Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in The Late Roman World

    Uploaded by

    Damian Hemmings
    61 views182 pages

    Original Title

    Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    61 views182 pages

    Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in The Late Roman World

    Uploaded by

    Damian Hemmings

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 182
    ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 46 ANASTASIUS I POLITICS AND EMPIRE IN THE LATE ROMAN WORLD F. K. HAARER General Editors Neil Adkin (University of Nebraska ~ Lincoln) Francis Cairns (The Florida State University) Robin Seager (University of Liverpool) Frederick Williams (Queen's Univer Belfast) Mtn Stor Santa Cais 4 ISSN 0309-5541 FRANCIS CAIRNS Published by Francis Caims (Publications) Ltd PO Box 296, Cambridge, CB4 3GE, Great Britain First published 2006 Copyright © F. K. Haarer 2006 “The mora rights ofthe author have been asserted 1 righs reserved. No part f this publication may be seproduced, sored in & ictal sytem, or tansmifed in any form or by any means, electronic, Theshanical photocopying. recording, of otherwise, without the prior witen Tarmasion of te Publisher, or as expressly permitted by Taw, oF under tems greed, with the appropriate reprographies. igh association. Enquiries eicerning ropmducton cuside the scope ofthe above should be sent f0 the Publisher atthe adress above British Library Cataloguing in Publication ‘A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0 905205 43 X ISBN 978 0.905205 434 “The Greek fonts used in this work are available from wonv.linguistsoftware.com 1 Printed in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Limited, Chippenham, Wiltshire For my parents & Peter Contents Preface ix Abbreviations xi | INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1 2 THE ISAURIAN REVOLT n ‘Geographical and Political Boundaries /3. The Balance of Power: Isaurians and Germans /5, The Emperor Zeno 18, Anastasius and the Isaurians 21. The First Years of Hostities 22. Vietory for Anastasius. 26, 3 BASTERN FOREIGN POLICY 29 Relations with Arab tribes: military negotiations, religious afilition and cconomic policy 29. The Persian War 802-506 47, The Faster Defensive Building Programme 63. The Easter Frontier 506-518 70. 4 WESTERN FOREIGN POLICY B 1. Constantinople and ‘Old Rome" B ‘Theoderie's Constitutional Postion 89, The Doctrinal Schism of 491-506 89, War in the Balkans 91, Diplomacy and the West 93. The Doctrinal Schism of 516 00. Conclusion 102. II, Foreign Policy in the Balkans 104 ‘The Long Wall 106. The Defensive Building Programme in the Balkans 109, 5 RELIGIOUS POLICY: THE SEARCH FOR COMPROMISE 115 Council of Chalcedon: Background and Aftermath 1/6. The Accession of Anastasius /25. Relations with the Popes: Gelasius /28; Anastasius Il 132. The Laurentian Schism 133. Anastasius and the East the Deposition of | Euphemive 146, The Rite of the Monophysites 130, The Triumph of the Monophysites, 308-512 145, The Trishagion, $12, and Riots in ‘Constantinople 156, The Orthodox Backlash 157, Developments in the Balkans /43. The Revolt of Vitalian 164. The Beginning of the Conflict 167. The Second Stage of Conflict 169. The Defeat of Vitalian 175, Further Negotiations with the Pope 180. Conclusion 15 ADMINISTRATION AND DOMESTIC POLICY 184 Overview ofthe economy and administration ofthe later Roman Empire 145. The Court and Imperial Officials 190. Financial Reforms 193. The (Chrysargyron 194. The Res Privata and Parrimonium 197. The Commutation ofthe Land Tax 199. The Coinage Reform 202. The Introduction ofthe Findices and the Defensor Civitatis; the Destine of the 6 curate? 207, Agrvian Legian 27 Aemy Refers 213. Other Cer oe ers 21 The Ayu Ede 277 Redstions Earner ate 227 Lepiation concern ois fry mates an ap uaa 22, Governing he peopl ations, sand 'Conehson 22 the emperor's respons 7 ANASTASIUS’ BUILDING PROGRAMME 230 Usltarian Projects "yi for prestige: churches 238. Imperial cities 2 8 CONCLUSION APPENDIXES [Notes on the Primary Sources Dating the Panegyries The Popes and Patriarchs (491-518) : ‘The $101511 Formula of Satisfaction (romos ts FAnpobopias) Key Ministers and Officers (491-518) Legislation (491-518) Bibliographic Notes omegoee Glossary Bibliography Index Locorum General Index MAPS, ‘Constantinople Isauria Easter Frontier Palestine, the Red Sea and Arabian Peninsula The Balkans Seythopolis ‘The Tur ‘Abdin 1 Bathhouses and city improvements 233. Building 246 255 2m 29 20 282 285 288 2 207 37 338 2 30 32 110 236 240 Preface and Acknowledgements This book aims to provide a narrative and evaluation of the political, economic, military and religious policies pursued at the tum of the sixth century by the late Roman emperor, Anastasius 1. Imperial bio- graphy as a genre of historiography is sometimes considered outmoded by its critics today, yet the study of the reign of an emperor can reveal very effectively the wider picture of the governance of empire and allow us to explore the complexities of interlocking strategies and reforms in every sphere of imperial policy. It is also the case that this vas a time when the character of the emperor could be all important. The impact of the personality of Justinian on the shape of the sixth century is not undisputed but Anastasius also stamped his own identity ‘on the empire in terms of his prudent economic and foreign policies which form the central focus of this book. ‘These themes were originally explored in my doctoral thesis, The Reign of Anastasius I, 491-518 (Oxford 1998), and it gives me great pleasure to thank those who have advised and encouraged me in ‘writing both the thesis and book. 1 am very grateful to my supervisor, Elizabeth Jeffreys, who has continued to provide support and en- ‘couragement over the years. My examiners, Averil Cameron and Peter Heather, made many helpful comments which I have sought to incor- porate into the book. I would also like to thank James Howard-Johnston who supervised my M. Phil thesis, Polities and administration, court ‘and culture in the reign of Anastasius 1, 491518 (Oxford 1996) Most of the work revising the thesis for publication has been carried ‘out while holding a lectureship in the Department of Classics at King’s College London, which has provided a stimulating and supportive environment and where my colleagues, particularly Lindsay Allen, Judith Herrin, Dominic Rathbone and Charlotte Roueché, have offered advice and encouragement, In 2002, 1 organised a colloquium at the Institute of Classical Studies, London, on New Approaches to the Reign of Anastasius, and benefited from discussions with Geoffrey Greatrex, John Watt, Jim Crow, Michael Metcalf and Richard Price who pre- sented papers and provided me with insights into their own research on particular aspects of Anastasius” reign. ANASTASIUS For suggestions and references, 1 am grateful to Jonathan Baril, Jim Crow, Ken Dark, Leah di Segni, Adam Gutteridge, Robert Hoyland, Sean Kingsley, Marlia Mango, Praemysiaw Masciniak, Charlotte Roueché, Mary Whitby and Tohn Wilkes. 