaise d'Aılıenes

(6-8 septemhre 2000), Paris, 487-513.
James L. (2003), "Dıy Bones and Painted Pictures: Relics and lcons in Byzantium",
in Lidov A. (ed.), Eastem Clıristiaıı Relics, Moscow, 45-55.
Jeffreys E. ( 1998), Digeııis Akrilis. Tlıe Grottc!f'errala aııd Escorial Versioııs,
Cambridge (reprint 2004).
--, Haldon J. and Cormack R. (eds) (2008), The Oxford Handbook of Byzanliııe
Studies, Oxford.
Jenkins R.J.H. (ed.) (1962), Constaııtiııe Porplıyrogeııitus. De Adıninistrando
imperio. Voluıne 2: Coınınentaıy, London.
-- and Westerink L.G. (1973), Niclıolas Mysticııs, Patriarc/ı of Constantiııople,
le/ters, Washington.
Jokisch B. (2007), Jslaıııic Jmperial Law. Harun-Al-Raslıid's Cod[ficatioıı Projeci,
Beri in and New York.
Jolivet-Levy C. (1991), les eglises byzanlines de Cappadoce. Le programıne
icoııographiqııe de l 'abside et de ses abord�, Paris.
-- (1997), la Cappadoce, meınoire de Byzance, Paris.
Jongkind D. (2005), "Studies in the Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus", Tyndafe
B11/letin 56, 153-6.
f
Kaegi W.E. (2003), Heraclius, Eınperor o. Byzantiuııı, Canıbridge.
Kalavrezou I. (1990), "Inıages of tlıe Motlıer: Wlıen the Virgin Mary Became
Meter Theoıı", DOP 44, 165-72.
Kaldellis A. (1998), Genesios on tlıe Reigns of tlıe Enıperors. Translation aııd
Coıııınentaıy, CanbeITa.
Kalinina T. (2007), "AI-Khazar wa-'1-Şaqaliba: Contacts and Conflicts?", in
Golden, Ben-Shammai and R6na-Tas (2007) 195-206.
Kambylis A. and Reinsch D.R. (2001), Annae Coınnenae Alexias ( Coıpııs Fontiuııı
Historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 40), Bedin and New Yorlc.
Kaplan M. (ed.) (2006), Monasteres, iınages, poııvoirs et societe it Byzance, Paris.
Kazanski M., Nercessian A. and Zuckerman C. (eds) (2000), Les centres proto­
urbains russes entre Scandinavie, Byzance et Orient. Actes dıı Colloqııe
Jnternational tenu aıı College de Fraııce en octobre 1997 (Realites byzaııtines
7), Paris.
Kazhdan A. (1988), "Where, When and by Whom was the Greek Barlaam and
Ioasaph Not Written", in Will W. and Heinrichs J. (eds) (1988), Zıı Alexander
dem Grossen. Festschrift G. Wirth zum 60. Gebıırtstag, Amsterdam, vol. 2,
1187-1209, reprinted in Kazhdan (1993) nr. IX.
-- (1993), Aııthors and Texts in Byzantium, Aldershot.
-- (1999), A Histoıy of Byzantine Literatııre (650-850), Athens.
Keller H. (1908), Seclıster Band des Kitab Bagdad voıı Ahmad ibn Abı Tahir
Taifiir, Leipzig, 2 vols (vol. 1, text; vol. 2 Gemıan translation), reprinted in
Frankfurt 2008 [by which it is quoted].
Kennedy H. (1981 ), The Eaı·zv Abbasid Caliphate, London.
488 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoı1/ıilos aml ılıe Eası. 8:!<J-8./:!

--(1986), Tlıe Proplıeı and ılıe Age of ılıe Ccıliplıcıtes. Tlıe lslamic Near Ecısl
.fi'om ılıe Sixt/ı ro ıhe Eleı·eııtlı Cenı11ry, London and New York.
--(1998). "Egypt as a Province of the lslamic Caliphate, 641-868", in Petry
C.F. (ed.), The Caınbridge Histoıy ofEg_ıpı. vol. !: lslcımic Egypt, 640-1517,
Cambridge, 62-85.
--(2001), Tlıe Arıııies ı�f'the Calip/ıs. Militaıy aııd Society iıı the Early lslcıınic
State, London and New York.
Kennedy E.S. and Pingree D. (1971), Tlıe Asırological Hisloıy of Möshö 'a/lölı,
Cambridge (Mass.).
Keshani H. (2004), ''The 'Abbasid Palace ofTheophilos. Byzantine taste for the
arls of Islanı", AI-Masöq 16, 75-91.
Khalidi T. (1975), lslaıııic Historiography. The Hislories qj'tvlcıs 'üdı, Albany.
Klıroushkova L. (2006), Les ıııomımenıs chretieııs de la côıe orieııtale de la Mer
Naire. Abklıa::ie 1Ve-.,\1Ve siecles, Turnhout.
Kislinger E. and Korres Th. (1980), "Oi 8tci:ıXEtç -ro:ıv ITauAtKtav&v sıd Mıxa�AA",
Byzantina I O, 203-15.
-- ancl Seibt W. (1998), "Sigilli bizantini eli Sicilia. Acldencla et corrigenda a
pubblicazioni recenti", Arclıivio storico messinese 75, 5-33.
Koetsier T. (2001), "On the Prehistory of Programmable Machines: Musical
Automata, Looıns, Calculators", Mechanism cınd Machine Theoıy 36, 589-603.
Kolılberg E. ( 1992), A Medieva/ Jvlıısliın Seha/ar at Work: lbn Töwiis and his
Libraıy, Leiden, New York and Cologne.
Konovalova I. (2000), "Les rüs sur !es voies de commerce de l'Europe orientale
d'apres !es sources arabo-persanes", in Kazanski, Nercessian and Zuckerman
(2000) 395-408.
Köpstein H. (1983), "Zur Erhebung des Thomas", in Köpstein and Winkelmann
(1983) 61-87.
-- and Winkelmann F. (eds) (1983), Studien zum 8. ıınd 9. Jahrhıındert in
Byzanz, Bertin.
Kotter, B. (1975), Die Schriften des Johannes von Damcıslcos 111 (Pcıtristische
Texte ıınd Stııdien 17), Berlin - New York.
Kotzabassi S. and Mavromatis G. (eds) (2009), Rea/ia Byzcıntincı, Berlin and New
Yor!<.
Kountoura-Galaki E.S. (1983), "H rnava.crTUOTJ -rou Bcı.poa.vrı Toupıcou",
Syııııneilctcı 5, 203-15.
Kovalev R.K. (2005), "Creating Khazar Identity through Coins: T he Special Issue
Dirhams of 837/8", in Curta F. (ed.) (2005), Ecıst Centrcıl cınd Eastern Eıırope
in the Ecırly Middle Ages, Ann Arbor, 220-51.
Kraemer J. (1956-1957), "Arabische Homerverse", Zeitschrift des deııtschen
ınorgenlöndischen Gese//schcıi 106, 259-316 and 107, 511-18.
K.rannich T., Schubert Ch. and Sode C. (2002), Die ilconoklcıstische Synode von
Hiereicı 754 (Stııdien ıınd Texte zıı Antilce ıınd Christentııın 15), Tübingen.
Kresten O. (1981), "Datierungsprobleme 'isaurischer' Eherechtsnovellen. I. Coll.
1 26", FBRG '1"1', Fı'vl 4, Frankfurt, 37-106.
 Bihlirıgraplı_ı· --18<)

Kreutz B. ( 1991), Be.fare tlıe ıVorıııcıns: Soutlıerıı !tazı· in tlıe Niııtlı a11d Teııılı
Centuries, Plıiladelphia.
Krist6 Gy. ( 1996), H1111garia11 Histoı:r in tlıe Ni11tlı Ce11ı111:l', Szeged.
Külııı H.-J. ( 1991), Die by:::antiııisclıe Armee im I O. 1111d 11. Jafır!ıunderr. Stııdien
:::ur Oıganisation der tagmata, Wieıı.
Kurze F. (l 895), Annales regni Francorum (741-829), qııi dic1111ıur Annales
laurisseııses maiores et Einlıardi (MGH, Scriptores rerumr germanicaruııı),
Hannover.
Lanıberz E. (2003), "VermiJ3t und gefunden. Zwei Texte des Soplıronios von
Alexandria zur Bilderverelırung, die Akten des VII. Ökunıenisclıen Konzils
und eine Patriarclıenurkunde des 11. Jahrhunderts in einem griechischeıı
Codex aus dem Besitz des Nikolaus von Kues (Harleianus 5665)", Römisclıe
Historische Mitteilungen 45, 159-80.
(2008), Conciliwıı VniFersale Nicaeıuıın Secımdııııı. Conci/ii actioııes !-!il.
(Acta Conci/ioruııı Oecumeniconıın, series secımda, ııol11111e11 tertimn, pars
prima), Beriin aııd New York.
Lamoreaux J.C. (1999), Tlıe l(fe of Steplıen of Mar Sabas ( CSCO 578 = SA 50
editioıı; CSCO 579 = SA 51 translation), Louvain.
(2001), "Theodore Abü Qurrah and John the Deacon", GRBS 42, 361-86.
(2002), "The Biography ofTheodore Abü Qurrah Revisited", DOP 56, 25-
40.
--(2009), "Theodore Abü Qurra", in Thomas and Roggema (2009) 439-91.
--and Khairallah H. (2000), "The Arabic Version ofthe Life ofJohn ofEdessa",
Le lvlııseon 113, 439-60.
Laourdas B. and Westerink L.G. (1983-1988), Photiııs. Epistıılae et Amphilochia,
Leipzig, 6 vols.
Laurent J. (1919), L'Armenie entre Byzance et l 'Jslaın, Paris.
Laurent J. and Canard M. (1980), L 'Arıııenie entre Byzaııce et I'Jslaııı, Lisbone.
Laurent V. (1956), La vie ınerveilleııse de saint Pierre d'Atroa (f-837) (Sııbsidia
Hagiographica 29), Brussels.
-- ( 1958), La vita retractata et !es ıniracles posthııınes de saint Pierre d'Atroa
(Sııbsidia Hagiogrcıphica 31), Brussels.
Lee A.D. (1991), "The Role of Hostages in Roman Diplomacy with Sasanian
Persia", Historicı. Zeitsclıriftji'ir aite Geschiclıte 40.3, 366-74.
Lemerle P. (1963), "La Chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie. Le contexte
historique et legendaire", REB 21, 5-49.
--(1965), "Thomas le Slave", TM 1, 255-297, reprinted in Lemerle (1980) nr.
YIL
--( 1971 ), Le premier hııınanisme byzantin. Notes et reıııarqııes sur enseigııement
et cıılture iı Byzcıııce des origines aıı Xe siecle, Paris.
-- (1973), "L'histoire des pauliciens d'Asia Mineure d'apres !es sources
grecques", TM5, 1-144.
--(1980), Essais sur le ınonde byzcıntin, London.
Leppin H.(2011), J11sti11ia11, dcıs clıristliclıe Experiment, Stuttgart.
490 Tlıu E111pcmr Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ı/ıe Ecısı, 829-842

Lcsmüller-Werner A. and Thurn 1. (1978), Joseplı Genesii reguın !ibri quattuor,

Berlin 1978 (CFHB 4).
Levi-Provençal E. ( 1937), "Un echange crembassacles entre Corclue et Byzance au
!Xe siecle", Byzaııtioıı 12, 1-24.
Levtzion N. ( 1990), "Conversion to Islam in Syria and Palestine and the Survival
of Christian Communities", in Gervers and Bikhazi (1990) 289-311.
Levi clella Vida G. ( 1954), "La traduzione araba clelle storie di Orosio",Al-Anda/us
19, 257-93.
Lewis B. ( 1939), "An Arabic Account ofa Byzantine Palace Revolution", Byz 14,
383-86.
Light1oot C.S. (2007), "Tracle and Industıy in Byzantine Anatolia: The Evidence
from Amorion", DOP 61, 267-86.
-- (2011), "Coinage of the Amorion Dynasty Founcl at Amorion", TM 16
(Me/anges Cecile Morrissoıı), 503-11.
--, Karagiorgou O., Kocyiğit O., Yaman H., Linscheid P. ancl Foley J. (2007),
"The Amorium Project: Excavation and Research in 2003", DOP 61, 353-85.
-- and Lightfoot M. (2007), A Byzaııtiııe City iıı Anato/ia: Amoriuııı, an
Archaeo/ogica/ Guide, lstanbul.
Lilie R.-J. et al. ( ecls) ( 1998-2001 ), Prosopographie der ınittelbyzantinischen Zeit.
Erste Abteilııng (641-867), Berlin and New York, 6 vols.
--( 1999a), Die Patriarchen der ikonoklastischen Zeit. Gerınanos 1. - lvlethodios
1. /15-847), Berlin (Berliner Byzantinische Studien 5).
--(1999b), "Ioannes VII. Grammatikos", in Lilie (1999a) 169-82.
Ljubarskij J. (1992), "Man in Byzantine Historiography from John Malalas to
Michael Psellos", DOP 46, 177-86.
--(1998), "Quellenforschııng and/or Literary Criticism: Narrative Structures in
Byzantine Historical Writings", Syıııbolae Osloeııses 73, 4-73.
Loenertz R.J. (1951), "La !egende parisienne ele S. Denys I 'Areopagite. Sa genese
et son premier temoin", Analecta Bollandiana 68, 217-37.
Loparev Chr. (1893), Bioç wv b.yiov ıca.i ouca.iov Evooıcip ov, Saint Petersburg.
--( l 908), "Zhitie Sb. Ebdokima", Bulletin de l'JnstitııtArcheologiqııe Russe a
Constantinople [IRAIK] 13, 152-252.
Louth A. (2002), St. John Daınascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine
Theology, Oxford (reprint 2004).
Lowden J. (1992), "The Luxury Boole as Diplomatic Gift", in Shepard and Franklin
(1992) 249-60.
Ludwig C. (1998), "The Paulicians and Ninth-Century Byzantine Thought", in
Brı.ıbaker (1998) 23-55.
Lyons M.C. (1995), TheArabian Epic. Heıvic and Oral Story-telling, Cambridge,
3 vols (reprinted 2005).
Macler F. (1917), Histoire ımiverselle par EtienneAsolik de Taran, Paris.
Macrides R. (1987), "The Byzantine Godfather", BMGS 11, 139-62, reprinted in
Macrides (1999) nr. I.
-- ( 1999), Kinship and Jııstice in Byzantiuın, 11th-15th Centuries, Aldershot.
 Bihlingraplıy 491

Madelung W. ( 1981), "New Documents Concerning al-Ma'ınün, al-Façll b.

