If you’re not clear on what the Byzantine Empire is, you’re not alone. Even citizens of the empire would have looked at you skeptically if in the early 1000s you asked them how it felt to be Byzantines. As far as they were concerned, they were Romans. The Byzantine Empire is the term we give to the Eastern Roman Empire that continued past the fall of Rome and into the Middle Ages. The capital was not Rome but Constantinople. Citizens of the Byzantine Empire, which is also referred to as Byzantium, were not a new ethnic or political group. They thought of themselves as Romans, right until their annihilation at the hands of the Ottoman Turks in 1453.
So what’s the difference between a Byzantine Roman and what we typically think of as a Roman? Some clarification might be helpful. The Byzantine Empire was the Eastern continuation of the Roman Empire after the fall of the Western empire in the fifth century BCE.
A Byzantine Roman bore allegiance to the emperor in Constantinople. Second, he professed the Orthodox Christian faith. Third, he spoke Greek. If you could subscribe to these three things, you were Roman, regardless of the empire with which you might identify yourself or in which era you lived. For them, to be Byzantine Roman was not to be born in a certain place or have a certain skin color. These three characteristics were the glue that held together a very diverse Byzantine Empire and its predecessor, the Roman Empire.
This glue raises an important question, and now might be a good place to begin thinking about it. America too is a diverse culture. What’s the glue that holds us together? In your opinion and that of your friends, what is it that makes all of us, regardless of race or ethnicity, American? It is an important question, and the answer will determine whether the glue that has held us together through wars and economic downturns will continue to hold in the future. More on that later, but it is something to think about as we look at great empires and nations during the peak of their existence as well as when they are in decline.
The Byzantines were the successors of classical Rome. It’s hard to select a beginning date for them, but I’ll use 330 CE as the start because that’s when Constantine I declared the city of Byzantium (later renamed Constantinople) to be “New Rome.” Although Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453, it suffered its mortal blow in 1204 when the Fourth Crusade, which was supposed to retake the Holy Land from the Saracens, was diverted to Constantinople and, despite a papal ban on attacking fellow Christians, the crusaders sacked the city. Latin crusaders conquered a large amount of Byzantine territory, which was eventually reclaimed by Byzantines, but Constantinople and the empire never fully recovered.
Many of the other empires mentioned in this book followed the same basic pattern as the Byzantines, who were the descendants of Rome and the Persian Empire, fought wars against the Arab Empire, and eventually were conquered by Ottomans.
THE AGE OF PIONEERS
When you play the classic computer strategy game Age of Empires II, there are certain types of matches in which you can choose your starting age, such as stone, feudal, or imperial. Players can even choose to perform a “fast start” that allows them to begin the game with large amounts of resources and money. That is what the Byzantines were blessed with. They inherited from Rome an established, wealthy, and successful state. The eastern part of the Roman Empire was the center of economic activity. Even at the height of classical Rome, the bulk of the wealth that paid for their massive public works and the legions that marched from Britain to Jerusalem came from the east.
Therefore the Byzantines did not have pioneers of their own. So the question is, why did the Byzantines survive and Rome fall? A comprehensive answer would require an entire book, but here’s a short but not necessarily inaccurate answer: an emperor who knew what he believed.
In the third century, the Roman Empire was engulfed in anarchy. Rebellion stemming from issues of succession, famine, disease, economic instability, and social unrest hindered any one man, even though declared to be emperor, from ruling effectively. Eventually, a man by the name of Diocletian became emperor and, aided by another man named Constantine, stabilized much of the empire. Constantine was subsequently declared emperor, and his later life laid the foundation for the rest of the Byzantines’ history.