1 am especially grateful to Geoffrey Greatrex and Emma Homby for reading drafts of particular chapters and for all their helpful comments, and to Francis fand Sandra Caims for their invaluable guidance in shaping the transformation of the text from thesis to book. | am greatly indebted to Kathryn Imre who produced the maps and the plans with so much care. Finally, | must thank my parents and Peter who have not only provided practical help in reading drafts of the whole book and in Uiscussing the problems and issues of Anastasius’ reign, but have also offered so much reassurance and inspiration over the years. King's College London, June 2006 4B ASRS BAR BASOR BBBS. BS. BSOAS caH aG cH Hr CMH ce csco DaACL DHGE Ma oP EHR EL FHG Gans HIG HISCP HTR Abbreviations Anat Baton “hive dt Ses romana tori patria Brtshtrehalal Rots, hereto Sore Bullen the dein Sot ef ert Researh Buti of rh Bante Ses Biba Scorn fF. Cas, Roe 1961-198, 129 Plena te Scho of can and Orel Sues Bronce chit Cle ot Cnn 8. Na isa : Vol XV, Le Angus: Ep Sezer AD 25-60" ee ora notin Gascon, exo VOI maaan ei ‘bide Horo rn 0. Yaa, Caras tite Stew een a San Fests Cane Mace For. vel Te Cian Emp’ et TiN Gna and], Whey, Carbege 911 anol IVT Bye Ee Hay, Cambie 1946-1967 Clase Rove GipusSrrum Cris Oren Gone Tees Th, Monee, Btn 1905 Distcmaed echt cto ode rg, Co Past 15071953 1 Dctomaie chistire et ce givgriphie écléaagues, Ps Dao ct de gigriphie elias, Disonayf the Mie Aes. New York, 1982-1989, Dumbo ks Paper Dictomare de shoogie cote, oA. Vacant and Sango ar 1908-1950, zrlh ison Revie Enevcopecta neo. Yates, London 985 a Frarmen orcoran Gover. Mole, ari TL, sl Witte Gok, Roman and satin Sais Isis abu Gomes Caescht nnd Suds Clase! Pil Harvnd Thc even IGLs us rey JAS eA JESHO JS. 0B JORG “INES RA RS Ma MGHAA oc ocb ODE Cire os PG PL. PLRE Po FOr. fe RESE RH RHE, ROC SEG Sel. Let ™ Val. It Now |ANASTASIUS I Inscriptions grecques ot larines de la Syrie,ed8. L Jalbert and R. ‘Mouterde, Puris 1929-1982, 7 vols, “Inscripiones Latina Selectae, ed, H. Dessau, Belin 1954, vol. ‘Israel Exploration Jounal “Journal ofthe American Oriemal Socets “Journal of Ezyptian Archaeology “Journal ofthe Economie and Social History of the Orient “Journal of Hellenic Studies “Tahrbuch der Osterreichischen byzantinsti “Tahrhuch der Ostereichischen byzantinischen Geselischaft Journal of Near Eastern Studies “Jounal of Roman Archaeology “Journal of Roman Studies “Journal of Teological Studies “Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire ‘Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Amiguissim, Beri 1877-1919. Oriens Christian ‘Oxford Classical Ditiony, Oxford 1970 (2nd ition). (Oxford Dietionary of Byzantium, Oxford 1991, 3 vols. ‘Numismatic Cirewlar (Orientalia Suecana Patrologia Gracca, ed. 1? Migne, Paris 1857-1866. Patrologia Latina, 20... Migne, Pris 1844-1865, The bv of the Later Roman Empire, UR. Martindale, (Cambridge 1980, voll, A.D. 395-527. Patrologia Orientals, Pais 1903-. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. BP. Grenfell and A'S. Hunt, London 1898. Paulys Real-Eneyclopadie der classischen Altertumssissenschaf 0d. G, Wissowa, Stutgart1893-. Rene des étdessuc-esteuropéennes Revue historique Revue Thistoire ecelésiatique Revue de! Urent chresien Supplementum Epigraphicum Graccum The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus patriarch of Antioch, led. E:W. Brooks, London 1903-1904, Travaux et Mémoires ‘Valentinian Il, Novelae, in Codex Theodosianus,e0.P. Meyer, Berlin 1905, vo. IL ‘CONSTANTINOPLE INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ‘On 10th April, 491, the day following the death of the emperor Zeno, the senate and patriarch Euphemius met in the imperial palace while the soldiers and citizens of Constantinople gathered impatiently in the hippodrome.' In response to the pleas from these crowds, the widowed empress Ariadne, attired in the imperial cloak and accompanied by a number of ministers, appeared before them. The people addressed her ‘with familiar acclamations: "Long live the Augusta; Ariadne Augusta, you conguer!" However, they also had a mumber of requests con- ceming the new emperor: he should be Roman, orthodox and not avaricious, These acclamations, although by nature rather generic, were remark= ably relevant on this occasion and highlight the key concems in the ceastem empire of the Tate fifth century: namely, the ascendancy of the Isaurians in the imperial capital culminating in the accession of the Isaurian Zeno, the increasing doctrinal schism addressed, but not solved, by the council of Chalcedon, and the poor economic position of the empire.‘ It must have been well known in the capital that Zeno had ‘been grooming his brother, Longinus, for succession to the imperial throne, an outcome clearly anticipated by Longinus himself.’ Through the magister a libellis, standing on the steps before the imperial throne, The following account of Anastasius’ accession is taken fiom de Cer. 192, noida ta em cig asyouame Apiedin atqoUeEs, ob VIE The citizens also demanded a new ity prefect since it probable that the cument unpopular incumbent was an Lauran f Bay (1923) L430, m1 ‘Zeno unpopalanty (exacerbated by he stgns of his Isai bh and unfavourable presentation inthe contemporary soures mean tat he is often blamed for the religious lind economic problems ofthe ate ih century. In fet, his religous palicy based on ‘be Henoricon enjoyed relative success, and although his fiscal administration was ‘weak, greater entism may be reserved fr Leo's los of funds inthe 468 expedition, fn the bigh expenses of Basiliscu” interim government Eva. 1.29, Theoph. AM, 3982. ANASTASIUS Ariadne offered reassurances to the citizens of Constantinople: she had asked the ministers, senate and army to select an emperor Who was Roman, a Christian and full of every royal virtue, Meanwhile, back in front of the Delphax in the imperial palace, senior ministers and Euphemius, the patriarch of Constantinople, were discussing the question of succession. The praepositus sacri