Sahi and 'AiT al-Riçla", in Wadiid al-Qaç!T (ed.), Stııdia Arabica er ls/amica.
Festsclır(jifor ![,san 'Abbas, Beiruth, 333-346, reprinted in Maclelung ( 1992)
nr. VI.
-- ( 1986), "Khuıı-aıniyya", in El, vol. 5, 63-5.
--( 1988), Re!igious trendı· in ear(v fs!amic !raıı, Albany.
--(1992), Religio11s aııd etlınic movements in Medieva! Js!aııı, Alclershot.
-- (2000), "Abü '1-'Amaytar the Sufyanf', Jemsa/em studies in Arabic and
Js!am 24, 327-42.
--(2004), "AI-SufyiinT", El, vol. 12, 754-6.
Magclalino P. ( 1998a), "The Roacl to Baglıdad in the Thouglıt-World of Ninth­
Century Byzantiuın", in Brubaker (1998) 195-213.
--(1998b), "Paphlagonians in Byzantine Higlı Society", in Lampakis S. (ed.)
( 1998), Byzantine Asicı Minor (6th-l 2th cent.), Atlıens.
--(2004), "L'eglise clu Plıare et !es reliques du Clırist", in Duran .J. ancl Flusin
B. (ecls), Byzanze et fes reliques du Christ, Paris, 15-30.
-- (2006), L 'ortlıodoxie des astrologues. La science entre le dogme et la
diviııarion cı Byzance (/11/e-XJ/le siec!es), Paris.
Maguire H. (2009), "Moslenıs, Christians, and lconoclasnı: Erasures from churclı
floor nıosaics cluring tlıe early lslamic periocl", in Hourihane C. (ecl.), Byzantine
cırt: recent studies. Essays in lıonor oflois Drewer, Princeton.
Makki M.A. ancl Corriente F.(2001), Jbn f:Jcıyyan. Cr6nica de fos eıııires.Allıakam
y Abdarrahman fi entre fos aFıos 796 y 847 (Almzıqtabis 11-1), Zaragoza.
Mala-is G. (1997), Jgnatios Diakonos ıınd die Vita des Hl. Gregorios Dekapolites
(Byzantinisc/ıes Archiv 17), Stuttgart ancl Leipzig.
Maksouclian K.H. (1973), Yovhanııes Drasxanakertc 1: History of Arıııenia.
English Trans/ation and Commeııtaıy, Columbia (Ph.D.).
Malamut E. (1988), Les iles de l'empire Byzantin, Vlle-Xlle siecles, 2 vols, Paris.
--(1993), Sur la roııte des saints byzantins, Paris.
Malone Ch. M. (2009), "Violence on Roman imperial coinage", Joıırnal of the
Nıııııisınatic Association ofAııstralia 20, 58-72.
Mango C. (1967), "When was Michael III born?", DOP 21, 253-8, reprinted in
Mango (1984) nr. XIV.
--(1969), "The date ofCod. Vat. reg. gr. 1 and tlıe Maceclonian Renaissance",
Acta ad archaeologiam et artiıım historiam pertinentia 4, 121-6.
-- (1973), "Eudocia Ingerina, the Normans, and the Macedonian Dinasty",
ZbornikRadova 13-14, 17-27, reprinted in Mango (1984) nr. XV.
--(1977), "The Liquiclation ofIconoclasm and tlıe Patriarch Photius", in Bryer
ancl Herrin (1977) 133-40.
--(1984), Byzantiııın aııd its Image, Lonclon.
--(1990), Nikephoros, Patriarch ofConstantinop/e. Short Histoıy (CFHB 13),
Washington.
--and Scott R. (1997), The Chroııic/e ofTheoplıanes Coı?f'essoı: By::aııtine and
Near Easterıı Histoıy AD 284-8 / 3, Oxforcl.
-192 Tlıe Emperor 71ıeop/ıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 819-841

Mansi J.D. (1758-1798 ), Sacronım Coııciliomın Nova Amplissiıncı Col/ectio,

Florence and Venice, 31 vols, reprinted in Graz 1960-1961.
Manzano Moreno E. (1998), "Byzantium and al-Andalus in the Ninth Century",
in Bnıbaker (1998) 215-27.
Manzano Moreno E. (2011), "The Iberian Peninsula and North Africa", in
Robinson (2011 a) 581-621.
Marcuzzo G.B. (1986), Le Dialogııe d'Abrahaın de Tiberiade avec 'Abd al­
Ra(ınıiiıı a/-Hiifonı a Jerusaleın vers 820. Etude, editioıı critique et traductioıı
aııııotee d'un texte theo/ogique chretieıı de la litteratııre cırabe (Textes et
Etudes sur /'Orieııt Chretieıı 3), Rome.
Marin M. (1999), "El Halc6n ıvfa/tes del arabismo espafiol: el volumen II/1 de AI­
Muqtabis de lbn 1:layyan", Al-Qantara 20, 543-9.
Markopoulos A. (1983), "Bioç ı:ııç auı:oıcpaı:eipaç 0eo86ıpaç (BHG 1731)",
J:6ppt:l!CW. 5, 249-85.
--(1998), "The Rehabilitation ofthe Emperor Theophilos", in Bnıbaker (1998)
37-49.
--(1999), Review of Munitiz, Chrysostomides, Harvalia-Crook aııd Dendrinos
(1997), in E)J.17ı•11clı. 49 (1999) J90-95.
--(2009), "Genesios: A Study", in Kotzabassi and Mavronıatis (2009) 137-50.
Marq uart J. (1903), Osteuropöische und ostasiatische Stre[fziige. Ethnologie und
historisch-topographische Stııdien zur Geschichte des 9. und 1 O. Jahrhııııderts
(c. 840-940), Leipzig, reimpr. Hildesheim 1961.
--(1930), Siidarmenien ıınd die Tigrisqııellen nach griechischen ıınd arabischeıı
Geographen, Vienna.
Martin E.J. (1930), A Histoıy of the lconoc/astic Controversy, Landon, reprinted
in NewYork 1978.
Martin-Hisard B.(1981), "La domination byzantine sur le littoral oriental du Pont
Euxin (milieu du V IIe-VII e siecles)", Byzantino-bıılgarica 7, 141-56.
--(1993), "Christianisme et Eglise dans le monde georgien", in Dagron, Riche
and Vauchez (1993) 549-603.
-- (2000), "Constantinople et !es archontes du monde Caucasien Dans le livre
des Ceremoines, fl,48", TM 13, 359-530.
Martindale R. (2001), Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire 1: (641-867),
Landon.
Maspero J. (1912), L'oıganisation militaire de l'Egypte byzantine, Paris.
McCoımick M. (1987), Eternal Victoıy, Cambridge.
--(200 l ), Origins ofthe Eııropean Economy. Commıınications and Coınmerce
A.D. 300-900, Cambridge.
-- (2005), "La lettre diplomatique byzantine du premier millenaire vue
de l'Occident et l'enigme du papyrus de Paris", in Balard M., Malamut E.
and Speiser J.-M. (eds), Byzance et le ınonde exteriew: Contacts, elations,
echanges. Actes de trois seances du X.Xe Congres Jnternational des Etudes
byzantines. Pcıris 19-25 cıoııt 2001, Paris, 135-49.
 Bih/iograp/ı_ı· 493

McGeer E., Nesbitt .1. and Oikonomides N. (2005), Catcı/ogzıe of Byzantiııe

Sea/s at Dıııııbar/011 Oaks and i11 tlıe Fogg Mııseum of Art, Völume 5: Tlıe
East (coııtiııııed), Constaııtinop/e cmd eııviroııs, ıınkııoı\111 locations, addenda,
1111certai11 readings, Washington.
Meineke A. ( 1836), Joaı111is Ci1111cııııi epitome rerum ab foa1111e et Alexio Comııenis
gestaruııı, Bonn.
Melioranskij M.B. ( 1901), "Nou0wia ı-ou yepovroç nc:pi r&v ayicov Eiıc6vcov", in
id., Georgij Kipıjaniıı i focııı Jerusa!im/jcıniıı, Saint Petersburg, v-xxxix.
Metivier S. (2008), "L'organisation ele la frontiere arabo-byzantine en Cappadoce
(VII1-1Xe siecle)", Puer Apıı!iae. Me!aııges offerts a Jean-Marie Martin,
Paris, vol. 2, 433-53.
Michanian M. ancl Prigent V. (2003), "Les strateges ele Sicilie. De la naissance clu
tlıeme mı regne de Le6n V ", REB 61, 87-141.
Minörksy V. (1970), /-fudüd al- '/1/am, 'The Regions of tlıe Wor!d'. A Persic111
Geography 372 A.H.-982 A.D. Trans!ated and exp/ained by /ı'. Miııorsky.
Second editioıı with tlıe prefcıce by V /ı'. Bartho/d trans!atedfi·om t/ıe Russicın
cınd with cıdditiona/ materia/ by tlıe /ate Pro.fessor Miııorsky, edited l�v C.E.
Bosworth, Canıbriclge (1st ecl. 1937).
Mitsani A. (2004-2006), "'H xopııria aric; Kuıcıı.aoc:c; a.no rov 60 �ıexpı rov 140
rıic,ıva", 'En:srı7piç 'Ew.ıpda.ç Bv(a.vrıvcuv En:ovc'5cuv 52, 391-446.
Moffatt A. ( 1977), "Schooling in tlıe iconoclast periocl", in Bryer ancl Herrin
( 1977) 85-92.
-- (ecl.) (1984), Maistoı: C!cısiccı! Byzcıntine cınd Rencıissance studiesfor Robert
Browning, Canberra.
Mogenet J. ( 1975), "Sur quelques scolies de l"Almageste "', in Bingen J., Cambier
G. ancl Nachtergael G. (ecls) (1975), Le ınonde grec. Honııııcıges iı Clcıire
Preaux, Brussels, 301-1 l.
Mommsen Th. (1898), "Continuatio Constantinopolitana a. DCCCXX et
DCCCXLII", MGH, Aııctores Antiquissimi 13, Berlin, 341-3.
Monferrer Sala J.P. (2008), "Sahaclat al-qiddıs Mar Antüniyüs. Replanteamiento
de la 'antigüeclacl' de !as versiones sinaiticas a la hız del analisis textual",
Misce!fınea de estııdios iırcıbes y hebraicos. Secci6n iırcıbe-lslaın 57, 237-67.
-- (2012a), "Between Hellenism and Arabicization. On the Formation of
an Ethnolinguistic Identity of the Melkite Coımnunities in the Heart of the
Muslim Rule", Al-Qantara 33, 455-73.
-- (2012b), "Un caso de,castraci6n _tras una embajada ante Mu'awiya y la
cuesti6n de la fi.tente documental de MalJbüb de Mabbüg", Studicı Historica
30, 157-73.
Montinaro, F. (2011), "The Parisian Saint-Denys Papyrus: Literally the 'Earliest
Crusader Docunıent'?", Proceedings of the 22nd lnternationcıl Congress
of Byzantine Stııdies. Sojia, 22-27 Augııst 2011, Yol. 3: Abstracts of_fi-ee
coıııın1111iccıtions, Sofia, 237-8.
494 Tlıe t:ıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd the Eası. 819-841