Among the best-known decisions Constantine made to help stabilize the empire was his actions in regard to those who practiced the Christian faith. Most people are aware that Constantine legalized Christianity; what most are unaware of are his actions that helped the church to establish orthodoxy—specifically, the calling of the Council of Nicaea in 325. This council, or gathering of religious leaders, rejected a heresy threatening the church and affirmed the deity of Christ. It was at Nicaea that the council declared,
We believe in one God, the FATHER Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the HOLY GHOST. But those who say: “There was a time when he was not”; and “He was not before he was made”; and “He was made out of nothing,” or “He is of another substance” or “essence,” or “The Son of God is created,” or “changeable,” or “alterable”—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
This became known as the Nicene Creed, and it is repeated in one form or another in many contemporary Christian churches throughout the world. A creed is simply a statement of belief, and by systematically declaring the essentials of Christian belief, this council provided the church a standard with which it could ward off current and future heresies. It served as a unifying force throughout Christianity and the empire.1
THE AGE OF CONQUESTS
The Byzantine Empire was always at war. Constantly surrounded by enemies, the empire regularly lost and then regained territory. Under the reign of Justinian the Great, the empire regained territory in Africa, Spain, and Italy. At the end of his reign, the territory of the Byzantine Empire looked much like that of the glory days of Rome. However, Europe had changed, and Justinian’s wars pushed the resources of the empire to the brink. Europe’s rapidly shrinking connection to its Roman past, paired with the invasions of the Goths and Vandals, meant that the territory regained under Justinian was impossible to hold. From then on, warfare for the Byzantines was primarily defensive in nature.
Between 602 and 628, the Byzantines fought a devastating war with the Sasanian Empire of Persia. Initially, massive Sasanian victories forced the Byzantines back to within the walls of Constantinople itself, and the Sasanians very nearly achieved complete victory in the 626 siege of Constantinople. However, the emperor Heraclius led a campaign into the heart of the Sasanian Empire, forcing them to sue for peace. At the end of the conflict, the two sides were utterly exhausted and forced back to basically their starting positions. This exhaustion made both sides vulnerable to the sudden emergence of the Arab Empire on the Arab Peninsula. Arab armies conquered the entire Sasanian Empire in short order, then proceeded to conquer Byzantine territory in the Holy Land, Egypt, North Africa, and the Caucasus. The Arabs advanced all the way across North Africa and into Spain, where they were finally stopped by Charles Martel and the Franks in 732 (which I will discuss later, when we look at the Arab Empire).
This dramatic series of setbacks caused the Byzantines to adopt a military strategy that allowed them to continue to survive and even to reclaim some of their lost territory. This strategy was called the theme system. Under this system, the empire maintained a small, elite professional army in Constantinople, while the rest of the empire was divided into administrative areas known as themes, each of which was led by a general. The theme was divided into stratiotika ktemata (soldier lands), where the government granted land to soldiers. In exchange, the soldiers agreed to arm themselves, provide horses, or serve in the army. As a result, soldiers had a real and direct connection to the land they were defending. It does not take a military strategist on par with Napoleon to understand that a man defending his own home and land is a far more reliable soldier than someone fighting for pay hundreds of miles away from his homeland. It is not inaccurate to compare them to the minutemen of the British colonies, men who maintained their own arms and had to be ready to fight at a moment’s notice.
If a theme was invaded, the local general pulled together as many local soldiers as he needed to resist the invasion. When faced with larger invasions, multiple themes would come together, aided by the professional army from Constantinople. This flexible system was modified throughout the empire’s history but served as the backbone of the empire’s military strength for six hundred years.
THE AGE OF INTELLECT
The word Byzantine today is often used as a pejorative, conjuring up an era of ignorance and religious intolerance, among other conditions and practices. That’s unfortunate and perhaps reflects an antireligious bias. Admittedly, Byzantine art was created primarily to inspire religious devotion, but over the centuries it has stood the test of time. Its icons are still considered to be among the most beautiful ever created, and Byzantine architecture continues to inspire awe and admiration, even from unbelievers. Throughout history, much of the great art was commissioned by the church through faithful benefactors who saw beauty as a reflection of their faith. By contrast, the emphasis today in much of the art world seems to be on trying to shock and desensitize with the most disturbing of subject matter. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and to the Byzantines, art reflected the beauty of their faith.