cubiculi, Urbicius, proposed that the choice should be left to Ariadne herself, and she selected the silentiary, Anastasius, The court intrigue and machinations which must have led to this appointment are mostly ob- scured from us, but a few tantalising hints may be recovered in the extant sources, Little is known about Anastasius” early life and career, but he must have been a well-known figure at the imperial court.” He came from the town of Dyrthachium (ancient Epidamnus) in Nova Epirus, the last point on the Via Egnatia, but Anastasius was certainly considered *Roman’ by birth and to be preferred over any Isaurian ‘candidate, Although he pursued a career in the imperial palace, he also involved himself in the religious life of the capital by giving bis own private sermons to a select congregation in the Great Church, an action which, however, incurred the wrath of the patriarch: “When Euphemius saw Anastasius ereating a riot, he overtumed his chair in the church and threatened him that, unless he stopped, he would tonsure his head and parade him in mockery among the crowd. He brought the charge before Zeno and received authority over Anastasius”.” Anastasius’ in terest in preaching was not mere amateurism, however, since he was also a candidate for the patriarchy of Antioch in 488 after the death of Peter the Fuller." His interest and involvement in doctrinal matters was to continue throughout his reign, although his religious policy did little to lessen the widening gap between the eastern and western church and the hardening of the schism between the orthodox and monophysites. Euphemius expressed his objections to the appointment of Anastasius and only agreed to carry out his role in the coronation ceremony when the new eiuperor agreed Wo sige writen declaration of oxlwdoxy accepting the council of Chalcedon.” " On the office and dutics of siletaies, soe ch, 6, a1. For a reconstruction of ‘Atwstasus any eater, Capiz (1969) 47-10 Sy oztomorovee Ups ty év o} Seeiqoig Kolkipay aind dutompeyes: fineviieas aur. dc. €F uh abooieo. daoxeipat tiv nega aso wa Ts Spang civ Bpuoueooen. Fecinecey Se ech Zhvwvt. Kel ty wal” E00 ‘efousiay txapev. Theed: Lect. 441; Thooph, AM 8982 (Ir Mango and Seo), 4 Thood. Lest. 448, Viet. Tun. 491, Thooph. AM S983, Niceph, Call, XVL20, ‘As relations berween emperor and pach deteriorated nthe ctiy years ofthe 4905; ‘his signed declaration of Fath was to Become «serious matter of contention; cf. ch. § pio | INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 3 ‘The erucial factor, however, in Anastasius’ accession was surely his close personal connections at the imperial court. While he had not yet reached the rank of senator, his position as a silentiary, pethaps serving the empress Ariadne, brought him into contact with the highest echelons. Silentiaries were under the jurisdiction of the praeposirus sacri cubiculi and hence Anastasius would have been known to Urbi- cius who had worked at the imperial court for over fifty years and must have already been in his seventies by 491. As a praepositus, Urbicius ‘would have enjoyed clase access to the imperial couple and could draw con a long experience of the workings of court life.” Given Zeno’s ill health and the need to close out Longinus from the accession, it is natural that discussions concerning the appointment of a new emperor had already taken place within court circles. It is likely that Urbicius knew Ariadne’s favoured choice of successor, and it seems that there were no objections to entrusting the widowed empress with the appointment. Of course, this tactic may have been a ploy to circumvent the hopes of Longinus whose claim to the throne would naturally have bbeen supported by his fellow Isaurians who occupied some of the key military and administrative positions. These included the magister officiorum, Longinus of Kardala, who had been in post since 484, and Athenodorus, a powerful senator. Both were banished in 491 by Ana- stasius. As noted above, itis likely that the unpopular city prefect of 491 was also an Isaurian, Zeno’s brother, Longinus, had himself held a number of important posts, including a second consulship in 490 and the post of magister militum praesentalis in 491. Others, however, ‘would have been present to support the cause of Anastasius; and indeed, itis significant that not all those connected with the old regime were exiled by the new emperor. For example, John the Seythian, ‘magister militum per Orientem 483-498, may have helped to crush the rebellion of Illus and Leontius under Zeno, but he remained in post to prosecute the war in Isauria, his experience of guerrilla warfare in these mountainous segions paying dividends in 497 with the capture of Longinus of Kardala and Athenodorus, The praetorian prefect Arca- dius, who had opposed Zeno’s murder of the ex-silentiary, Pelagius, on spurious grounds and narrowly escaped death himself, no doubt also supported a change of regime." If he can be identified as the Arcadius who was the addressee of an undated law (promulgated sometime be- tween 491 and 505), itis clear that he too remained in post. It would also be illuminating 10 trace back the careers of those who would "Claus (1984) 1245-125; PLRE WAT88-1190, mh * On Pelagas te, see below ANASTASIUS I become the key ministers in Anastasius’ government: did they play a role in his accession to be rewarded with top jobs later? Unfortunately. the available evidence does not allow such detailed analysis. It may only be noted that leading officials such as Polycarp, John the Paphla- gonian, and Marinus all held positions in the scrinium Orientis (the financial sub-department of the praetorian prefect), and it is possible that they were already known to Anastasius at the court ‘That Ariadne chose Anastasius as the new emperor and also married hhim a month later (20th May), naturally gave rise to speculation that they had already enjoyed intimate relations while Zeno was still alive; and the latter's death was not without suspicious circumstances.” Zachariah of Mytilene reported that Anastasius had enjoyed, when he ‘was a soldier, the favour of Ariadne, who wished to make him em- peror.!