This blog began with a focus on the era of Middle Byzantium, which takes place from Leo III’s reign in the 8th Century to the middle of the 11th Century. Why? Because, in my view, the topic was not being served well on the Internet. Even in books, Anthony Kaldellis is pretty much holding up the entire area of study other for a couple other scholars, though they are not even as prolific as him or even as public as him in efforts to change the perception of the Byzantine Empire as part of the Roman history and not a separate entity. I generally try to approach this topic with the intent to humanize history but also give people a bigger perspective on the Roman Empire. We need to allow Byzantine history to breathe alongside the Classical Antiquity that we teach in schools. However, there still needs to need for bloggers and writers who are not academics to bring attention to this topic. I have written up a guide that explains how to get started with understanding Byzantine History and how to approach the subject.
The Macedonians, the true height of the Empire?
In my time that I have written about Macedonians, I truly believe that they were the apogee of the Middle Byzantine era not the Komnenos. There are multiple reasons that are mostly about the projection of power over economics in the Byzantine state. While economics are important, the projection of power ensures stable economics and the inability for other states to manipulate the economy. The ability to project power and to protect important hub areas was an important aspect of how they were able to make the empire stronger and become a source of inspiration in the Orthodox commonwealth. Their rule began an era of a Renaissance in the culture of the Byzantines
The Macedonians began the reign over the Byzantine Empire while the Empire was still in state of siege since the time of Islam’s rise in the 7th century. The Empire still had control over Greece and the Southern Balkans. Anatolia, the center of the Empire and where some of its strongest and most capable soldiers came from was still largely under its sovereignty. Anatolia was a region in the Empire which had organized into themes which saw multiple nobles in those areas be responsible for maintaining the Anatolian heartland from invading Muslims.
In comparison, the Komnenos were barely hanging on to the holdings they had in Anatolia. As a result of the efforts of Emperor Manuel I and the crusaders from the Latin West, some of Anatolia, including the cities of Nicaea and Nicomedia were under the control of the Byzantine emperor. However, many areas in the center of the Anatolian section of the Empire were simply not in the control of the Byzantines. The Turkification of Anatolia had begun and by the time that Turkish Republic began, the Anatolia had become a Turkish area.
Some of what happened here with Anatolia was mainly result of manipulations by the Latins. However, the Komnenos, were simply unable to maintain the empire with their armies. The army was only around 40,000 under Emperor John II and then Emperor Manuel. While their armies were powerful enough to deal with the rival Kingdom of Hungary and the Turks, this army was too small and was relying too much on a dynasty of warrior emperors. Alexios, John and Manuel were capable, but the Komenos were able to maintain the empire as soon Manuel’s son, Alexios II came to power. The young man was unable to assert himself and some in the Komenos dynasty were manipulating the situation to take power, which would result in another dynasty taking control and then squandering the gains that had been made since Alexios.
A similar situation happened to the Macedonians in a sense, but it wasn’t as severe until the Battle of Manzikert, which would start the process of Turkification across Anatolia. At that time when Romanos IV was captured by the Sejiuks, the Doukas were in control and much like the Angelos dynasty, Byzantine power was in state of stagnation and inability to innovate. However, under the command of Doukas Emperors, the Empire had more land from which to recruit soldiers.
The Economy under the Macedonians and the Kommenos is a point of important comparison. When one looks at the Macedonians, it seems that they were competent at getting the economy to start expanding beyond what Leo III had established under his important reign in the 8th Century. With the victory of Orthodoxy over the Iconoclasts in the 9th Century, the Imperial authorities were now able to focus attention on building up the economy in order to reclaim Roman glory.
The Macedonian era began an urbanization of Greece and Anatolia, which had not been seen since before the plague of Justinian in the 6th Century. Even with the raids by the Rus and the wars with Bulgaria, many cities began to flourish in the Empire. Places with such great reputations, such as Thebes and Athens, began to come back into prominence with industries such as silk having come into their own after the far-sighted endeavors of Emperor Justinian. The Macedonians were able to profit on the economic revival by starting to launch wars to reclaim lands in the name of Christianity and its attempt to rebuild Justinian’s empire.
The dislocations of the economy after Manzikert did not persist and the Kommenoi were quite effective at restoring economic prosperity to the Empire. The urbanization that began slowly under Leo III, reached its economic apex under the Kommenoi. Underneath the surface, the economic growth was not going to be for free and there was going a price tag attached However, it came at a cost to the Empire; namely it was that the empire began outsourcing its navy to the republics of the Italian Peninsula which were beginning to step on the world stage as city states that would change the course of history in the Mediterranean.