Moravcsik G. ( 1936). "Ta mıyypcıwtam Kwvcrmvrivou rou nopcpupoyı,vvı'ırnu

a.no y).cocrcrucıiç <'moıııı,coç", Atti del V Congresso !ııtemazioııale di Studi
Bizaıııini, Rome, 514-20.
--( 1958), Byzcı11ti11oturciccı, Berlin, 2nd ed., 2 vols ( l st ecl. Budapest 1942-
1943).
--(1961). ··sagen und Legenden Uber Kaiser Basileios I.", DOP 15, 61-126,
reprinted in Moravsik(1967) 147-220.
--( 1967), Studia Byzantincı, Budapest and Amsterdam.
-- and Jenkins R..l.H.(1967), Constcıntine Porplıyrogenitus. De administraııdo
iıııperio ( CFHB 1), Washington.
Moritz 1-1. ( 1896-1898), Zunaıııeıı bei den byzcıntiııischen Historikem 1111d
Chro11iste11. Programın des K. Hzımanistischeıı Gyınncısiuıns, Landshut, 2 vols.
Morony M.G.( 1990), "The Age ofConversions: A Reassessment", in Gervers and
Bikhazi( 1990) 135-50.
Mosshaınmer A.A.(2008), Tlıe Easter Compııtııs cınd tlıe Origiııs ofthe Christicııı
Erer, Oxford.
MUller A.E.(2009), Regesteıı des Kaiserurkııııden des oströıııischen Reic/ıes von
565-1453. bearbeitet 11011 Fraıız Dölgeı: 1. Tei/, 1. Ha!bbcıııd: Regesten 565-
867. Zweite Az!flcıge, ıınter lvlitarbeit von J. Preiser-Kapel/er uııd A. Rielıle,
München.
Mullett M. ( 1992), "The Madness of Genre", DOP 46, 233-43.
Munitiz J.E. (1994), review of Gauer ( 1994) in BZ 88, 162-5.
-- (1997a), "Wonderworking Ikons and the Letters to Theophilos", BF 21,
115-24.
--(19976), "The Manuscript Tradition", in Munitiz, Chrysostomides, Harvalia­
Crook and Ch. Dendrinos ( 1997) lxxix-xcv.
--, Chrysostomides J., Harvalia-Crook E. and Dendrinos Ch. (1997), The
Letter of the Three Patriarchs ta the Emperor Theophilııs and Related Texts,
Camberley (Surrey).
Muratori L.A.( 1728), Andrea Dandolo. Chronica (Scriptores rerum Italicarııın
12.1), Milan.
Muthesius A. (1997), Byzantine Silk Weaving, AD 400 ta AD 1200, Vienna.
Nasrallah J. (1986-1987), "Regard critique sur I. Dick, Th. Abfı Qurra, De
l'existence du Createur et de la vraie religion", Proche Orient Chrıitien 36,
46-62 and 37, 63-70.
--(1987): Histoire dıı ınoııvement littıiraire dans l 'eglise melchite dıı Ve aıı XXe
siecle. Contribııtion iı l'etııde de la littıiratııre arabe chrıitienne, vol. II, tome 2:
750-Xe siecle, Louvain and P aris.
Nazmi A. (1998), Commercial Relations between Arabs and Slavs (9th-llth
Centııries), Warsaw.
Nelson J.L. (1991), The Annals of St-Bertin, Manchester.
Nicolopoulos P. (2003), "L'el;ıhrıcrıç de l 'Iliade de Sophrone, patriarche
el' Alexandrie(840-860)", B_vzantion 73, 246-9.
 Bilı!iograplıy 495

Nix L. and Sclıınidt W. ( 1901), Heronis Alexandrini opera quae s11pers1111t oınnia.
Yol. 2: Mechanica et catoptrica I ıvleclıanik uııd Katoptrik, Leipzig.
Nogara A. (1978), "Sergio il Confessore e il cod. 67 della Biblioteca di Fozio
patriarca di Constantinopoli", Aevum 52, 261-266.
Noonan O. (2006), "Exploring Comımınity in the Hinterland ofa Black Sea Port",
in Guldager Bilde P. and Stolba V.F. (eds) (2006), Surveying the Greek Clıora:
The Black Sea Region in a Comparative Perspective (Black Sea Studies 4),
Aarhus, 47-58.
Noonan Th.S. (2000), "The lmpact oftlıe lslamic Trade upon Urbanization in tlıe
Rus' Lands: The Tenth and Early Eleventh Centüries", in Kazanski, Nercessian
aııd Zuckerman (2000) 379-93.
--(2007), "Some Observatioııs on the Economy ofthe Khazar Khaganate", in
Golden, Ben-Shammai and R6na-Tas (2007) 207-44.
Northedge A. (1990), "The Racecourses at Samarra", Bul/etin ol the Sc/ıool of
Oriental and Afi·ican Stııdies 53, 31-56.
-- (1993), "An lnterpretation of tlıe Palace of the Caliplı at Sarnarra (Dar AI­
Khalifa or Jawsaq AI-Klıaqaııi)", Ars Orientalis 23, 143-71.
Noth A. and Conrad L.I. ( 1994 ), Tlıe Earzv Arabic Historical Tradition. A Source­
Critical Stuc(v, Priııceton.
Ognibene S. (2002), Uıııııı AI-Rasas: la chiescı di Sanla Stefano ed il 'problema
iconofobico', Roıne.
Ohnsorge W. (1955), "Das Kaiserbündnis von 842-844 gegen die Sarazenen.
Datuın, lnhalt und politische Bedeutung des Kaiserbriefes aus St. Denis",
Archivfiir Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel ıınd Eappenkıınde, Darınstadt
1, 88-131, reprint in Ohnsorge (1958) 131-83.
-- (1958), Abendland ıınd Byzanz, Darmstadt.
Oikonomides N. (1972), Les listes de preseance byzantines des IXe et Xe siecles,
Paris.
-- (I 9865, A Collection of Dated Seals, Washington.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus A. ( 1907), L'vı1.ı1.oy17 IIola.ıarivııç ıcai L'vpzaıd7ç ayıo,1.oy iaç,
Saint Petersburg, vol. l .
-- (1967), "I:wıPoıı.a.i alç ,�v iowpia.v Tpa.nsÇoüvrnç", VV 12, 132-47.
Papadopoulou P. (2011), "The Emperor, the Palace and the Mint", in Second
Jnternational Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Syınposiıım: the Byzantine Court,
Soıırce of Power and Cııltııre. Proceedings (Istanbııl, 21-23 Jııne 2010),
Istanbul.
Pastorello E.' (1938), Andreae Danduli dııcis Venetiarıım Chronica per extensum
descripta a.a. 46-1280 d. C. (Scriptores rerıım Jtalicarıım 12), Bologna.
Patrich J. (ed.) (2001), The Sabaiıe Heritage in the Orthodox Clnırch froın the
Fifth Centıııy to the Present (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 98), Louvain.
Peeters P. (I 912), "S. Antoine le neo-martyr", AB 3 l , 410-50.
-- (1914), "L'autobiographie de S. Antoine le neo-maıiyr", AB 33, 52-63.
-- (1930), "La Passion de S. Michel le Sabaıte", AB 48, 65-98.
496 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos and tlıe Eası. 829-842

Perez Martin, !.: (2009), '"Al calor del texto antiguo: la lectura de textos
ınateınaticos en Bizancio", in Monteira Arias I. and Mufioz Martinez A.B.
(eds) (2009), Relegados al margeıı: ınargiııalidad y espacios marginales en la
cııltııra ıııedieval, Madrid, 55-68.
Pertz G.H. (1828a), "Anonymi Vita Hludowici imperatoris", MGH, Scriptores 2,
Leipzig, 607--48.
-- (1828b), "Notker Bal bulus. Gesta Karoli", MGH, Scriptores 2, Leipzig,
731-63.
-- (1839), "Chronicon Salernitanum a. 747-974", MGH, Scriptores 3,
Hannover, 467-561.
--( 1846), "lohannis diaconi chronicon Venetuın et Gradense usque ad a. l 008",
MGH, Scriptores 7, 1--41.
Petruld1iıı V.J. (2007), "Khazaria and Rus: An Examination of their Historical
Relations", in Golden, Ben-Shammai and R6na-Tas (2007) 245-68.
Pfister F. (1941), "Zum Prolog des Archipresbyters Leo und zu den alten Drucken
der Historia de Preliis", Rheiııisches Museum 90, 273-81.
Piccirillo M. (1996), "Iconofobia o iconoclastia nelle chiese di Giordania?", in
Bisaıızio e l 'Occidente: arle, aıdıeologia, storia. Stzıdi in oııore di Femaııda
de' Maffei, Roıne, 173-86.
Pien J. (1723), "Vita S. Stephani Sabaitae", AASS, Juliııs 111, 524-613.
Pirone B. (1987), Eııtichio patriarca di Alessandria (877-940). Gli Aıınali.
Introdıızione, tradıızione e note, Cairo.
--(1999), "Un altro manoscritto sulla vita e su! martirio del nebile quaryshita
Rawl;ı.", in Cagni L. (ed.), Biblica et Semitica, Naples, 479-509.
Pitra J.B. (1868), lııris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et ınomımenta. Yol. 2, A
VI ad IX saecıılıım, Roma.
Pomyalovskij J. (1892), Zitie ize va svjatych otca nasego Feodora archiepiskopa
Edesskogo, Saint Petersburg.
Pratsch Th. (1998), Theodoros Stııdites (759-826) zwischen Dogma ıınd Pragma,
Frankfurt a.M.
--(l999a), "Patriarch Nikephoros I." in Lilie (1999) 109--47.
-- (1999b), "Theodotos I. (Melissenos «Kassiteras») ( l . April 815-Januar
821)", in Lilie (1999) 148-55.
--(1999c), "Antonios I. («Kassymatas») (24. Marz 821-Januar 837, vor 21.
Januar 837)", in Lilie, Die Patriarchen, 156-68.
Preger T. (1901), Scriptores originıım Constantiııopolitanarıım, Leipzig.
Prigent V. (2006), "La carriere du tounnarque Euphemios, basileus des Romains",
in Jacob A., Martin J.-M. and Noye G. (eds) (2006), Histoire et cıılture dans
l'ltalie byzantine: Acqııis et noııvelles recherches ( Collection de l 'Ecole
française de Roıne 363), Rome, 279-317.
Pritsak O. (1978), "The Khazar Kingdom's Conversion to Judaism", Harvard
Ukrainian Studies 2, 261-81.
Pritsak O. ( 1979), "The Role ofthe Bosporus Kingdom and Late Hellenism as the
Basis for the Medieval Cultures of the TeITitories North of the Black Sea", in
 Biblingrap/ı_r 497

Asclıer A., Halasi-Kun T. and Kiraly B.K. (eds) (1979), Tlıe Mutua/ Effecıs
of the /s/aıııic and .Jııdeo-C/ıristian Worlds: Tlıe East Eııropean Pattern, New
York, 3-21.
Regel V.E. (1891 ), Analecta Byzantino-russica, Saint Petersburg.
Reiske J.J. (1829-1830), De ceriınoniis aulae byzantinae libri duo, 801111, reprint
oftlıe original edition Leipizig 1751-1756.
Rekaya M. (1974), "Mise au point sur Theophobe et l'alliance de Bfıbek avec
Theoplıile (833/34-839/40)", Byz 44, 43-67.
Ricci A. (1998), "The Road from Baghdad to Byzantium ancl the Case oftlıe Bryas
Palace in Istanbul", in Brubaker (1998) 131--49.
Riedinger R. (1990-1995), Conciliııın uııiversale Coııstantiııopolitamıın tertizım
(Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorııın, ser. II, vol. II), Berfin, 3 vals.
Robins R.I-1. (1993), The Byzaııtine Grammaricms. Tlıeır Place in Histoıy, Berlin
and NewYorlc
Robinson Ch.F. (2003), Islamic Historiography, Canıbridge.
-- (ed.) (2011a), Tlıe Neııı Caınbridge Histoı:l' o.f/slam. Vol. !: T/ıe Fonııation
ofthe Islamic /ıVorld: Sixtlı to Eleventh Centuries, Canıbridge.
-- (201 l b), "17ıe Rise of lslam 600-705", in Robinson (2011 a) 173-225.
Rochow 1. (1967), Studien w der Persoıı, den Werken zınd den Nach/eben der
Dic/ıterin Kassia (BBA 38), Beriin.
-- (1983), "Die Haresie der Athinganer im 8. uncl 9. Jh. und clie Frage ihres
Fortlebens", in Köpstein and Winkelınann (1983) 163-78.
-- (1994), Kaiser Konstantin V (741-775). Materialien zıı seinem Leben zınd
Nachleben, Frankfurt a.M.
Roggema B. (2009), The Legend ofSergiııs Ba[ıırcı. Eastern Christian Apologetics
and Apocalyptic in Response to Islaın, Leiden and Baston.
Romana R. (1974), Pseııdo-Lııciano, Tiınarione (Byzantina et neo-hellenica
neapolitana 2), Naples.
R6na-Tas A. (2007), "The Khazars and the Magyars", in Golden, Ben-Shaınmai
and R6na-Tas (2007) 269-78.
Ronconi F. (2007), I manoscritti greci miscellanei: ricerche su eseınplari dei
secoli IX-XII, Spoleto.
-- (2013), "The patriarch and the Assyrians: New evidence far the date of
Photios' library", Segno e testo 11, 387-95.
Rosser J.H. (1972), Theophilııs 'the Unlııcky' (829 to 842): A Stııdy of the tragic
and brilliant reign ofByzantiııın :S !ast iconoc/astic eınperor, New Brunswick
(New Jersey), PhD.
-- (1974), "Theophilus' Khurramite policiy and its finale", Byzantina 6, 265-
71.
Runciman St. (1947), The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christiaıı Dzıalist
Heresy, Cambridge.
Ryden L. (] 985), "The Bricle-shows at the Byzantine Court-History or Fiction?",
Eraııos 83, 175-9 I.
Sahas D. (1986 ), lcon c111d Logos: Soıırces in Eiglıth-ce11tz11:ı ı iconoclasm, Toronto.
498 Thc Eıııperor T/ıeoplıilos aııd t/ıe Eası, 829-842