* It is clear, however, that if Ariadne enjoyed more than the services Anastasius offered as a silentiary, no whisper ever reached the ears of her suspicious husband. According to Malalas, after the death of his only son Zeno consulted the seer Maurianus who reveated that an ex-silentiary would marry Ariadne and become the next emperor. Zeno immediately arrested the distinguished and learned patrician Pelagius who was an ex-silentiary, and had him strangled. Given that the prae- torian prefect, Arcadius, who protested at this murder, escaped the same fate only by sceking refuge in the Great Church, it is likely that Zeno had no inkling of his wife’s relationship with Anastasius, if it ever existed." As for accounts of Zeno’s death, itis significant that contemporary sources give its cause as dysentety."* A sensational tradition did not develop until much later when Cedrenus and Zonaras related that Zeno, having become unconscious, was, apparently, buried alive and although he shouted from within, Ariadne forbade the sarcophagus to be opened." Despite Anastasius’ advanced age at his accession (at around sixty hhe must have been about the same age as Zeno and cannot have been expected 10 enjoy # long reign), the sources are unanimous in their description of his height, dignified appearance and imposing presence, Malalas recorded that “He was very tall, with short hair, a good figure, ‘a round faee, both hair and beard greying ...""” and Zachariah of © Cf Capiz 1969) 74, 2.16 P Zach. of Myt VILL Cf Mal. 390 S Mal. 391; Theaph, AM 5943 gives the eauseof death as epilepsy. * Gedy 623, Zon. XIV AL-3S. Mal 392 continues “he had a grey pupil in his right eye and black one in his eft though his eyesight was perfect and he shaved his eat frequently” Gy 8¢ yxy avy, KovBibpis, elovohas, ppOyIMREYLS,MIEORENLOS tv KGpY Kal tO YEvEIOY, |. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. 5 Mytilene noted that Anastasius was of very great stature, with a sane and faithful mind.'" Even the hostile Oracle of Baalbek wrote: “He is bald, handsome, his forehead (shines) like silver, he has a long right arm, he is noble, terrifying, high-souled ..."."” John the Lydian praised his qualities of wisdom, good education, kindness, generosity, and controlled temper."® Anastasius’ rather more charismatic personality ‘may have appealed to the citizens of Constantinople as much as to Ariadne, and he was surely a welcome contrast to Zeno who was con- demned in the sources for his cowardice, incompetence and dissolute Way of life.” Anastasius’ ability to manipulate an emotive audience was bome out by his handling of a riot later in his reign when he ‘appeared in the hippodrome without his diadem and offered to resign, a gesture which seemingly won aver the erowd.”? After Ariadne had named Anastasius successor, he was brought to the Consistorium, and the funeral rites for Zeno were performed. On Mth April, the officials, now dressed in white, were received by Anastasius in the Consistorium. All of them processed to the portico of the sriklinos of the Nineteen Couches where Anastasius gave an oath that he would distress no person against whom he had a grudge, and Would govern conscientiously. The procession then advanced to the triklinos of the hippodrome where he dressed in the imperial tunic, girdle, leggings and red boots before proceeding to the kathisma where he received the acclamations of the citizens and soldiers. He was raised ‘on a shield, the soldiers raised their standards and the tore was placed fon his head. After further acclamations he retumed to the triklinos where Euphemius covered him with the imperial cloak and crowned him. Appearing again in the hippodrome, he promised the customary donative of five nomismata and a pound of silver to each soldier, and received their acclamations. Chief among these were the injunctions: “Reign as you have lived! You have lived piously, reign piously!"™> 538 ts nana fe sy pr aay ni does hs tisfovs t7ov Ovgois WBE owion-aitod woes Detperes tations Jeffreys and Scott). ee ae Zach of Nye it} ofan eyes pps wma ey us apn Bor nea. Teves. shone pefohdyuyes © Oat of be ieee aor uo wn Baie 0-18 2 Johns de Mag t7 Seg Mah 33,16 13, Fv. 11-2, ough he bias testes hots ken nt acount. Lamia (19) The tts her es aion th Tigo 1s. hap 8 Ass succes handing hi rs hsbc compared to at fe 1 handed approach during the Na cot n $32 e oe SS Fonoen oie footievov- orbs a. cine Baste ue 6 ANASTASTUS 1 indicating that, despite Euphemius’ concems over his doctrinal per suasion, the citizens of Constantinople were satisfied with Anastasius’ reputation for piety. Along with general hopes for their prosperity (May the fortune of the Romans flourish”) they also drew the attention of the new emperor to two specific demands: the expulsion of informers and the restoration of the army.* When the acclamations, the subsequent thanksgiving in the Great Church and the banquets were over, it was time for Anastasius to tum his attention to the troubled empire he had inherited. A study of his reign opens a window onto the politics of the late fifth and early sixth centuries, a crucial period in late Roman history prior to the rule of Justinian, whose many achievements were underpinned by Anastasius success in tightening administration, improving the economic outlook of the empire, and securing peace and stability on the frontiers. The latter's long experience in the imperial court and familiarity with state bureaucracy and protocol had left him a shrewd administrator and economist. The Key issues pertinent to the late fifth century and which ‘would dominate Anastasius’ long reign have already been identified: the predominance of the Isaurians in the imperial capital, religious schisms, and the struggling state economy. To these may be added issues of foreign policy: on the eastern frontier, relations with the Arab tribes and war against the Persians; in the west, diplomacy towards the Ostrogoths, Franks and Burgundians, and an attempt to improve security in the Balkans. Because of the vilification of Zeno in the sources, an evaluation of his reign, and hence the state of the empire Anastasius inherited, is problematic, It is certain that the new emperor's ‘expulsion of the Isaurians from the capital and the successful pro- secution of war in the mountains of Isauria won him great popularity At the beginning of his reign, it was important for Anastasius 10 remove the threat of a coup headed by the disappointed Longinus, and the public display and execution of the Isaurian leaders at the close of the war allowed hint t capitalise on his popular victory. The war marked the end of not only the perceived instability of Zeno’s reign, peppered with the internal revolts of Basiliscus, Marcian and Illus, and the depredations of the Theoderies, but also a period of Constantino- politan politics characterised by the successive periods of dominance by Goths and Isaurians. An additional benefit