These Italian Republics were very much the same kind of governments that one would see in Ancient Greece; they were places of great innovation and spirit. These Italian Republics, especially the Republic of Venice, would have a great influence on the Byzantine Empire. It was almost the mirror relationship between the Byzantines and the Slavic states. However, the Italians were keener on developing the economy than the Byzantines, who were content on relying on trade to sustain the city of Constantinople. The Italian city states, which were not able to rely on a huge army in order to maintain their empire, were able to put their revenue into building a navy and building their economies. This is one of the main issues with the Empire in that age. While the Kommenoi were able to bring back some semblance of respect and prestige to the Byzantines, this meant a deal with the republics of Italy which were becoming more aggressive in pursuing their own goals in the region.
While in some ways, the Kommenoi had built an impressive economy which was the envy of Latin Europe, it was built on a culture which was increasingly reliant on the stability of warrior emperors. However, as soon as Emperor Manuel passed on to the afterlife, the entire system was unable to maintain its structures. The various events of violence against Latin Christians were what made the Italian city states make their choice to start agitating for greater action taken against the Byzantines. While many in the West may have not for taking up arms against their fellow Christians, the Byzantines had put themselves into a tight situation where they could not compromise without giving more economic power to the Italian Republics and the growing power of the Pope and Western Europe.
This is to say that while the Kommenoi may have built an impressive economy, it was contingent on the West helping them in the First Crusade and then making generous agreements with the Italian city states. The economy was helpful in allowing for flourishing of Byzantine culture, especially its art. Many of the most intriguing and impressive Christian art we have comes from when the Kommenoi were on the throne.
The Kommenoi were among some of the most important rulers in that age in the imperial state. Their presence as the emperors was important to allowing the state to flourish. However, with the inability to continue having such stable succession of Emperors, the Kommenoi era was not stable enough and once the Latin West began to intervene in the Byzantine Empire, the government in Constantinople was not to assert it power as it had in the 11th Century. That is what is important to understand when talking about the Kommenoi era.
The Macedonians were able to end their dynasty with an empire that still had the traditional recruiting pool for their army intact. However, with the loss of such territories to the Seijuk Turks, the Kommenoi had to rely more and more on mercenaries and the nobility increasingly were raising armies on their own.
In literature which focuses on the Byzantine Empire, there is an emphasis on the economic successes of the Kommenoi era. They also talk about Emperor Manuel I’s relations with the Crusaders. However, Emperor Manuel’s reign and his eventual passing would reveal greater issues in the structure of the empire in the comparison to the stagnation of the Macedonians after the passing of Emperor Basil II in 1025 and ascension of his paranoid brother, Constantine VIII. The Kommenos Dynasty was barely able to survive a couple years after Emperor Manuel I’s reign.
The cataclysm of the Fourth Crusade cannot be overstated in the view of long history of the Byzantine Empire. While the Battle of Manzikert may have had a damaging impact on the Byzantine Empire, the Fourth Crusade made it incredibly tough for the Empire to be able to recover after the Empire was restored in 1261.
The Macedonians in the latter parts of their reign were quite weak and lacking in reforms which were needed in order to maintain what Basil II had accomplished in his long reign. However, they still had enough territory and clout in Europe to gain the aid of the Latin West. The Kommenians had squandered what Manuel I had been building upon the efforts of his grandfather and father. The Massacre of the Latins in 1182 would cause many in the West to no longer view the Orthodox or Byzantines with respect.
The Byzantine Empire in the 12th Century had a precarious balance which was not easy to maintain. Economic power was based on deals with rising economic powers and military powers highly dependent on the emperor rather than the bureaucracy. While the system was able to work for many years, it was not able to survive incompetency in a single dynasty relying on succession of power from father to son. This is why the Macedonians were able to build an Empire that was able to resist the shock at Manzikert more effectively than the Empire which was unable to resist the Crusaders in 1204. Such a calamity on the Empire came a time where a confluence of many factors would lead the Byzantines into an era of chaos that would only be partially remedied by the recapture of Constantinople in 1261 under the auspices of a successor kingdom, the Empire of Nicaea.
The Macedonians were truly the pinnacle of the Byzantine system set up by Constantine when he moved the capital to Constantinople in 330 AD. It was an empire which was able to harness its economic and military strength to claw back some semblance of an imperial power with influence going far beyond its borders. It was a symbol to many in the Orthodox Commonwealth amongst the Slavs as an empire of opportunity and a worthy competitor as well as tutor to their societies. This is why the Macedonians are right to seen as the apex of the Empire set up by Augustus and refined by Constantine the Great with the moral revolution of Christianity. This new Roman Empire had come to such heights through many tribulations and conflict but in those years before Manzikert, it managed to shine brightly and built a foundation that the Kommenoi would use well to stave off decline but ultimately succumbing to the Crusaders. The Macedonians in Byzantine history, in spite of the chaos that would follow, show the resilience of the Roman Empire and its concept of an empire of citizens.
Byzantine-Empire.com 