Salah E. and Swanson M.N. (2009), "Ustath al-Rahib. The Monk Eustathius", in
Thomas and Roggema (2009) 907-1 O.
Samir S.Kh. (ed.) (1993), Actes du 4,· congres international d'etzıdes arabes
clıretiennes (Caıııbridge, Septembre 1992) = Parafe de f 'Orient 18.
-- (2005), Abii Qurrah. Vida, bibliografia y obı-as (Studia Semitica. Series
ı'vlinor 1), C6rdoba.
-- and Nielsen J. (1994), C/ıristian Arabic Apologetics during tlıe Abbasid
period (750-1258), Leiden, New York and Cologne.
-- and Nwyia P. (eds) (1981), Une correspondance islaıno-chretienne entre
Ibn al-ı'vfunaggim, /funayn Jbn lsbiiq et Qusfii Jbıı Lüqii (PO 40.4), Turnhout.
Sansterre J.-M. ( 1973), "Les representants des patriarcats au concile photien
d'aoüt-septembre 867", B 43, 195-228.
-- (1996), "Les infonnations parvenues en Occident sur l'avenement de
l'empereur Leon et le siege de Constantinople par les Bulgares en 813", Byz
66, 373-80.
Schilling,A.M. (2009), "Die Konstantinslegende in mozarabischer Überliefenıng",
Collectanea C/ıristiaııa Orieııta/ia 6, 339-73.
Schmidt W. (1899a), Heronis Alexandrini opera quae superswıt oııınia. Va!. I:
Pnezımatica et autonıata / Drııckwerke ıınd Aııtoıııatent/ıeater, Leipzig.
Schmidt W. ( 1899b), Heronis Alexandrini opera qııae sııpersıınt oınnia. Va/. I
Sııppleıııentııın: Druckwerke und Aııtomatentheateı: Sııppleınentlıefi: Die
Geschichte der Textiiberlieferung, Leipzig.
Schöne H. (1903), Heronis Alexandrini opera qııae sııpersıınt oınnia. Yol. 3:
Rationes dimetiendi et comnıentatio dioptrica / Vermessııngslehre und Dioptra,
Leipzig.
Scott Meisami J. and Starkey P. ( eds) ( 1998), Encyclopaedia of Arabic Literature,
London, 2 vols.
Seibt W. (1975), Review ofZacos and Veglery (1972), in BSI 36, 208-13.
Settipani Ch. (2006), Contimıite des elites iı Byzance dıırant fes siecles obscıırs.
Les princes Caııcasiens et l'empire dıı Vle aıı !Xe siecle, Paris .
Sevcenko I. (1977), "Hagiography ofthe Iconoclast Period", in Bryer and Herrin
(1977) 113-31, reprinted with minor changes in Sevcenko (1982) nr. V.
-- (1979-1980), "Constantinople Viewed from the Eastem Provinces in the
Middle Byzantine Period", in Harvard Ukrainian Stııdies 3-4, 712-47,
reprinted in Sevcenko (1982) nr. VI.
--(1982), Ideology, Letters and Cııltııre in the Byzantine World, London.
--(1992), "Re-Reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus", in Shepard and Franklin
(1992) 167-95.
--(2011), Chronograplıia quae Theoplıanis Contiınıati nonıine fertur fiber qııo
Vita Basilii iınperatoris amplectitıır (CFHB 42), Berlin.
Shepard J. (1995), "The Rhos guests ofLouis the Pious: W hence and W herefore?",
Early lvfedieval Eıırope 4, 41-60.
-- (1998), "The Khazars' Forma) Adoption of Judaisnı and Byzantiuın's
Northern Policy", Ox.ford Slavoııic Papers 31, 11-34.
 Bibliograplıy 499

--(ed.) (2008), Tlıe Caınbridge Histoıy of tlıe Byzantine Empire, c. 50()-1492,

Cambridge.
-- (2009), "'Mists and Portals': The Black Sea's North Coast", in Mundell
Mango M. (ed.) (2009), Byzaııtine Trcıde 4th-l 2tlı cenıııries. Tlıe Arclıaeology
of Loca!, Regiona! cmd lnternational Exclıaııge. Papers of tlıe Tlıirty-eighth
Spring Symposium of Byzaııtiııe Stııdies, St John s College, University of
Oxford, j\ıfarc/ı 2004, Oxford, 421-41.
-·- and Franklin S. (eds) (1992), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papersfrom tlıe Tweııty­
fourtlı Spriııg Symposium of Byzantiııe Studies, Caınbridge, March 1990,
Aldershot.
Sherry L.F. (] 986), "Life of St. Athanasia of Aegina", in Talbot (1986) 137-58.
Signes Codofier J. (1991), "Los orfgenes del emperador Le6n el Arrnenio (813-
820)", in A. Ramos Guerreira (ed.), Mnemosyıııım. C. CodoPıer a discipıılis
oblatuın. Salamanca, 309-20.
-- (1994), "Nuevas coıısideraciones sobre el emperaclor Le6n el Arrnenio",
Habis 25, 359-78.
-- (1995), El periodo del segııııdo icoııoclasıııo en Theoplıanes Contimıatııs,
Amsterclam.
--(1996), "La diplomacia del libro en Bizancio", Scritturcı e ciııiltcı 20, 9-43.
-- (2001), "Diplomatie und Propaganda im 9. Jahrhundert: die Gesandtschaft
des al-Ghazal nach Konstantinopel", in Sode and Takacs (2001) 379-92.
--(2002a), "Helenos y Romanos: la identidad bizantina y el Islam en el siglo
lX", Byz 72, 404-48.
--(2002b), Review of Lilie (1999a), JÖB 52, 390-94.
--(2004a), "Bizancio y al-Andalus en los siglos IX y X", in Badenas de la P efia
P. and Perez Martin I. (eds), Bizancio y Espaıia (Nııeva Roma 21), Madrid,
177-245.
--(2004b), Eseritura y literatııra en la Grecia arcaica, Madrid.
--(2005), "Bizancio y !as Baleares en los siglos VIII-IX", in Duran Tapia R.
(ed.), Bizancio y !as Ba!eares, Palma de Mallorca, 45-101.
-- (2006), "Lust am Erzahlen. · Heiligenviten als Grundlage der
Geschichtschreibung im 10. Jahrhundert und der Weg nach Bagdad", in
Odorico P., Agapitos P.A. and Hinterberger M.(eds), L'ecritııre de la meınoire.
La litteralite de l'historiographie. Actes dıı 1/Je Colloqzıe lnternational
ı .• philologiqııe, Nicosie, 6-7-8 mai 2004, P aris, 85-105.
--(2007a), "Bis wann waren die Balearen byzantinisch?" in Belice K., Külzer
A., Kislinger E. and Stassinopoulou M. (eds), Byzantina Mediterranea.
Festschrift für Johannes Kader zum 65. Geburtstag, Vienna, Cologne and
Weimar, 597-604.
--(2007b), "El esplendor de Bizancio y las traducciones del griego al !atin", in
Sanchez Ostiz A., Torres Gueıı-a J.B. and Martinez R. (eds)(2007), De Grecia
a Roma y de Roma a Grecia: un camino de ida y vuelta, Parnplona, 407-19.
500 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos emel ı/ıe Ecıst, 829-842

--(2007c), "Viajeros y embajadores a Constantinopla desde Carlomagno hasta

la Primera Cruzada", in Cortes Arrese M. (ed.), Caminos de Bi:zancio, Ciudad
Real, 175-213.
--(2011), "Eubeos y vikingos: l,piratas o cornerciantes?", Faı·entia 30, 125-41.
-- (2013a), "The Annenian Mamıel's supposed afterlife reconsidered", in
Gastgeben C. et al. (eds), Poıır / 'amow·de Byzaııce. Hommage a Paolo Odorico
(Eastem and Central European Studies 3), Frankfurt am Main, 231-42.
-- (2013b), "Die rnelkitischen Patriarchen, Konstantinopel und der Bilderkult
in der zweiten Halfte des 9. Jahrhunderts. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung
vom Brief 2 des Photios und dem sogenannten Brief der drei Patriarchen an
Theophilos", in Grünbart M., Rickelt L. and Vucetic M.M. (eds), Zwei Sonnen
anı Goldeııeıı Ham? Kaiserliche ımd patriarc/ıa/e Maclıt im byzantiııisclıeıı
Mittelalteı: Akten der iııternationaleıı Tagııng voııı 3. bis 5. November 201 O
(By:zaııtinistisclıe Texte und Stııdien 3) Münster, vol. 2, 97-134.
--(2013c), "Melkites ancl Icon worship during the iconoclastic period", DOP
67, 135-87.
-- (2014), "Theodore Studite and the Melkite patriarchs on icon worship", in
Magdalino P. and Rey A.L. ( eds), L 'aniconisıiıe dans / 'art religieııx byzaııtiıı,
Geneva, foıthcoming.
-- ancl Andres Santos F.J. (2007), La iııtroduccion al dereclıo (Eisagoge) del
patriarca Facia (Nzıeva Roma 28), Madrid.
Sivers P. von (1982), "Taxes and Trade in the 'Abbasid Thughür, 750-962/133-
251", Joıırnal of tlıe Ecoııoınic and Social Histoıy of tlıe Orieııt 25, 71-99.
Skeat T.C. (1984), "The Codex Vaticanus in the 15th Century", Joıırııal of
Tlıeological Stııdies 35, 454-65, reprinted in Cressy Skeat Th. and Elliott J.K.
(eds) (2004), T/ıe collected biblical writings ofT.C. Skeat, Leiden, 122-34.
Sode CI. (2001), Jerusaleın-Koııstaııtinopel-Rom. Die Viten des
Mic/ıael Synkellos und der Briider T heodoros ıınd T heophanes Graptoi
(Altertıımswissensc/ıaftliches Kolloqııizım 4), Stuttgart.
--(2005), "Der Brief der Kaiser Michael II und Theophilos an Kaiser Ludwig
den Frommen", in Hoffmann (2005) 141-58.
-- and Taka.es S. (eds) (2001), Novııın Jvfilleııiıın. Studies on Byzantine lıistory
and cıılture dedicated to Paul Speck, Aldershot.
Sonzogni D. (2003), "Le chartrier de l'abbaye de Saint-Denis en France au Haut
Moyen A.ge. Essai de reconstitution" (Pecia. Ressources en ınedievistiqııe 3),
Tumhout.
Sophoulis P. (2012), Byzaııtiıım and Bulgaria, 775-831, Leiden and Bostan.
Sourdel D. ( l 959), Le vizirat 'abbiiside de 749 iı 936 (] 32 a 324 de l 'Hegire),
Damascus, 2 vols.
Speck P. (1967), "Graikia unc!Armenia: die Tatigskeitfeld eines nicht identifizierten
Strategos im frühen 9. Jahrhundert",JÖB 16, 71-90.
--(1974a), Die kaiserliche Uııiversitiit voıı Koııstaııtiııopel. Prazisierııııgeıı zzır
Fr cıge des höhereıı Sc/ıu/ı,veseııs in Byzaıız iııı 9. ııııd 1 O. Jahrlıundert, Munich.
-- ( l 974b), Review of Lemerle ( l 971 ), in BZ 67, 385-93.
 Bihliograplıy 501

( 1978), Kaiser Koııstaııtiıı VI. Die Legitiıııatioıı eiııer ji-eıııdeıı uııd der
Versuclı einer eigeneıı Herrsclıa.fi. Que/leııkritisclıe Daı:,tellımg l'0/7 25 Jalıren
byzaııtiııischer Gesclılc/ıte ııach deııı ersten [koııoklasıııus, 2 vols, Munich.
-- ( 1981 ), Artabasdos, der rec/1tglö11blge Vorköıııpfer der göttliclıen Lelıre.
Uııtersuclıımgeıı zur Revolte des Artabasdos 1111d i/ırer Darstellııııg iıı der
byzaııtinisclıeıı Hisoriograplıle (llolld),a. Bv(a.vrıvlı. 2), B01111.
-- (1984a), "Die Beitrage stehen zur weiteren klarenden Diskussion",
Reclıtslıistorisclıes Jourııal 3, 24-35.
--(1984b), "[konoklasmus und die Anfünge der Makedonischen Renaissance",
Varla 1 (lloud)..a. Bv(a.vrıvlı. 4), Bonn, 175-21 O.
--(1987), "Weitere Überlegungen und Untersuchungen über die Ursprü11ge der
byzantinische11 Renaissance", Varla 2 (lloucf)..a. Bv(lı.vrıva. 6), B01111, 253-83.
--(1988), Das getei/te Dossier (lloucf)..a. /Jv(a.vrıvlı. 9), Bonn.
--(1990), leh biıı :S ııicht, Kaiser Konstaııtin isi es geweseıı (lloucf)..a. /Jv(a.vrıvlı.
10), B01111.
--(1997), "Die vermei11tliche Haresie der Athinganoi", JÖB 47, 37-50.
--(1998), "Byzantiurn: cultural suicide?", in Brubaker (1998) 73-84.
-- (2002), Kaiser Leoıı ![!., die Geschiclıtswerke des Nikephoros und des
Theop/ıaııes uııd der Liber Pont{ficalis: eiııe quelleııkritische Uııtersuchııng
(llo11cf:la. /Jv(a.vrıvlı. 19), 801111.
StaIT J. (1936), "An Eastern Christian Sect: The Athi11ganoi", Harvard Tlıeological
Review 29, 93-106.
Stein E. (1919), Stııdieıı zıır Geschichte des byzaiıtiıılschen Reiches vornehmlich
ııııter den Kaisern Jııstinus II. ıınd Tiberiııs Konstantinııs, Stuttgart.
Stern S.M. (1950), "An Embassy ofthe Byzantine Emperor to the Fatimid Caliph
al-Mu'izz", B 20, 239-58.
Strohmaier G. (1980), "Homer in Bagdad", BS! 41, 196-200.
Stronk J.P. (20 l O), Ctesias' Persian Histoıy: Part 1: Introdııction, Text, and
Translation, Düsseldorf.
Stubbs W. (1864), Itinerariııın Peregrinorıım et Gesta Regis Ricardi, London.
Sullivan D.F. (1986), "Life ofSt. Ioannikios", in Talbot (1986) 244-351.
Suny R.G. (1994), The Making of the Georgian Nation, Bloomington and
Indianapolis (1st ed. 1988).
Swanson M.N. (1994), "The Cross of Christ in the Early Arabic Melkite
Apologies", in Samir and Nielsen (1994) 115-45.
Talbert R.J.A. (2000), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton,
3 vols.
Talbi M. (1966), L 'eıııirat Aghlabide (184-296/800-900). Histoire politique,
Paris.
Talbot A.-M. (ed.) (1996), Holy Women of Byzantium. Ten Saints 'Lives in English
Translation, Washington.
--(ed.) (1998), Byzantine Defenders of Images. Eight Saints 'Lives in English
Translation (Byzantine Saints :S Lives in Translation 2), Washington.
502 Tlıe Eıııperrır Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ılıe Ecıst, 829-842