to Anastasius would be the substantial profit to the treasury caused by the cancellation of the annual donation to the Isaurians introduced by Illus in 484, and the ead sien tv Pua. ris Snidropas Rw Be... ig oxpancias ov Eyepov | INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 7 confiscation of all Isaurian property. The political and financial benefits of the Isaurian war were clear. At the close of the Isaurian war, Anastasius was free to tum his attention towards the administration of the empire, While the low level of the imperial fisc may not have been solely Zeno’s fault, it seems he had no opportunity or inclination to tum his attention to the financial recovery oF the administrative needs of the empire. The tribute paid 10 the Ostrogoths in later years and the payments made by Zeno himself to ‘maintain the loyalty of his Isaurians during the war against Illus made further inroads into the treasury, already depleted by the naval expedi- tion of Leo I in 468 and the expenses of Basiliscus. While the hostile sources no doubt exaggerated Zeno’s ineptitude and lavishness, it does appear that efforts to refill the treasury consisted largely of the un- cthical measure of the praetorian prefect, Sebastianus, who demanded official suffragium, a payment to the treasury for every office, and who even sold the rights of appointing officials. It is in this area of government that Anastasius would have been most able to draw on his long experience at the court, and there is no doubt that he devised a complex policy: innovative, responsive and effective. As suggested ‘earlier, he may have already known the employees of the scrinia (Po! carp, Joha the Paphlagonian and Marinus) who, along with a number of experienced lawyers (including Leontius and Sergius), would carry out the key reforms. It is especially notable, for example, that Polycarp and John were in post (praetorian prefect and comes sacrarum largitionum respectively) in 498 when a group of high profile reforms were passed: the abolition of the chrysargyron, the reorganisation of the res privata, the commutation of the land tax, and the first stage of the coinage reform. Tightening of bureaucratic procedures, the regulation of the conduct of officials, improvements to the judicial system, family law and the collection of taxes all contributed to the smoother running and ‘greater prosperity of the empire, With the imperial treasury flourishing, Anastasius could alfind w cul axes and give generous hudouls 10 stricken provinces, and to mastermind a building programme, in which he built and restored churches and monasteries, improved utilities in the capital and provinces, and carried out essential work on fortifi- cations and lines of defence, Justin, and particularly Justinian, must hhave been grateful to Anastasius for the three hundred and twenty thousand pounds of gold they inherited, for without it, the latter would hhave found it difficult to fund his grandiose projects of reconquest and restoration which were so fundamental to the ideology of his reign, Male 7, 16; ef: Bury (1923) L401, Jones (1968) 1228, ® ANASTASIUS L Concer for effective administration may also be found in areas of foreign policy. In 498, the island of lotabe in the gulf of Aqaba at the top of the Red Sea, previously held by the Arab Amorkesos, was recaptured by one of Anastasius’ officers, Romanus. Control of lotabe meant direct access to Indian trade and the collection of lucrative custom duties. A fragmentary inscription found in several locations in Arabia records the reissue of laws conceming changes to the administration of customs and the regulation of ranks of officials. Such legislation suggests Anastasius’ concen to ensure efficiency and strengthen the economy on the easter frontier at atime when relations with Persia were becoming strained Related to this activity is another key strategy of Anastasius’ policy of goverment: diplomacy. In the east, prior to the outbreak of war against Persia, Anastasius moved to cement @ new alliance with the increasingly powerful Ghassanids, encouraging their loyalty by pro- rmoting their cultural and religious integration. Such steps, of course, could not prevent the easy successes enjoyed by the Persian army in 502 on a border where fortifications had been neglected and manpower mited. Neither Zeno nor Anastasius, though both might have antici- pated the outbreak of hostilities, had sought to improve defences on the castem frontier. Anastasius was fortunate that his army was eventually able to contain the Persian advance and to negotiate a treaty which compares favourably, at least in terms of cost, with Inter treaties of Justinian, Moreover, after the close of war, as noted above, Anastasius did begin to improve defences on the border, especially with the fortification of Dara, renamed Anastasiopolis. Diplomacy was also required to handle the delicate relationship with the Ostrogoths who were now occupying Italy, the heart of the old Roman empire, Although Zeno had invited Theoderic to remove the Scirian Odoacer and rule in his place, largely in an attempt to remove the Ostrogothic leader from the environs of Constantinople, he had never defined Theoderie’s constitutional position. The ambiguity was reflected in Theoderc’s limited use of imperial prerogatives on the one hand, and on the other, his imperial-style visit fo Rome in S00 and his large-scale building programme. More worrying for Anastasius were Ostrogothic plans for expansion: in the Balkans, the capture of Sirmium from the Gepids; and in the west, the attempt to bind the Visigoths, Burgundians, Franks and Vandals by various marriage alliances, While continuing his efforts to establish a modus vivendi with ‘Theoderic, Anastasius reacted to this threat of imperialist expansion by ‘a bout of energetic diplomatic overtures of his own. The Frankish king, Clovis, was weaned away from alliance with Theoderic to enjoy a | INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. ° special relationship with the Romans, encouraged by the reward of an honorary consulship. Anastasius was also successful in promoting close relations with the king of the Burgundians, Gundobad, and especially his son and successor, Sigismund. ‘There is no doubt that Anastasius’ dealings with Theoderic in Italy were complicated by the doctrinal schism between the churches of the east and west, and it is clear that, with regard to religious policy generally, imperial diplomacy did not achieve the same success it enjoyed in other areas of government. At his accession, the