CAMEO: Justinian
By far, the most influential and consequential leader of the time was Justinian the Great (who thereby richly deserved his honorific). The list of his accomplishments is long. More than anyone else, Justinian was responsible for expanding the empire. Let me qualify that. Justinian had a wealthy and strong wife.2 Her name was Theodora. She was “probably the most powerful woman in Byzantine history.”
The Byzantines were burdened by high taxes, which made them unhappy. (Sound familiar?) Their unhappiness led to riots in the streets. Using a version of Roman law, Justinian curtailed the riots, restoring law and order, and began the rebuilding of Constantinople. The most visible and enduring contribution of Justinian was the Hagia Sophia. This monument to the Christian faith has been described as “one of the most extraordinary marvels in the eastern world.”3
If the success of a leader can be judged by how much land they grab, Justinian gets a gold medal. He conquered not only Italy but also much of the North African coast. His reach extended as far as Spain.
While Abraham Lincoln used a “team of rivals,” as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin called them, Justinian used his wife and close associates to advance his vision. In addition to seeking the aid and advice of Theodora, who was the prototype of a strong woman, he was secure enough in his power and position to grant his general, Belisarius, authority to handle military operations. Justinian was “brilliant and cunning” and “took full advantage of those around him.”4
Byzantium also can be credited with caring about and caring for important works of literature. The Byzantine Empire has been credited for not only preserving great literary works of the past but also creating their own literature. As contemporary librarian and archivist Barbara J. Ilie observed, “The Byzantine Empire supported literary life at a time when many other parts of the western world were in a state of literary darkness.”5
Like the Medicis and other patrons of the arts in Italy during the Renaissance, the leaders of the Byzantine Empire supported literary life at a time when many places had turned off the intellectual lights.
A prime example of the intellectual and creative forces in the Byzantine Empire is the construction of the Hagia Sophia (537 CE), a massive church in Istanbul ordered built by the emperor Justinian the Great on what he said were instructions from God. The name Hagia Sophia means “holy wisdom.” The edifice began as a Greek Orthodox church and later was converted into an imperial mosque during the Ottoman Dynasty, enduring as a mosque for five hundred years (which we’ll cover in chapter 6). In 1935, it was converted again, this time to a secular museum. You can’t miss it if you are fortunate enough to make the trip from the airport into central Istanbul.
The church/mosque/museum is widely considered to be the touchstone of Byzantine architecture and remained the world’s largest cathedral for nearly a thousand years, until the Seville Cathedral was completed in 1520. There is a story behind the Hagia Sophia’s construction which is most likely apocryphal but is nevertheless fun to consider, if only because we can recognize our own human nature in the people of that time.
The narrative of how the Hagia Sophia was built comes from a tenth-century collection of stories and legends called the Patria. It is an anonymous account, which makes it suspect in the eyes of some historians, though in our day anonymous sources are treated in major media as credible. The Patria reads like what we would today call a travel guide for the Byzantium capital, offering dubious tidbits about how the church was built, including the Emperor Justinian’s claim that God inspired him to build it bigger than any church since Adam’s time. Hmm. Either God left that church out of Adam’s story in Genesis, or the emperor was guilty of fake news.
Justinian faced the same kinds of glitches in his construction project that builders of today’s modern arenas face—specifically, stubborn holdouts refusing to sell their property. In one case, the holdout was a widow named Anna, whom Justinian visited, only to learn she would sell her land on the condition she could be buried in the church. “Granted,” said the emperor. A man named Antiochus was thrown in jail for refusing to sell. A lover of horse races, he shouted from his jail cell just before the great races were to begin at the Hippodrome, “Let me see the Hippodrome games, I will do the will of the emperor.” He got to see the races, and the emperor grabbed another tract of land for his massive church. The stories gradually grew into legends, even with reports of angels showing up to guard the tools of the thousands of construction workers. Then again, I’ve heard a few doozies from preachers and politicians regarding kingdoms they’ve built, so I guess we can forgive Emperor Justinian for possibly stretching the truth.6
Sadly, the building of this great church did not protect the empire from forces that eventually render the mighty powerless to save either their empires or themselves.