Ter-Gherwondyan A. (1976), The Arab Eıııirates in Bagraıid Arınenia, Lisbon

(trans. ofN. Garsofan of the I st ed. in Erevan 1965).
Thiel, M. van ( 1974), Lebeıı uııd Tateıı Alexanders von Makedoııieıı. Der
griec/ıische Ale.rnııderroınaıı der Haııdsc/ır(ft L, Damıstadt.
Thierry N. (1980), "Le culte de la croix dans l'empire Byzantin du Vle siec!e
au Xe siecle dans ses rapports avec la guerre contre l'infidele. Nouveaux
temoignages archeologiques", Rivista di Stııdi Bizantini e S!avi 1, 205-28.
-- (1982), "L'icoııoclasme en Cappadoce d'apres !es sources archeologiques.
Origines et modalites", in Hadennanıı-Misguich L. aııd Raepsaet G. (eds)
( 1982), Rayoııııemeııt Grec. Honıınages a Char!es De!voye, Bıussels, 389-403.
--(1998a), "La Cappadoce de I 'Aııtiquite au Moyen A.ge", Me!anges de! 'Ecole
F rançaise de Roıne I O, 867-97.
-- (1998b), "Topographie ponctuelle de l'iconomachie en Asie Mineure", in
Euı;ıvxio.. Melaııges o.fj'erts iı Helene Ahrweiler, Paris, 651-71.
--(2002), La Cappadoce de! 'cıntiquite azı moyeıı ôge, Tumhout.
-- (2009), "Portraits funeraires inedits de deux officiers byzantins morts au
combat sur !es frontieres de la Cappadoce. Etude prelimiııaire", Lldriov nJç
rı.pxa.ıoAOJ11/cl/Ç imfpE:1(1.Ç 30, 169-76.
Thomas D. (2003), Christians at ıhe Heart of lslaıııic Rule: Church L[j'e aııd
Scho!arship in 'Abbasid !raq, Bostoıı and Leiden.
--(2009), "Al- Jal:ıi'.?'', in Thomas and Roggema (2009) 706-12.
--and Roggema B. (eds) (2009), Christian-Mııslim Relations.A Bibliographica!
Histoıy. Volıııne 1 (600-900) (Histoıy of Christian-Mııslim Relations 9),
Leiden and Boston.
Thomson R.W. (ed.) (1966), Rewriting Cazıcas ian Histoıy: The MedievalArmenian
Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles. The Original Georgian Texts and the
Armenian Adaptation. Ti·aııslated ı,vith lntrodııction and Commentary, Oxford.
--(1989), "The historical compilation of Vardan Arewelc'i", DOP 43, 125-226.
T hümmel H.G. (1991), Bilderlehre ıınd Bilderstreit. Arbeiten zıır
Aııseinandersetzııng iiber die lkone ıınd ihre Begriindung vornehmlich iın 8.
ıınd 9. Jahrhıındert, Würzburg.
-- (1992), Die Friihgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre: Texte ıınd
Untersııclnıngen zur Zeit var dem Bilderstreit, Berlin.
-- (2005), Die Konzilieıı zur Bildeı:fi-age im 8. zınd 9. Jahrhıındert. Das 7.
ökııınenische Konzil in Nikaia 787, Paderbom.
Thun0 E. (2002), Jmage and Relic. Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome,
Rome.
Thum I. (1973), loannis Scy!itzae sy nopsis historiarzım (CFHB 5), Berlin.
--(2000), Joannis Malalae chronographia (CFHB 35), Beriin andNew York.
Tomberg C.J. (1851-1876), lbn-el-Athiri chronicon quod perfectissiınııın
inscribitıır, Leiden, 12 vols.
Toorawa Sh.M. (2005), Jbn Ahı TöhirTayfar and Arcıbic wı-iterly cııltııre, a ninth­
cenfıııl bookman in Baghdcıd, New Yorlc
ToumanoffC. ( 1956a), "Caucasian and Byzantine Studies", Traditio 12, 409-25.
 Bi/ı/iograplı_ı· 503

-- ( 1956b), ·'Chronology of the K.ings of Abasgia and Other Probleıııs·', Le

Mııseon 69, 73-90.
--(1963), Studies in Clıristiaıı Caııcasian Histoı:ı-. Georgetown.
--(1971), "Caucasia and Byzantium", Traditio 27. 111-58.
Treadgold W. (1975), "The Problem ofthe Marriage ofthe EmperorTheophilus'',
GRES 16, 321-45.
--(1979a), "The Bride-Shows ofthe Byzantine Emperors", B 49, 395-413.
-- (1979b), "The Chronological Accuracy of the Chronicle of Symeon the
Logothete for the Years 813-845", DOP 33, 159-97.
--(1985), "The Bulgars' Treaty with the Byantines in 816", RMsta di Studi
Bizcmtini e Slavi 4, 213-20.
--(1988), Tlıe Byzaııtiııe reviııal 780-842, Stanford.
--(1988-1989), "Three Byzantine Provinces and the First Byzantine Coııtacts
with the Rus'", Haıwırd Ukraiııiaıı Studies 12-13, 132-44.
--(1997), A Histoıy of t/ıe Byzaııtiııe Stcıte aııd Society, Staııforcl.
--(2002), ''Photius Before His Patriarchate", Joumal (Jj'Ecclesiastical Histoı:F
53, 1-17.
--(2004), "The Historicity oflnıperial Bricle-Shows",JÖB 54, 39-52.
Tritle L.A. (1977), "Tatzates' flight aııcl the Byzaııtine-Arab peace treaty of782",
B 47, 279-300.
Tsougarakis D. (1988), Byzantiııe Crete from tlıe 5th ceııtury to tlıe Veııetiaıı
coııquest, Athens.
Turner D. (1990), "Tlıe Origins and Accession of Leo V (813-820)", JÖB 40,
171-203.
Vachkova V. (2008), "Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria as parts of the Byzantine
oikoumene", in Curta (2008) 340-62.
Vailhe S. (1901), "Saint Michel le Syncelle et les deux freres Grapti, SaintTheoclore
· et Saint Theophane", Revue de l'Orient Chretieıı 6, 313-32 and 610-42.
Vallve Bennejo J. (1999), Ben Haiiın de C6rdoba (ııı. 469 h./1076 J.C.). Miqtabis
il. Ana/es de los Eıııires de C6rdoba Alhaqııeııı I (180-206 h./796-822 J.C.) y
Abderraıniın il (206-232 /ı./822-847 J.C.). Edici611facsf111il de ıın manııscrito
iırabe de la Real Academia de la Historia (legcıdo Eınilio Gcırcia G6mez),
Madrid.
-- and Ruiz Girela F. (2003), La priınera decadcı del reinado de cıl-Hakcım
I segıın el lvluqtcıbis 11,1 de Ben Hayyan de C6rdoba (m. 469 lı./1076 J.C.),
Madrid.
Vallejo Girves M. (2004), "Constantinopla como residencia forzada", in Cortes
Arrese M. (ed.), Elogio de Constantinopla, Cuenca, 29-49.
Van den Gheyn I. (1894), "Vita Ioannicii", in AASS Noveınbris 2.1, Brussels,
384-435.
-- (1897), "S. Macarii monasterii Pelecetes hegumeni Acta Graeca", AB 16,
142-63.
--(1899), " Acta Graeca SS. Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii Mytilenae in insula
Lesbo", AB 18, 209-59.
50-1 Tlıe E111ııcrrır Tlıeuplıi/os emel ılıe Eası. 819-841

Varona Codeso P. (2009a), "Problemas textuales de la historiografıa griega del

periodo bizantino medio", in Sanz Morales l'vl. and Libn\ıı Moreno M. (eds)
(2009), Verae Lecıioııes. Estudios de critica textııal )' ediciôıı de texıos griegos,
Caceres and Huelva, 321-53.
-- (2009b), Miguel lif (842-867). Coııstruccioıı histôrica y literaria de un
reiııado (Nııeva Roma 33), Madrid.
Vaissiere E. de la (2000), ·'Les ınarchands d'Asie Centrale dans l'empire Khazar",
in Kazanski, Nercessian and Zuckerman (2000) 367-78.
Vasil'evskij V. (1893), Russko-vi:antijskie issledovcmija 2, Saint Petersburg, 1-73.
-- and Nikitin P. (1905), Skazanija o 42 Amorijskiclı muceııikac/ı i cerkovnajcı
s/ıcba iııı i:dcıli (Meıııoires de /'Acadeıııie J111periale des Sciences de Sı.­
Peıersbowg. Classe lıistorico-philologiqııe 7.2), Saint Petersburg.
Vasilaki A. (1962-1963 ), "EiKovoµaxıKeç EKıcıı.ııcriEç anı Na�o", Lldriov rı7ç
Xp ıurıvo.ucı7ç ilpxwo).oyucı7ç 'Ew.ıpdo.ç 3, 49-74.
Vasiliev A.A. (1893), Anecdota Greaco-Byzantincı. Pars Prior, Moscow.
-- (1935), Byzcıııce el fes Arabes. Vol. 1, eds Gregoire H. and Canard M.: La
c(ı•ııaslie d'Aınorium (820-867), Brussels.
--( 1942-1944), 'The Life ofSaint Theodore ofEdessa", Byz. 16, 165-225.
-- (1950), Byzaııce el /es Arabes. Vol. 2, eds Gregoire H. and Canard M.: La
c(l'!ıastie Macedoııienne (867-959), Brussels.
-- (1956), '"The lconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid 11, A.D. 721", DOP
9-10, 25-47.
Vernadsky G. (1949), "The Problem oftlıe Early Russian Caınpaigns in the Black
Sea Area", The Aınerican Slavic and East Eııropean Review 8, 1-9.
Vest B.A. (2007), Gesc/ıichte der Stadt Melitene ıınd der zınliegenden Gebiete.
Vom Vorabend der arabischen bis zum AbschlıifJ der tiirkischen Eroberııng (um
600-1124), Hamburg, 3 vals.
Vila D. (2009), "The Martyrdoın ofAnthony (Rawb al-QurashhT)", in Thornas and
Roggerna (2009) 498-501 ..
Vinson M. (1999), "The Life ofTheodora and the rhetoric ofthe Byzantine bride
show", JÖB 49, 31-60.
Vlyssidou V.N. (2001), "L'ernpereur Theophile 'cherissant !es nations' et ses
relations avec la classe superieure byzantine", in Bryonis and Chrysos (2001)
443-53.
Volk R. (2003), "Das Fortwirken der Legende von Barlaam und loasaph in der
byzantinischen Hagiographie, insbesondere in den Werken des Syrneon
Metaphrastes", JÖB 53, 127�69.
Wahlgren St. (ed.) (2006), Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae chronicon (CFHB
44.1), Berlin.
Waitz G. (1883), Aıına/es Bertiniani (MGH, Scriptores rerum Gerıııanicarııın),
Hannover.
-- (1932), Tlıe chronography of Gregoıy Abu'/ Faraj (] 225-1286), the Son
of' Acıron, the Hebreıv Physicicın Common�v knwon as Bar Hebraeus, 2 vals,
Landon, reprinted in Amsterdam 1976.
 Bihliııgr,ıplı_ı· 505

Walker A. (2012), Tlıe E111peror aııd ılıe /Viırlch Exoıic Eleıııeıııs aııcl tlıe fmagiııg
of B_r:::aııtiııe lıııperia/ Poıreı: Niııtlı w Tlıirteeııtlı Cenrııries C.E.. Canıbridge
and New Yorlc
Walter Ch. (1997), "lcon ographical consiclcrations", in Munitiz, Clırysostonıicles,
Harvalia-Crook and Denclrinos (1997) li-Ixxviii.
Weltecke, D. ( I 997), "Thc Worlcl Chronicle by Patriarch Miclıael the Great (I 126-
1199), Some reflections", Jourııa/ ofAs5yriaıı Acadeınic Stııdies 11, 6-29.
Wernıinghoff A. (1908), "Michaelis et Theophili inıperatorum epistola", MGH,
Leges lff, Coııcilia ll.2, Hannover ancl Leipzig, 475-80.
Westerink L.G. (1968-1972), Aretlıae arclıiepiscopi Caesariensis scripta minora,
Leipzig, 2 vols.
Whitting C.E..I. (1977), Al Faklıri. Oıı tlıe .ı:vstems ofgovernment aııd tize Mos/em
c�vııaslies, coıııposed by Mıılıanımad son of 'Ali son ofTabatcıbcı, kııowıı cıs t/ıe
rapid tafkeı; may God lıave nıercy 011 him, Karaclıi.
Whittow M. (1996), The Making ofOrılıodox Byzcıntium, 600-1025, Basingstoke
(Hampshire).
Williaınson G.A. aııd Sarris P. (2007), Procopiııs. The Secret History, Loncloıı.
Wilson N. ( 1992), "A Greek Palaeograplıer looks at the Florentine Panclects",
Sııbseciva Groniııgicıııa 5, 1-6.
-- (2008), "Greek Palaeography", in Jeffreys, Halcloıı and Cornıack (2008)
101-14.
Winkelmann F. (1987), Que/lenstudien zur herrschenden Klasse von Byzanz im 8.
uııd 9. Jahrlnmderı, Berlin.
-- and Brancles W. (eds) (1990), Quel/en zur Geschichte des .fi"iihen Byzcınz
(4.-9. Jalırhunderı). Bestand ıınd Probleme, Amsterdam.
Wortley J. (1982), "Iconoclasrn and Leipsanoclasm: Leo III, Constantine V and
the Relics", BF 8, 253-79.
Yarshater E. (1983), "Mazdakism", in Yarshater E. (ecl.), T he Ccıınbridge HistoıJ'
ofJran, vol. 3(2), Cambriclge, 991-1024.
Yücesoy H. (2009), Messianic Belieft and Imperial Politics in Medieval Is/anı.
T he 'Abbiisid Caliphate in Early Ninth Century, Columbia (South Carolina).
Zacharia von Lingenthal K.E. (1852), Collectio librorııın iııris Graeco-Romanis
ineditoruın. Ecloga Leonis et Constantini, Epanagoge Basilii, Leonis et
Alexaııdri, Leipzig.
Zacos G. and Veglery A. (1972-1985), Byzantiııe Lead Seals, 2 vols, Basel.
Zerouki B. (1987), L'iınaınat de Tahart. Preınier etat ıınısıılnıan du lvlaghreb
- (144-296 de !'hegire), Paris.
Zias N. (1989), "Panagia protothrone at Chalki", in Chatzidakis, Drandakis, Zias,
Acheimastou-Potamianou ancl Vasilaki-Karakatsani (1989) 30-49.
Zielke B. (1999), "Methodios I. Yor dem 11. (vielleicht 4.) Marz 843-14. Juni
847", in Lilie ( 1999a) 183-260.
Zivkovic T. (2007), "Uspeııskij's Taktikon ancl tlıe thenıe ofDalmatia", .Evppe11cra
17, 49-85.
506 T/ıe E111ııl!rrır Tlımplıilos and ılıe Ecısı. 829--842