church was still enduring the ramifications of the council of Chalcedon. The Henoticon of Zeno, composed by his patriarch, angered the pope on two counts: firstly, it ignored the definition of faith agreed at Chal- cedon which the church of Rome held to underpin the orthodox faith; secondly, an emperor had seen fit to dictate church policy. The pope and patriarch excommunicated each other, resulting in the thirty-five year long Acacian schism, Anastasius’ attempt to heal the rift with the ‘church of Rome failed, the doctrinal differences no doubt exacerbated by the unhelpful role played by successive popes in negotiations be- tween himself and Theoderic. The emperor's personal inclination towards monophysitism which so concemed Euphtemius, the rise of powerful monophysite leaders such as Philoxenus and Severus, and his ‘concern not to alienate the monophysite citizens of the eastem pro- vinces (at a time when they were exposed to Persian aggression) led 10 a deepening of the schism within the eastem church. ‘A final theme of Anastasius’ government relating to provision of frontier security is the commencement of a programme of defensive fortifications, Reference has already been made to the improvements carried out on the easter frontier after the end of the Persian war. The construction and repair work was largely responsible for the twenty years of peace following the 506 treaty. In the west, in response to threats against the capital, Anastasius repaired ot built the Long Wall, ‘and archaeological evidence for a coherent strategy of fortification in the Balkans is beginning to emerge, contrary to Procopius" de Aedificits which credits such works to Justinian alone. Prudent management of the fise meant that Anastasius was able to carry out this building programme. Systematic analysis of the key aspects of Anastasius’ rule is crucial for an understanding of the issues facing the late Roman world in the late fifth and early sixth century and allows us to evaluate the successes and failures of imperial government during his reign. Such an approach highlights the complex fabric of reforms and strategies seen in domestic and foreign policy, as well as the difficulties incurred in the 7 ANASTASIUS 1 ‘management of, for example, the religious schisms. hat the balance in the imperial treasury at Anastasius’ death was, as already mentioned, three hundred and twenty thousand pounds of gold is testimony to government success in directing the administration and economy of the empire. In April 491, however, the priority of the new regime must have been merely to establish itself. Thus, assessment of Anastasius’ reign must begin with the rival claim to the throne: the rise and fall of the Isaurians in the second half of the fifth century. 2, THE ISAURIAN REVOLT ‘The first eight years of Anastasius’ reign (491-498) saw the emperor largely preoccupied with the uprising of the barbaric and generally peripheral Isaurians, who had lately become the dominant force in cast Roman politics. Starting out as brigands and pirates, previously @ recurrent source of harassment on the edges of the empire, the Isaurians now held some of the key posts at the apex of imperial government in Constantinople, But how to explain this meteoric rise? It was a con- siderable achievement which had grown out of Roman misgivings about relying on one race of barbarians (the Goths) to secure the fron- tiers of the empire against the depredations of another (the Huns). After years of continual aggression against the empire, the Isaurians were now deployed within the system as a counter-balance against German dominance. But there would always be Roman distaste for dependence fon any foree other than the imperial army, and natural antipathy towards the Isaurians quickly developed to hostility as the leading tribesmen moved from powerful positions in the military to influential political offices, When Anastasius took the throne in 491, the empire had seen seventeen years of rule by the Isaurian emperor, Zeno, and ‘contemporary evidence suggests that the succession of his brother Longinus would not have been tolerated. Zeno had not brought peace and security to the empire and the sparring hetween Zeno and Mlus had been at the empire's expense,’ With universal dissatisfaction in the capital, the temptation for Anastasius to make a clean sweep and exile all Isaurians was too attractive, How better to secure his own position, and the gratitude of both government and people? The ensuing war Iie was @ powerful Isaurian general who came fo Constantinople inthe second half fof te fifth century. He held several key postions, including those of magiter fficirum, magivtr miitun per Orentem ad te consulship, but didnot lays back Zeno he fatally supported the coup of Basiliscus and from 484 supported the rival emperor, Leoni ANASTASIUS ISAURIA Apamela Sogaiasnes ‘cic PEDAS: ‘Techandy Kloss (Papin Canto) Sea CILICIA TRACHEA (ROUGH ChIClA) 2. HE ISAURIAN REVOLT B sparked by this expulsion and Anastasius’ unexpected victory — guerilla warfare in the mountains of Isauria hardly afforded the ‘advantage to the imperial forces — further enhanced the emperor's prestige and popularity. But to recognise fully the extent of the achievement in effectively crushing Isaurian defiance towards the empire, and to understand the psychological and political reaction in Constantinople,’ a more detailed analysis is needed of the nature of Romano-Isaurian relations. Geographical and Political Boundaries In antiquity, the area of Isauria was incorporated under the general heading of Cilicia, corresponding roughly to the sub-division of Cilicia, Tracheia (Rough Cilicia). The coastal province of Cilicia had for its boundaries the Taurus mountains to the north, the Melas river to the cast (forming a boundary with Pamphylia) and the Amanus mountains to the west (the Syrian border). Cilicia Tracheia formed the westem part and was a mountainous region, quite unlike the rich and populous plains of Cilicia Pedias to the east.’ Tracheia first fell into Roman hands as part of the lands bequeathed to the senate in 133 8.c. by King Attalus IIL of Pergamum.