DECADENCE AND DECLINE
The Byzantine Empire had to contend with the ancient enemy of Sassanid Persia and the new threat of Islam that came like a firestorm out of Arabia.
In 629 CE, the prophet Muhammad sent letters to the kings of Persia, Yemen, and Ethiopia and to Emperor Heraclius, inviting them to accept Islam. Muhammad stated, “If you become a Muslim you will be safe, and God will double your reward, but if you reject this invitation of Islam you will bear the sin of having misguided your subjects.” It was an ultimatum, from an unknown “holy man” beyond the fringe of civilization to the most powerful rulers in the world.
People in the West who are not history buffs are probably unfamiliar with the name Heraclius. One reason is that we don’t study history like we once did, though it is a guide from which we can learn lessons in our time. In the seventh century, Heraclius was the most powerful and successful ruler in the world. The Byzantine Empire encompassed all land adjoining the Mediterranean Sea, and it had held on to it for almost one hundred years. Heraclius defeated Persia, the only other major power in the region. Constantinople and Alexandria excelled as centers for learning and art. Byzantine merchants did business from India to France. While Heraclius was able to restore much of the Byzantine Empire, wars with the Sasanian Empire and Muslim armies, and his failure to settle religious disputes within Christianity, left him weakened and contributed to the loss of several of his provinces.7
Contributing to Byzantium’s decline was what we might today call “mob politics,” an appropriate label for much of what describes modern America. Mob politics then, as it has now, replaced serious debate aimed at discovering what is true and finding solutions to challenging problems. The mob politics of the Byzantine era involved something called the circus factions, which were basically composed of fans of various chariot race teams. Recall the chariot race scene in the film Ben-Hur, with the partisans in the Roman crowd cheering their favorite driver or jeering the others, and you get a sense of what the circus factions looked like, except these partisans had strong political overtones and affiliations.
The fact that these mobs possessed real political power did not aid in good governance. Imagine if the fans at an NFL football game were making national defense decisions in their inebriated state, let alone lacking any sort of qualifications. That’s what the circus factions were. If you think modern American political discourse is corrupt, imagine political and military decisions being made by fans at a sporting event after they have consumed several nine-dollar beers. The Hippodrome was the Byzantine Empire’s version of the Roman Coliseum, but without the gladiators. It came to symbolize decadence and contributed to Byzantium’s downfall, though there were also other factors, as discussed.
The end came slowly but inevitably, and even though the empire continued in some lesser forms for several centuries, for all practical purposes it had lost its vitality somewhere near the beginning of the sixth century. They were right on schedule, according to Sir John Glubb.
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE BYZANTINES?
What does all of this have to do with our own approaching demise? On the one hand, there’s much to admire in how the Byzantine Empire was built around the Christian faith, because it is that faith, when properly observed, that preserves freedom and security as well as equal rights for women, minorities, and the least among us. There is something comforting to most Christians in imagining a world where not only is it acceptable to practice one’s faith but also that faith is preferred and defended by the ruling officials. A strong case can be made that when an empire or nation turns against God, it begins on a path of decline from which it is almost impossible to escape. That is found not only in scriptural history but in virtually all history.
On the other hand, the Byzantine Empire was a theocracy, and history has shown that once a religion is institutionalized and forced upon people, it loses its power and vitality. The challenge for any nation is to allow religion to function freely without giving it “official” status. That was the vision and hope of America’s founding fathers, who wanted the state kept out of the church while protecting the “free exercise” of the faith of believers.
The question for America is, and from the start has been, how do people of faith influence their culture without tearing down the wall that our forefathers felt was necessary to prevent our republic from becoming a theocracy? State religions may be popular for those whose religion aligns with the state, but eventually those religions become compromised by the ever-shifting political winds that blow from the left and the right. England is considered officially Christian and even has an official church—the Church of England—but church attendance in England hovers around a tepid 7 percent of the population. Authentic faith, practiced without government assistance but also without government opposition, is an unstoppable force for good that the Bible describes as salt and light. And it is what we choose to do with this salt and light that will or will not extend America’s expiration date.