Zuckerman, C. ( 1995), ··on the Date of the Khazars' Conversion to Judaism

and the Chronology of the Kings of the Rus Oleg and lgor. A Study of the
Anonymous Khazar Letter froın tlıe Genizah ofCairo", REB 53, 237-70.
-- (1997a), ""Two Notes on tlıe Early History ofthe thema Cherson", BMGS
21, 210-22.
-- (1997b), ""Les Hongrois au pays de Lebedia. Une nouvelle puissance aux
confins ele Byzance et de la Klıazarie ca. 836-889", in Oikonomides N. (ed.)
(1997), Ta sımoh:,ııo Bui;o.vno (9oı:;-12o.:; w.), Atheııs, 51-74.
--(2000), "Deux etapes dans la fornıation de l'ancien etat russe", in Kazanski,
Nercessian ancl Zuckerınan (2000) 95-121.
 Index of Nan1es and Places

Titles oftlıe sources and autlıor naıııes (for a lisl see pp. 469-71) arc excluded fronı tlıis
iııdex, ıvitlı tlıe exceplion ofcontenıporaries wlıo arc witnesscs to tlıe events tlıcy record.
Comnıon geograplıical names suclı as Africa. Asia, Syria, Constantinople, Baglıdad or
Romans, Arnbs, Persiaııs ete. are not included. Gcograplıical accidents arc nolcd. Rulers
are idcnlified,bul f'uıilıer details about tlıe person an: given only in casc of lıoıııonyıııs.

Abasgia/Abasgians 41,46,48, 51, 97, 111, Adriatic (sen) 321. 322, 324, 327
169,249-55,340,343,363,465, Adyglıs 47
466 Aegeaıı (island) 58, 71
• Abbas (Ma'mün's son)97,99,148, 214, Acgean(sea)21,206, 207
216,218,222,224,225,234, Aegiııa 207
239-43,285,309,313-16,329, Aelios (euııuclı) 126
330,410,415,417,449,464-6 Aetios (stralegos or tlıe Aııalolikoi) 127,
'Abbüs ibn 'Abd al-Mun;.ılib 282 286,294,296,297.301,303, 309
· Abdallalı ibn Tahir 213 ArslıTn 112,127,139,142, 174,259,261,
'Abd al-Malik (caliplı)417 267,287,289-91,293,300,308,
'Abd al-Rabmaıı (emir ol'Cordoba) 316- 311,330,331,343
23,32l 355,356,413,414,466 Aglıberd 247,271,273,274
'Abd al-Ra!Jmaıı al-HaslıimT 419 Aglılabids 52,210,211,213, 321-3,326,
'Abd al-Rabman ibn AIJmad 211 328
'Abd al-Walıhab 282 AIJrab (Keçi kalesi) 217,240
'Abdüs al-FilırT 237 Akanıpsis (river) 249, 252
Ablabas,Simbat 253,256 Akropolites,Constaııtiııe 23
Abralıam ofTiberias 419 Aksigoms 255
Abü al-'Amay\ar tlıe SufyanT 21O,414 Alaııia/Alan 46,48,49,169, 345,416
Abü l;Iafş 206,207,319 Al-Aqta', cf. 'Anır/'Umar ibn 'Abdallah
Abü lslJaq, cf. Mu'taşim ibn Marwaıı al-Aqta'
Abü Ja'far (caliplı) 319 Albaneka 15
Abü Ja'far Aslınas 287-9,291,293,308, Albaııia 249,345
309,312 Aleppo 197
Abü Muslim 139,211 Alexander tlıe Great 432
Abü Sa'Td !48,149,329-32,'466 Alexaııdria/Alexaııdrian 200-202,207,
Abü Talib (Mul)ammad's uncle)282 210,238,367,371,376,380,
Abuzaclıar 174,223 401-4,407,464,465
Aclıilles 98, 429 Alexios I Konınenos 328
Adana 217-19, 224,229,235, 237-9,465 'AiT al-JarawT 201, 21O, 211
Adata (pass ofl:ladatlı) 89,216,221,279, 'AiT /'Alids 209, 211, 282, 409,412,427
287-9,331,332,464 'AiT ibıı Hislıam 238
Adranrnleclı 85-6 'AiT ibıı Müsa ibn f. a'far al-Riçla 209, 21 O,
Adriaııopolis 13, 51, 56 409-12
508 Tlıc E111peror Tlıeoplıi/os aııd t/ıe Eası. 8]9--84]

Alkınan 429 Armeııiakoi (thema) 34,35,40, 41, 44,46,

Aınalekites 83-7,90 53. 64, 87,89, 90. 100, 116,202,
Amalfi 433 219,233,248,289,463
Amaseia 248 Arsaber (Theodora's brother-in-law) 78,165
Aıııaslris l 14,166,173, 178,179,288, Arsaber (John the Graııımarian ·s brother)
345,352 76-8,80
Aıııatuııi 142 Arsaber (general) 15,63,463
Amida 275 Arsamosata 92,224,245,247,249,259,
AmTıı (ealiph) ısı, 209,213,412 261,263-5,267, 269-76,280,289,
Amorites 85 465
'Anır al-Fai-ghaııT 288,293 Arsanias (river) 272,273,275
'Aııır/'Uıııar ibn 'Abclalliilı ibn Marwiin al- Arshakuni/Arsakiclos,Valen tine 104
Aqtii' 50,259,261,262, 286 Artabaııos (Persian king) 189
Aııastasia (Theophilos' daughter) 118 Asaglıin 247,271,272
Aııastasios (Thonıas the Slav's son) 56,122 Aslıinas 215
Aııatolikoi (thema) 18,34,38,40,61, 65, Aslınas,cf. Abü Ja'far
78,87,89,119,127,205,285,302, Ashot I Msaker 142,245,253,256
309,463 Ashol (Shapuh Bagratuni's son) 247,248,
Aııazarba 217-19, 222,238,465 251,256,258
Ancoııa 324 Assyria/Assyrian 39,46,84:__6,196,271
Aııclalus/Andalusian 200-208,212,238, Astaunitis 276
316-21,415,432,464 Astel 346
Anclzevatsi 98 Athaııasios ofTrebizoncl 254
Ankgh 272,273 Athiııganoi 28,29,39, 49,186,197,296
Ankyra 26,181,216,283,285,287-9, Athos (mount) 369
291-3,304,308-10,328,397,466 Attaleia 205,206,457,458
Anna (Theophilos' claughter) 118 Aytakh 267
Anthemios (builcling) 115 Azerbaijan 49,121,139-42,146,147,162,
Antighü 217,225,230,239,240 163,170,171,211-13,238,249,
Antioch 25-7,330,331,367,371,376, 250,267,279,330
379,380,406,417,465,466 Azov (sea) 352,363
Antitaurus (range) 89,216,217,464
Antonios the Younger 205,206,457,458 Babak 139,140,142,145-8,150,151,
Anzes (battle of) 112,123, 124,132-5, 153,159,161,162,164,172,177,
163,173-8,223,261,262,286, 211-13,238,250,263,266-8,270,
288,290-93,297,301,304,310, 279,289,311,312,330
311,330,460,466 Baboutzikoi 79
Anzitene,cf. Handzit Baboutzikos,Constantine 77,111,112,
Aratahan 251 165,286,324
Araxes (river) 49 Baboutzikos,Theoclosios 112,325,326,
Arbela/Erbil/lrbil 271 353,466
Archimecles 434 Badhcllı 211
Arclzruni 84-6,249 Bagaran 249,253,256,277
Arethas of Patras 23,98 Bagarat Bagratuni ofTaron 251,252,256,
Argaia 232 258,259,277,289,465
Aristophanes 429 Bagraticls 80,97,142,245, 249-57,277,289
Aristotle 423,431, 443 Balabiteııe 276
Arkacliopolis 56. 464 Balecırics 21O,322,327
 lııdex rıf'Names aııcl Places 509

Balkans 20,48, 11 7, 130,160,189, 265, Cartlıagc 326

311,344, 363 Caspian (sca) 211, 345,357
Baltic(sea)349 Cmıcasus/Caucasian 41, 46-9. 58. 77,12 ı,
Banü Müsü 447, 448 137, 142, 159,160, 170-72, 251-3,
Saradan 227 255,335,464
Bardanes tlıe Turk 15,23,33,61,63-5, 74, Chalclia (tlıeına)21,4 l ,46,48,49. 246,
79,89,96,184-8 194-6,463 247,258,352
Bardas(kaisar,Tlıeodora's brother)75,111, Chalisioi 347
122, !25,250,251,259,434,442,465 Clıalkedoıı 104,198, 323
Bardas(Leo V's cousin)90 Charax 430
Bardas(Lco V's fatlıer)43, 63 Clıarles lhe Great 439,448
Basean 246,248-50,253,255,258,465 Charsianon 23,91,92,135, 217, 219-24,
BashTr(general)148,329,330,466 233,238,278,303,313,461
BashTr/Besher(renegade)190 Clıerson 75,114,338,340, 345-7,353,
Basil l(eınp.)50, 112,432 354,364
Basil il(emp.)39 Chiliokonıon(plain)175,177,288,291
Basil(patriarch of Jerusalenı)367,371, Choirosphaktes,Leo 440
376,377 Chorzane/Chorzaneııc 224
Basil(patrician) 303 Chosroes(Persiaıı king) 190
Basil(Theodore of Eclcssa's neplıew) 378; Clıolziröıı 346
416,418 Chouales/Khwalis 34 7
Basil(writer)373,405,406,418 Clıristoplıer(Constantine V's son)122
Basil al-RüınT 298 Christoplıer(patriarch of Alex.)367,371,
Bassoes 127,286 376,401,403
Berber 207,21 O Christopher(abba)398
Bithyııia 50,198, 292, 406 Chrysopolis (Macedonia)120
Blaclıemai(clıurch,palace)381,445,455 Chrysopolis (Üsküdar)115
Black Sea 114,253,340, 347,349,351, Chrysotriklinios (building)445
353,354,363 Cilicia/Cilician 26,89,149,152,179,180,
Boiditzes 127,294-7,434 197,215,216,218-26,229-33,
Boııetta 89 236-9,241-3,245,288,331,332
Boııifatius 326,327 465,466
Bosphoros (strait)285 Circassians 47
Bosporos (Crimea)346,363 Conıpiegne 326,327
Boukellarioi (thema)126,149,286,292,329 Coııstantine I (enıp.) 160,384
Briııdisi 321 Constaııtine III (emp.)104
Bryas (palace)444 Constantiııe IV (emp.)190
Bugha 111 Coııstantiııe V (ernp.)1,17,18, 49,61,86,
Bulgarians 13,14, 17,18,24,33,48, 55, 93,98,117,118,121,122,131,
78,_80, 120, 130,204; 265,350, 161,257,347,380,397,401,454
351,353,362,463 Coııstantine VI (emp.)25,29,41,73,80,
Bulgars 314,345, 349,362-4 103, 105,107,109,116,183,184,
Byrseus(rnoııastery)115 188,191,193,194,307,451,464
Byzes 56 Constantine VII (emp.)2,6,161,221,260,
275,337,343,356,432,433
Canaan 85 Constantine (unic!entified emp.)27
Cappadocia 21-3,99,2 l 5-18,224-43, Constantiııe/Symbatios(Leo V's son) 17,
450,464 71,103
510 Tlıe Eıııperor Tlıeoplıilos aııd ılıe Eası. 8]9-84]

Coııstaııtiııe (Tlıeoplıilos' son) 105.121. Egypt/Egyptians 41,46,81,196, 197,201,