* The rapid degeneration of the inhabitants of this area into brigandage and piracy® brought them into a conflict with Rome which was to continue for the next five centuries. Several attempts were made to curb their piratical activity, including the inter- vention of P, Servilius Vatia in 78-75 B.C. and Pompey the Great in Capi (1969) 90, > Fors detailed discussion ofthe name and geography of Isai, see Capizz (1969) 90 wth references fo the relevant primary materi, Mitford (1980) 1280-1234, Shaw (1990) 199-208, Hill (1996) 3. Lenk (1999) 413-417 and on etic, se especially Burges (1990) and Elton (2000), The Isaurans are mentioned fst by Homer, ad YVUIRE-18S and ae found in Herodotus, Histories, 28, 17, Il and VILSY. They ‘here sao kngwa a th ancient Sab c- Pros Pan 9; Pee Bon. 81, Theadowet af Cyne, History ofthe Monk of Shia X.5: who of those who live in ou part of the world has nt heard ofthe misfotues tht ocurred at his time Beeaose of Hose formerly called Solyni and now Iaurians” (rs yap tv thy Ka” fds oixo\evNY obeouvtey dvrioog tiv nav" Exeiwov sv Ka\pow ouexérey Kay (tv raat pv Dokiwey, viv Be loaopay dvoyaeuevon:) (tr Price). Chauvor (1986) 121 CE Mitford 1980) 1234 5 Strabo XIV.56. notes "Yor since the region ws naturally well adapted to he business of pimcy both by land and by sea." (euquods yep Svtog TOO s6no0 moc 18 geo wat avi yy we ad Oana) (Jones, refered to by Hepod (19R3) 173, Soe also Minor (1979) 1181 © On this campaign, sce Magic (1950) L287-290, wid IL1170, 022 for the conte porary source, Piganil (1967) 480, Capizi (1969) 91, Minor (1979) 119, Mira (1940) 1235-1336 and Seullard (1982) 97 4 ANASTASIUS | 67 mc. The latter cleared the coast of Cilicia Tracheia, winning a decisive battle at Coracesium, the main centre of piratical activity, and reportedly captured one hundred and twenty settlements along the coastline and in the Taurus foothills.’ When Anastasius eventually sue- ceeded in suppressing the Isaurians (see below, pp.26-28). he is compared favourably with both Servilius® and Pompey.” Pompey received great acclaim for this victory and his subsequent reorganisation of Cilicia, yet the history of this province is one of shifting boundaries both’ geographical and political,” and continued aggression towards the empire. Periods of relative peace and prosperity always yielded to renewed hostility. Thus, after nearly a century of peace, Isaurian chieftains raided Lycia and Pamphylia which sparked a was thus imperative for Zeno to retin tus Toya a this ime. Fa an overview of lations between Zeno and the two Thcodsrics, see Heather 1991) 272-293, » Soe Brooks (1895) 219, CMH 1474-45, Bury (1923) 1594-395 and Jones (1968) 135-237 ° Theoderic, son of Theodemir, was defeated by the maser mit Sabinianus; Thee eric, son of Triaras, was bought off. ° On the chronology ofthis rebelion and Verna’s banishment, Brooks (1893) 219, ® Cf Brooks (1898) 219-221, Bury (1923) 1398 and Jones (1864) 1227 "© Theoderie continued his incursions into Roman terstory and even atterpted ancthoe aut on Constantinople bt subsequently reed to Thrace where he died in a din cident His son, Reich, who succeeded him, was murdered in 484 by Theoden (Gon of Theoden. who united the rwo Gothic parties unde him. “Mal, 387, Jos 13, Evag. 1127 © Mal 387 with Bury (1923) 1395. 396, conta Josh. 13. ANASTASIUS L indication that war was imminent Both sides then made their Preparations. Illus drummed up support not only from Isauria, but also solicited help from Persia, Roman Armenia and Italy;** while Zeno ought off Theoderic, exiled Illus” friends and bestowed their land on Isaurian cities." Illus chose Leontius, ironically an envoy sent from Zeno, as ‘emperor and, with even greater irony, ‘legalized’ the whole affair with the support of Verina."” She crowned Leontius emperor in Tarsus, and circulated proclamations to Antioch and to the provincial gover- nors of the east and of Egypt, announcing the accession. Leontius centered Antioch triumphantly on 27th June, 484, and was generally received well elsewhere.” However, Illus’ forces were quickly reduced by the imperial troops led by John the Scythian, and Verina and Illus" ‘ther supporters were confined in the Isaurian castle of Papirios where they were either killed by the Romans or perished from natural causes." At some point during the siege Longinus returned to © See Brooks (1893) 222-223 on this episode, the dating and a list of supporters who ‘sccompaned Mls, It seems that Zena tried to avert wat by giving Mis the tsk of Sppointing duces, usually undertaken by the emperor, his ateaion Was distracted by ‘Theederic who was sil ravaging Thessaly and Macedonia, and he was concored for his other's safety ‘While initally Persia sod Roman Armenia agreed and Odoacer refused to help, twas sn fact only Odoacer who did Sond suppor. ‘This lat step Has pat of an ongoing bate between emperor and general wo win the support of Isurans. Later, ls amanged an annual donative of fourteen hundred pounds of gold (Jon of Ani. 214, contra Evag.HL.38 who gives the figure of five ‘ousand pounds). See Stein (1949) 1.30, Capiz: (1969) 94 and Chauvot (1986) 123 fon how the was a notable strain onthe state budget. On the preparations for wa, Josh 15, Mal. 388, John of AN (214; Bury (1923) 4396, CMH 1477-47, Stein (1949), E28, and Jones (1968) 1228-229. Zeno dismissed Is fro his positon as magiser tmilitum per Orienem and appointed i is place ohn the Seyi usta. fr-and Mal. 388 nrongly make Leoni one ofthe original rebels, contra Josh, 14 and Jord. om 382 where Leon is Zano's envoy: cf. Brooks (1893) land Stein (1949) IL28 onthe primary sources. The forces sent with Leomtus were led fy two. beurane Conon, son af Fossa (2 hishop of Apwmeis) nnd Ting.» bu brother of Ts, Josh 14, Tho ect 437, John of Ant, 2145. tus resized that he was 00 ‘unpopular withthe Romans to become emperor bimselt, but hs fst choice, the previous usuper Marcan, refed (or lus subsequently changed his mind). For the full text, Brooks (1893) 226, Verina played on Zen0's unpopularity exacerbated by his promulgation ofthe Henotion Fxcop at Chales and Edesn, osh 16, See Stein (1949) 129 onthe new government ‘of tle and Leontvs, nd generally CMH L478 snd Bury (1923) 1398 vag, 127, Josh. 17, John of Ant. #2146, Theoph. AM $977; Stein (1949) 1129, “Thooderic was iiiay sent at the head of @ Gethic contingent, Dut Was guickly ‘recalled; peshaps Zeno suspected his loyalty Mal. 389, Joh of Ant. £2146, Josh. 17, Evag. 11.27, Theoph. AM $976 and S983, CCW 1478-479 and Sein (1949) 1L30. Mus was Left with only a few supporters, having dismissed over two thousand because of the seatity of provisions and 2. THE ISAURIAN REVOLT a Constantinople, having either escaped or been released by Illus, who pethaps hoped for more lenient treatment should his coup prove unsuccessful.” After a siege of four years, the defences of the castle were breached, and Itlus and Leontius were betrayed by the garrison and executed. Their heads