166,375,464.465 207,210-14,234,237,238.241,
Coııstaııtiııt:!Cyril 356.358,438 267.284,287.312,325,404,42I
Coııstaııtine (general) 203.204 Eirene (enıpress) 41, 98, 99,116, 126,
Copt/Coptic 20I,210.213 183-5.188.191, 192, 194
Cordoba 201, 316-20, 328, 355,433,466 Eirene (Barclanes' clauglıter) 15
Corsica 326,327 Eirene (patricia) 64
Crescens 198 Eirene (Photios' motlıer) 78,165
Crete 52, 75, 197,200-208, 21 O, 212. Eirene (Tlıeoclorn's sisler) 78
320-22,464 Eirenoupolis 217-19,222,238, 465
Criıııea 114,335,345-7,352-4, 363. Elaias (nıonastery) 115
Cyclades 21 Elias il (patriarclı of.lerusalem) 397,398
Cyprus 20,21, 206 Emesa 197
Cynıs (Persiaıı kiııg) 156 Epiclıarnıos 429
Epiphanios 388
Dagistlıeus (buildiııg) 33 Erbil,c[ Arbela
Dalnıatia/Dalnıatian 20,324 Ethiopians 128-30
Danıascus 139,197,210.214,225,237, Euclid 423,431,434,435
238,265,400,401,414,440 Eudokia (Herakleios' wife) 104
Daıııiaııos 202,203, 206 Eudokia (Coııstantiııe V's wife) 18
Daııube (river) 7,13,51,52,338,340,344, Euclokia (Basil I's wife) 112
345,350.351,354,362,364 Euclokinıos 23
Darband 357 Euplıemios 119,203,204,213,214,321,
Darial (pass) 48 327,464
Degik' 273-6 Euphrates (river) 78,88,189,249,269,
Degis 272,273 272-4,313
Denıokritos 423 Euphrosyne (Constantine VI's claughter,
Derjan 274 Michael ll's wife) 29,61,73, 74,
Diabasis (plain) 55 93,101,103-10,174,464
Digeııis Akrites 95-7,261 Euphrosyne (Leo Skleros' daughter) 64
Dionysios ofTell Mabre 88,93,192,265, Eusebios of Kaisareia 384
328 Eutyches 380
Dionysios tlıe Areopagite 432 Eutychianos 19
Dioscorides 432,433 Eutychios (patriarch ofAlex.) 26,27
Distra 338 Euthynıios 29
Dnieper (river) 344,345,349,351-4,363,
466 Façll ibn Sahi 209,210
Dniester (river) 52,344,345,349,351 Fathyün 427
Donıitian (enıp.) 189 Fatima 282
Don (river) 344-7,351,352,354,360 Florence 433
Doros 345 Florina,Theoktiste 74,108,109
Dorylaion 283,288,293,300 Foıty Martyrs (clıurch) 113,434,437,454
Dvin 141,142,245,249,254,256 Forty Martyrs (lake) 299
Frank/Frankislı 112,324-8,349,350,353,
Ebissa 74 355,432
Eclessa 88,90,190,263,268,269,378, Fustat 201,2 ı O
379,415,416,419,429,430
Egrisi 252 Galen 423.43 1. 433
 lııdl!.r o(Naıııcs aııd P!ace.ı·

Gastria (monastcry) 108 llcraklcios I (eıııp. l -lS. 66, 74. 10-l, 35<ı
Gaurene 276 Heraklcios il (cıııp.) 1fl4
Gayl (river),er. Miuss Herakloııas, cf. Hcraklı::ios 11
Gazarenos 98 Heroıı of Akxaııdria -!46, 44 7
Gazouros (lake) 34, 35, 39 1-lexaboulios, Johıı 6 7
Geber,ef. JabTr ibn f:layyan 1-lczckiah 84
Gegham 247, 271,273,274 Hiercia 167,383,386,427
George (Miclıael ll's fatlıer) 94,267 �lijaz 211
Georgians/lberians 41,46,48, 97,111, 1-lilcluin 327, 432
251-4,259,289,465 Hippokratcs 423,•431
Germaııikeia 331, 332 Homer 429,430,443
Gernıaııos (patriarch of Const.) 407 Hormiscl�s lI (Pcrsiaıı kiııg) l 60
Geröıı 216 l;luııayıı ıbıı-lsl_ıaq 43 J, 433
Getai 46,51,52,130 Huııgariaııs (cf. Magyars) 48, 51,344,3
47,
'Getthai' 129,130 350,351
Ghazal 316-20,438,466 1-luns 46-8, 51. 52, ı 3 ı, 347, 351
Gııuııi 84,86
Gomaclzor 246, 255,258 lanıbres 79
Gollhia 346, 347 lannes 79, 96, '!7
Graptoi brotlıers 394 lberians,cf Georgiaııs
Gregory,ef. Pterotos lbn al-Daya 70
Gyberiıı 98 lbn Baylıas 21O
lbn Kullab 427
l)adatlı,cf. Adata lbralıTm (general) 174,223
Hagia Sophia (church) l 3,407 lbrahTm al-TabaranT,er. Abrnhaııı of'Tibcrias
Halys(river) 112,127, 175,288-91,308, lbrahTm ibn al-MalıclT (ealiph) 181,21O,
460 412,415
Hamadhan 145,209 lbrahTm ibn Müsa ibn Ja'far al-Şacliq 211
Handzit 273,274,276 ldrisids 210s,322
I:Iarran 418 lkonion 34, 299
Harüıı al-RashTd(ealiph) 88,99,127,142, limen(lake) 351,352
181,192,201,209,215,222,245, Indians 46, 196,197
281,307,359,410,411,413,415, Ingelheim 349,466
419,445,450 Iraq 143,209,211,239,241,315,409,418
Harün ibn Yabya 129 Irbil,cf. Arbela
I:IasanT 410,411 iris(river) 175,290,291
I:Iasclay ibn Shaprüt 356 Isaak Komnenos (eınp.) 261,262
Hashemite 281-3, 412 lsauria/Isauriaıı 17,18,21,49, 80, 103,
Hashim ibn 'Abd Manaf 412 109,193,347,359,427,451
Hashteank'. 273 lşfahan 139, 145,2 I 1
I:IaşTn 217, 240 lsbaq ibn lbrahTnı ibıı Muş'ab 145,146,259
Hebrew,cf. Judaism lsbaq ibıı Isma'Tl 251-3, 259,465
Hedeby 353 Italy 20,41,112,119,120,168,321,324,
Hellas 21,64 326,433
Hellenes 443,444 itil 345,358
Henry IV(French king) 15
Herakleia 56,217,222,225,226,231,240, Jabala 233
465 .labTr ibıı f:layyiiıı 427
512 Tlıe Emperor Tlıeoplıilos and ı/ıe Eası. 829-841

Jacobitc 28, 88,398, 442 Kamakha 249

Ja'far al-Khayyliı 215 Kaıııateros,Petronas 75. 114,321.335,
Ja'far ibıı Dinar 267 337-43,349,354, 358-60,362,
JalJIJiif 141 461,465
JalJi:;:: 423,424,432.437 Karaıııbis (cape) 353
Jazira 89,148,197,21 L 214,222,287, Karbeas 50
329,364,464 Karianos (building) 33
Jebusite 86 Karin,cf. Theodosiopolis
Jerusalenı 84, 97,367,370,371,373, Karteros/Qurtiyüs (ambassador in
376-84,397,401,406,407,416, Cordoba) 318-20,466
429,465 Kassia 74
Jibal 139, 145-7,229,234,238,239,330 Kassymatas,Antonios (patriarch ofConst.)
Job (palriarch ofAntioch) 25-7,367,371, 19,78,79,81, 110,382,383,397
376,396,397 Katakylas 53,89,90
John (saint) 429 Kavad (Persian king) 139
John I Tziıniskes (eınp.) 398,413 Kaysum 88,225,265
John the Grarnmarian (patriarch ofConst.) Kechror 254
8,17,19, 30,76-81,96-8,111, Keçikalesi,cf. Abrab
113,114,255,340,341,381,382, Kephalonia (island) 202
386,400,427,435-7,440,444, Kerch 345-7
452,464-6 Khagtik',cf. Chaldia
John (patriarclı ofJerus.) 370 Klıazars 8,47-9,51,75,114,137,161,
'John' (caliph) 416 249,253,321, 335-64,449,461,
John ofDamascus 365,367,400,401 465,466
John bishop ofDamietta 404 Khortziane/Khordzean 224,273,274,27
John ofEdessa 419 Khosomakhön 275
John the eremite 416 Khozan 247,271,272,274,276
Joktan 413 Khrubat (Bulgarian khan) 363
Jomah 273, 275 Khuriisiin 70,88,95,139,140,209,211,
Jordan (river) 197,210,385,419 213,286,312,313,345
Joseph (Khazar king) 356 Khurramites 39,88,113,126,129,131,
Judaism/Jew/Hebrew 5,28,39,86,98, 135,137,139-63, 167,171,172,
104,22,228,263,265,268,297, 175,177,211,212,21�238,239,
297,302,335,347,355-62,416, 243 245-55,257-9,260,263,265,
417,419 267,275,279,302,303,329,425,
Julian (emp.) 407 444,450,460,462,465,466
Justin I (emp.) 30 Khwalis, cf. Chouales
Justinian I (emp.) 37,109,426,358 Khwarizm 344,345,347
Justinian II (emp.) 190 Kibyrrhaiotai 202,204-6,330,457
Kichkas 353
Kabardians 47 Kiel 353
Kabars 47, 48,344,357 I<.iev,345,353
Kabeira (Neo-Kaisareia) 48 Kindi 419
Kabeiroi 46,47 Klarjeth 251
Kachkak'ar 247,254 Klimata (thema) 345, 346,364
Kaisareia 23,215,217,240 Koghoberd 274
Kallistos 50,127-30,136 Koinochorion 49
Kalomaria (Tlıeodora's sisler) 76,78,165 Kolaver 251,252
 lııdex o(Nwııes aııd Placcs 513

Kolchis 252,253 Libadia (ınoııastcry) 107. 109

Koloneia 50, 127-30, 136 Libya 283. 325
Koııımageııc 270, 280 Loııgobard 321, 32-1
Konstaııs il (ernp.) 104. 196 Lothair (Fraııkish king) 112. 323, 326
Koron 22. 99,215-17, 227. 230,288, 291. Louis tlıc Pious (Fraııkislı cıııp.) 25, 41,
464 183, 189,323,32-L 326, 327,349,
Kraınbonitai 69 350,355,432,433,466
Krateros (strategos ofthc Aııatolikoi) 89 Louis il (Fraııkish kiııg) 112
Krateros (strategos ofthe Kibyrrlıaiotai) Louloıı 113,217,229--34, 239--41, 243,
206 245,435,465
Krateros,Tlıeodore (strategos ofthe Lydia 54
Boukellarioi) 126, 135, 136, 220, Lykaoııia/Lykaoııiaıı 37-9. 63,152
224,286,292,437
Krenitai 115-17,257 Macedoııia/Macedoııiaııs 1. 24, 52, 350,
Krithiııos,Tlıeodore 119,124 351, 432,452-4
Knım (Bulgarian lclıan) 13,14,17-19, 52, Madai (rebels) 259
350 Maghrib 210
Kubaıı (river) 48,344, 363 Magııaura (palace) 1 O<i, 113, 434,442,
Kufii 281 445,455
Kurdistan/Kurd 141,170,275 Magyars (cf. Huııgariaııs) 335, 344-7, 349,
Küslıanüsh 282 351-5, 357, 3(ı4
Kyros (river) 249,251 MahdT (caliph) 70,99
Kythııos (islaııd) 189 MalıdT (saviour) 4 l O, 412, 414
Kytoros 353 Majida 215,217
Kyzikos 232 Makarios of Pelekete 50,420
Malik ibn Kaydan 291-3,309
Lamos (river) 332 Mamas (mouııt) 232
Lausiakos (building) 459 Mamikonian 63,86
Lazaros (deacon) 430 Mamikonian,Musegh 141
Lazika/Lazian 46,48,49,252,253 Ma'mün (caliplı) 8,26,27,51,52,88,95,
Leo II (Abasgian king) 48,252,253 113,142,143,181,192--4,200,
Leo III (emp.) 1,5,20,21,117,190 201,208--43,245,265,266,287,
Leo IV (emp.) 93,98,122,184 296,311,313-15,319,320,324,
Leo V the Armenian (emp.) 1,8,13-20, 329,363,366,398,402,409-14,
23,24,27-30,33--46,58,61, 416-18,425,427,431,434,436,
63-72,77-81,83-7,89,90,93, 437,443,446-8,450,451,461,
110,101,103,106,107,109,110, 463-5
112,150,161,167,183,185, Manazkert 137,141,249
187-9,193-5,251,280,296,382, Manbij 313
450:-52,456-9,463,464 Mangana (quarter) 116
Leo VI the Wise (emp.) 44 Mangoup 346
Leo (scribon) 22,99 Maniakes, Constantine 111-13
Leo (arclıpriest ofNaples) 432 Mani/Maııiclıeans 46, 49-51, 129,415
Leo the Plıilosopher 78,113,114,232, Manşür (caliplı) 117,209
233,239,296,427,434--7,439, Manşür (family) 400,401
443,454 Maıışür ibn Saıjün 401
Leontios (monk) 19 Manuel tlıe Arnıeniaıı 8.40,61, 71,75-7,
Levi/LawT 296, 297 79, 81, 83-101, 110. 111. 125,
514 Tlıe Eıııperur Tlıeoplıilos aııd tlıe Ecısı, 829-842

132-6,148.162,163,174,176, 101.103-5, 107,109,110,121.