were displayed at Constantinople.” Anastasius and the Isaurians Zeno had only three years to enjoy the fruits of his victory. He died in April, 491 and with him perished Isaurian dominance of the empire ‘The appointment of Anastasius necessarily meant disappointment for Longinus who had hoped to succeed his brother." It also heralded the fragmentation of the Isaurian powerbase in the capital. For, in the world of late Roman politics, it was essential for those in government ‘opposed to Isaurian dominance to grasp at once the opportunity pre- sented by this fragility and sudden vulnerability. And there was one factor which had altered to the Isaurians” disadvantage: the complete change in the balance of power in the east. Under Theodosius II, Mareian, Leo and even Zeno himself, there was @ constant interplay between the Goths and the Isaurians, a constant battle for power and influence at the imperial court. But from 488, the Goths, now in Italy, no longer formed part of the delicately balanced equation, thus re- ducing or nullifying the need for an Isaurian counterforce. Within a very short space of time, the Isaurians lost both their bargaining power and their imperial influence, and it was not surprising that Anastasius should take his first opportunity to rid the empire of this unpopulat ‘oncems over treachery, Trocundes was killed by imperil toops when out aiding for Ssplis, hile Pamprepius, the pagan who had foretold success fru" enterprise petshed atthe hands of the rebels themselves when his prophecy proved false. Fora ‘Sterption of the sale Papsiow and ie smpregnabiiy, see Tosh, 1 and 17 and Coyne (1991) 110 Mare: C 48S, Mal 386, Theaph. AM S975. Longius was appointed magister mil ‘prascentais and Feld the consulship twice (246 and 490). positon tht was ot tually filled more than once by sonteone other than the cmperor — sign that Zeno ‘as priming his brother ar hs siceesor The garison was not rewarded for is treachery; al the defenders were killed. Mare. 488, Mal 389, Josh. 17, Viet. Tun. 4882, Theod. Lect. 438, Theoph, AM S980, and John of Ant (2.2146 whe is nt entirely unsympathetic to te rebels perhaps because ‘oftheir onthodoxy. 488 was a sucessful yeat for Zero. ns he also managed to rid the ‘easlernempie ofthe menace ofthe unpredictable Theoderic an his Gothic horde, by Sending them off wo fight Odoacer nly * Longin’ ambition fr the throne, Evag 29, Theoph. AM S983; Stein (1949) 1.82, ‘Capiz (1969) 95, and Brooks (1893) 231 who comments on Longinus’ unpopuety and incompetence 2 ANASTASIUS | race.** But the magnitude of the task facing the new emperor should not be underestimated. True, valuable lessons from the painful collisions between empire and the ascendant Isaurians were there to be learnt. Yet the difficulty of fighting the Isaurians in their native territory was recognised from Rome’s earliest confrontations in the first century B.C. even Zeno had taken four years to reduce Illus in the mountainous regions ~ and could not be ignored. The First Years of Hostilities ‘Anastasius? initial step was to remove the Isaurians from the arena of imperial power and his opportunity came in the opening months of his reign. Conflicting source evidence obscures the story. It scems that the new emperor accused his unpopular opposition of instigating the riot in the hippodrome, as noted by Marcellinus Comes: “Civil strife arose among the Byzantines and most of the city and the hippodrome was engulfed by a blaze”.** The riot was ostensibly a protest against the un- popular city prefect, Julian, and Anastasius, though firmly suppressing, this insurgence, replaced the prefect with his own brother-in-law, Secundinus.>” Was there any foundation for Anastasius” accusation that the Isaurians had any involvement in this riot, or was this merely an excuse for the mass deportation of Isaurians?™* John of Antioch’s © We have soon plenty of evidence of the ill ill fet towards the Iaurians in Constantinople, eg losh, passim. See also Prise. Pan. 19-37, and Proc. Pun. 9, on thet pinging and insotence before Anastasios Became emperor. This is nt. For ones, inere paneysviealthetone, #8 Josh, Zach. of My VIL2 and Georg, Mon, 624 all Comment om the Isaurians” unruly behaviour atthe beng of Anata’ reign f Vasile (1952) 10 and Chawvor (1980) 123. Bellon pledium iter Byte orm pars urbis prima aque circ fee combs Mare C491 Croke) Job of Ant. f2 14 links this rot w the expulsion of the Ikaians, conta Mal 393-398 and Mare. C. who do not mention the conection “Theogh, AM S085 eer 0 the “any Outages by the Isurians, possibly ‘efering to ther artim ms not Ce eh, pp 225-26. Books (1893) 252 wrongly believes this sot was provoked by religious discoment, cf (he 8 pp.225-226, There is no evidence tha the Issurians were strongly Chaledonian foniodon, or indeed that the people of Constantinople preferred Chaleedonian Tanurans to the monophysite Anisasus: se Bréhier (1914) col. 1449. Brooks i aso tenncoearly concerned that Bury (1923) 432-433 (ho followed an account by A Rone, Katter dnastains. Dison. Halle-Witenborg 1882) i associating the Expulsion with the rit of 493 (not 91). However, does seem clea that Bury was ‘lorng tothe 491 rit and closely follows the account of John of Antioch, The Confusion arses Because Marceinas Comes, in his description ofthe 491 rot, does Sor mention thatthe imperial satucs were plled down, as reported by John of. ‘Antioch. This is not a significant omission, however. a¢ such vandalism was 2 Gommon featwe of ety rots; the burmmg of the circus. on the oer hand, also ‘menoned by John of Antioch, whichis mich rae, fs connected by Marcellus with 2.1HE ISAURIAN REVOLT B account is not clear. Whatever the substance behind Anastasius” claims Zeno's brother, Longinus, was banished, according to some sources, t0 the Thebaid where he died of starvation eight years later.” Longinus’ mother, wife and daughter were exiled to the Bithynian coast where they were forced to subsist on charity.” Longinus of Kardala, the ‘magister officiorum (484-491), was also expelled, his case not helped by his ardent support of his namesake's claim to the throne." Another prominent Isaurian, the senator Athenodorus, also found himself ousted from the capital Discrepancy in the sources conceals whether ‘Anastasius expelled all the Isaurians inthe eapital, or whether they left of their own accord, fearing that with no influence a massacre such as that under Basiliseus might follow.* At the same time, Anastasius also imposed other penalties on the Isaurians. He withdrew the annual

    You might also like