177, 190, 208, 216, 218,223.255. 122,125,150,159-61,174,183,
265,287,290,303,315,341,415. 185, 186,188,189, 191,192-5,
425,451,460,462-4 199,200,202,208,224,265,280,
Maria (Theophilos' daughter) 115, 118-23, 320,321.343,355,360,383,401,
464,465 402,407,432,435,450,452,
Maria ofAmnia (Constantine V's wife) 456-8,463,464
103,105,107 Miclıael ili (eınp.) 1,39,67,68,75, 76,
Marinos (Theodora's fatlıer) 74 113,115,119,122,123,125,
Marinos (Herakleios' brot!ıer) 74 174-6, 191,232,248,254,306,
Maıj al-Usquf287-9 317,355,403,405,416,435,443,
Markellai (battle) 80 450,452,454
Markos ofEplıesos 323 Michael (bishop ofEplıesos) 407
Martina (Herakleios' wile) 74, 104 Miclıael tlıe Sabaite 417
Martinakios,Anastasios 112 Miclıael Synkellos 394, 429
Marwan 356 Michael (tourınarclıes) 22,99
Maşşışa, el'. Mopsuestia Minkajür 330,331
Ma\anıir 225,226,230,240,287,288,290, Miuss (river) 274
465 Mokilos (ınount) 232
Maurice (eınp.) 88,190,27 Monocherares,cf. 'Aınr/'Umar ibn
Mayyfiföriqın 282 'Abdallah ibn Marwan al-Aq\a'
Mazdakism/Mazdean 139,211,419 Mopsuestia 148,217-19,222,224,235,
Melissenoi 79,81,127, 286 329,465,466
Melissenos,Miclıael 18 Moroclıarzanioi 79
Melissenos Kassiteras,Theodotos Moses/Mosaic 28,79,86,360,361,390,
(patriarclı ofConst.) 14,18,19, 402,466
78-80,110 Mösmfir 193
Melitene 50,78,89,216,218,221,224, Mousele,Alexios 114-24,166,168,172,
245,247,249,259-67,269,270, 176,219,257,321,451,460,465,
273,276,277,280,286,288,289, 466
332,450,461,464,465 Mousele,Tlıeodosios l 16
Melkites 8,31,365-7,370,371,375, Mu'awiya (caliph) 196,410,414
377-84,394-401,403,405-8,417, Mul)ammad (prophet) 412,430
418,420,424,425,429,430,439, Mul)ammad ibn .l;Iuınayd 212,213
442,452,463,465 Muslı 275
Menander 429 Mu'taşim (caliph) 2,26,27,28,51,145,
Mesembria 18 181,213,214,224,225,233,
Mesopotamia (cf. Jazira) 39,85,148,190, 237-40,242,243,245,253,256,
329,331,420 259,260,263-8,277,279-316,
Methodios (patriarclı ofConst.) 29,42,69, 319,321,328-33, 350,355,359,
254,400,432 360,396,397,402,403,413,425,
Metlıodios (apostle oftlıe Slavs) 438 444,449,451,460,465,466
Metskert 247,271-4 Mutawakkil (caliplı) 94,402,403
Michael I Rlıangabe (emp.) 13,17,19,44, Mu'tazz (caliplı) 416
49,64,65,67,75,463 Mu'wayad 416
Michael il ofAmorion (emp.) 8, l 1,15, 24, Myron 92,93,100
25,27-30,33,35-46,49,53-8,61,
63-79, 81, 89, 90, 92-4, 99, 100. Nabouzarclan 84
 fııdex o/'Names aııd Pfaces 515

Naples/Neapolilan 321, 328 Panion 56

Naşr ibn Shabatlı 83-90, 208, 211-13 Paııkratios (John lhe Grammarian 's father)
Naşr the Khurramite 39, 134, 137, 140, 79,80,440
142, 145-52, 155, 161-3,167, 169, Pankratios or Abasgia 169
172, 176, l 77, 179, 180, 263, 303, Paphlagoııia/Paplılagonian 74, 75,98,105,
329,330,462,464-6 114, 175,280,338,340, 352
Naxos (island) 21 Paris 325,432
Nazianzos 217,287,288 Patzinakia/Pecheneg 338-40
Nebouchadnezzar 84 Paul (St.) 49,429,432
Neo-Kaisareia 48,49 Paulikianoi 49-5 l
Nero (emp.) 189-91 Peclıenegs, cf. Patzinakia
Nestorios/Nestorian 314,380, 415,430, Pelekcte (moııastery) 128, 130
442 Pelopoıınesos 65,202
Nikaia/Nikaian 1,23, 288, 293,366,380, Peter (St.) 429
383,386,388,405,452 Peter (bishop of Egypt) 380
Nikephoros l (emp.) 23,27,33,38, 44,63, Peter ofAtroa 199,456
64,184,185,222,463 Peter of Sicily 49
Nikephoros il Phokas (emp.) 398,413 Petronas (Theodora's brother) 74,92,93,
Nikephoros (patriarch ofCoııst.) 13-19, 11 l, 125,456
23,29,30,84-6,388,400,458, Phadalas 196
463 Philip 1 (Freııclı king) 328
Nikephoros (Constaııtine V's son) 122 Plıilippopolis 350
Niketas (patrician) 108 Philomelion 185, 187,195,299
Nikolaos Mystikos (patriarch ofConst.) Phokas (emp.) 66,78,165,190
399 Photeinos 202-6
Novgorod 351 Photios (patriarch ofConst.) 18, 78,125,
Nu'aym ibn l:fammad 411 126,366,399,405,408,427,442,
Nyssa 287-9,293 443
Phrygia 78,167
Olbianos 53,89,90 Pidra 39
Oleg 353 Pisidia 38,39, 152
Olympos (mount) 199 Plato 423,429,431,434
Omuıiag (Biılgarian khan) 55,204 Polybios 160
Onogouroi 347 Polybotos 288,299
Ooryphas 111,112,127,179 Podandos 217,231,242,243
Opsikion (tlıema) 53,89,90,119,456 Pontos/Pontic 20,113,249,254,258,345,
Orosius 432,433 363
Osrhoene 268 Pousgouse (lake) 34
Ounoi,cf. Huns Prinkipo (island) 103,107,198
Oxeai (quarter) 156,159 Prote (island) 71
Psellos,Michael 14
Paghin 272,274,276 Pterotos, Gregory 15,55,58,71,90
Paglınatun 272-4,276 Ptolemy 423,431,434,440,442
Paleımo 321 Pulclıeria (Theophilos' daughter) 108,118
Palestine 85,97,197,283,284,326,365, Pyramos (river) 217
394,395,398,401,416,418
Palines,cf Paghnatun Qaysites 141,142,210,211
Paınphylia 38 Qinnasrin 197
 516 Tlıe E111peror Tlıeoplıi/os aııd ılıe Eası, 829-842

Qurayshı 419 Scanclinavia 349, 351

Qun-a, cf. Koron Scythian 186
Qus!a ibn Lüqü 430 Sebasteia 221, 288,289
Seleukeia 330
Rabı'a 264,270 Sennaclıerim 84-6
Rapsakes 84,85 Sergios (patriarch ofJerus.) 400,401,405
Rawb,Antonios 419 Sergios (envoy) 196
Rhetech 347 Sergios (Plıotios' brother) 78,166
Richard I tlıe Lionlıeart 261 Sergios Babıra 412,413
Robert Giscard 328 Sergios Niketiates 75
Rodandos 217 Sergios Tyclıikos 49,50
Roıııanopolis 273, 275,276 Sevan (lake) 249,274
Roıııaııos I Lakapenos (eıııp.) 161,275, Severos 380
359,432 Shaınınasiyya 227
Roıııe 41, 189,190,433, 380 Slıaımıııa 264
Rus8,335,344,345,349-55,360-62, Slıapohr 196
364,451, 466 Slıapuh Bagratuni 248,276
Ruslanıids 21O,322 Sicily 7,119,121,124,203,204,210,213,
32l-3,326,327,464,466
Sabailes 380 Simbat (sparapel) 142
Sabas (moııastery) 97,378,379,416,418 Sinün 216,217,230
Sabas (Muslim leader) 324 Sinope 114, 134, 148,151.,154, 159,162,
Sabirs 47,48 173-9,288,292,329,353
Salıak son of Ismael 247 Siwnik' 142
Sahak ofSiwnik' 142 Sklavinias 23
Saint Auxentios (mount) 232 Skleros,Leo 61,64,65,196
Saint Catherine (monastery) 404 Slavs 46,48,51,52,183,345,349,352,
Saint Denis (abbey) 325,327,432 356,361-4,438
Saint Mamas (quarter) 13,167 Smyrna 89
Saint Mark (church) 445 Socrates 429
Saiııt Zacharias (monastery) 199 Sogcliana 142,281
Salaberina 240 Sophene 273,274,276
Salaghüs 230 Sophia (Theoclora's sister) 77,111,165
Sümarra lll,139, 162,177,227,266,268, Sophronios (patriarch of Alex.) 401-5,430
281,282,295,296,298,302,303, Sozopetra 92,120,145-7,149,175,222,
305,310,312,314,331,444,445, 229,245,247,257,259,260,
449-51 262-82,300-304,332, 341,350,
Samos (island) 232 362,364,380,449,460,461,465
Samosata 88,249,269,279,280 Spektas,John 19
Sardinia 210,322,327 Sper 113,247-50,258-60,277,343,465
Sarkel 338-45,354,360,465 Staurakios (emp.) 44,463
Sarasar 85 Staurakios (protospatharios) 64
Saros (river) 217 Staurakios (eunuch) 98, 126
Saruj 88 Stephen (officer) 458
Sasima 240 Stephen theSabaite 398
Sassanids 139,160,190,445 Stephen the Younger 131
Satyros (moııastery) 444 Sufyan12 l 0,410,413,414,417
Smvacla 141, 142 Sunclus 215. 217
 lıule.r of Names aııd Plcıce.ı· 517

Swedes 349,351 Theodosios lhe Stylite 416

Sylaioıı 19, 79 Tlıeodote (Constantiııe Vl's wife) 103
Synıbatios,cf. Coııstaııtiııe (Leo V's son) Theodotos,cf. Melisseııos Kassiteras
Synıbatios (Bardas' soıı-in-law) 111 Theoktiste, er Floriııa
Synıeoıı of Bulgaria 160 Tlıeoktistos 67, 68,254, 435,466
Tlıeoplıanes (spatlıarios) 323
Tabaristaıı 211 Theophilos (eınp.) passiııı
Tamaıı (peııinsula) 347 Theophilos of Edessa 430
Taıııatarclıa 345,347 Tlıeoplıobos 8,92,113,120-24,1 26,
Taııais (river,cf Don) 338,340,351 132-7, 140, 141, 145,149,152-80,
Taormina 322 194,219,223,245,248,250,251,
Taranto 324,328 259,293,303,329,450,460,462,
Tarasios (patriarclı of Const.) 18,400 465,466
Taroıı 249,277,289 Thessaloııike 113, 232, 350,436
Tarsos 215,217-19,222,224,230-32, Tlıoıııas tlıe Arnıeııiı:ın 33-6, 39,64. 185-8,
235,279,287,288,298,465 193-6,462
Tatta (lake) 299 Tlıonıas tlıe Slav 8,11,24-9,35,36,39-59,
Talzates 98,99 64,66-8,71,73,74,78,81,89,90,
Taurus (raııge) 217,219 98, 101,103,122,137,150,159,
Tereııtius Maxinıus 189 181,183-200,202,204-8,212,
Tlıekla (Michael fl's wife) 63,64,73, 79, 213,236,260,335,343,360,394,
103-5,109,464 425,448,450,451,456-8,462-4
Tlıekla (Tlıeoplıilos' dauglıter) 118,123,464 Tlırace 13,24,51,52,54-6,58,59,117,
Tlıeodora (Justinian l's wife) 358 204,205,350,353,362
Theodorn (Theophilos' wife) 1,29,61,70, Thrakesiaııoi (therna) 90
72-9,83,92,98, I 00,105,108, Tiber (river) 407
109, ll l ,114,123,125,126,148, Tiberios (Justiniaıı II's son) 190
162,165,166,168,174,250,251, Tiberios (Constantine IV's son) 190
253,286,332,403,405,416,417, Tiflis 111,137,251,253-5,259,465
442,449,451-4,456,464 Tigris (river) 227,249,273,416
Theodore (patriarch ofJerusalem) 397 Titus (emp.) 189
Theodore Abü Qurra 365,402,403,418, T'laberd 273,274,276
419,429 Tınutarakan 347
Theodore ofEdessa 378-80,383,405,415, Transoxiana 139
416,419 Trebizond 248,249,253,254
Theodore Stoudites 15,29,30,54,64,89, Treveris 324,326,327
93,103,112,19� 199,377,381, Tsımı 272-6
399,452 Turk/Turkish 47,48,132,281,286,287,
Theodoric the Great 160 290,291,307,311-14,351,360,
Theodosia (Leo V's wife) 15, 63,93,463 448,451,466
Theodosiopolis 117,118,247,249,250, Tyana 215,217,225,226,230,231,
253,255-60,275,277,343,465 240-43,245,287,288,465
Theodosios II (emp.) 252,442
Theodosios il (Abasgian king) 252 'Ubaydallah ibn al-SarT 201,21 O,211
Theodosios (Maurice's son) 190 'Ujayfibn 'Anbasa 215,230,233,234,
Theodosios ofAlexandria (gramınarian) 238-40,264,266,267,270
403 'Uqayl 88
Tlıeodosios (metrop. of Chalkedoıı) 323
518 The Emperor Tlıeuplıilo.ı· aııd tlıe East, 8]9-841

Umayyads 139, 21 O,241, 282,316-20, Xerxes (Persian king) 53

323,328,356,410,413- l6
Urbeli247,271 Yal_ıya ibn-Akhtam225,240
Urgench345 Yal_ıya al-Munayqila316,318
Unnia (lake) 249 YazTd ibn Usayd117
Utica326 Yemen211

Vanand247,248, 250-59,277,465 Zacharias (notary) 54

Vandals46, 51, 52 Zainab282
Varangians39, 335 Zechoi46,48
Venice41, 112,324, 325,353,466 Zeno (building) 33
Versinikia (battle) 13 Zibaçra/Zuba\ra, cf. Sozopetra
Vikings127 Zoroastrisın 139,211
Viriatus457 Zosimas19
Visigoths322 Zurayq213
Vitellius ( emp.) 189 Zu\( 197
Volga (river) 344,345,347,349,352,356,
362-4
Volga Bulgars cf. Bulgars

Wandü, cf. Boiditzes

WadT Aqargas (river) 149
WiidT al-Jawr (river) 298
Wiithiq (caliph) 94,333,411, 450