Heraclius Constantine III Emperor of Byz

DOI 10.
1515/bz-2022-0004 BZ 2022; 115(1): 69–116
Nikolas Hächler
Heraclius Constantine III – Emperor of

Byzantium (613 – 641)
Abstract: This paper evaluates the significance of emperor Heraclius Constantine
III, the eldest son of Heraclius (610 – 641), for Byzantium in times of political and
military crisis. The first part examines how Heraclius established his family as an
imperial dynasty of Byzantium between 613 and 622. The second section ana-
lyzes how the young emperor represented his father in Constantinople, while
Heraclius waged war against the Persian Sasanids during the 620s. The final seg-
ment deals on the one hand with the joint rule of Heraclius and his eldest son
after Byzantine victories against the Persians and, on the other hand, with the
growing influence of Heraclonas. Finally, the contribution explores Heraclius
Constantine’s III role as Augustus senior after his father’s death in 641. The
until now often understudied emperor was thereby of essential importance for
Byzantium’s stability in the first half of the 7th century.
Adresse: Dr. Nikolas Hächler, ERC Project “The Just City”, Universität Zürich, Historisches
Seminar, Culmannstrasse 1 (CUB-G-02), 8006 Zürich, Schweiz; nikolas.haechler@hist.uzh.ch
The reign of the emperor Heraclius (610 – 641) is often perceived as a distinctive
transformative phase in the history of Byzantium marked by external and inter-
nal threats to the state on a military, political and ideological level.¹ To overcome
This paper was written during a research stay at the Institute for Byzantine Studies, Byzantine
Art History and Modern Greek Studies at the LMU Munich and finalized at the Department of
History at Princeton University as part of a Postdoc.Mobility-Fellowship by the Swiss National
Science Foundation (SNSF). I would very much like to thank Prof. Dr. Albrecht Berger for the op-
portunity to work in Munich as well as the members of the Institute for Byzantine Studies for
their kind hospitality and numerous opportunities for stimulating discussions. I would also
like to thank the anonymous reviewers as well as Dr. Signy Gutnick Allen for their helpful re-
marks on this paper, especially with regard to the end of Heraclius Constantine’s III reign. Fi-
nally, I owe thanks to Prof. Dr. Jack Tannous for his friendly support during my stay at Princeton.
 J. Haldon, Byzantium in the seventh century. The transformation of a culture. Cambridge
,  – ; J. Koder, “Zeitenwenden”. Zur Periodisierungsfrage aus byzantinischer Sicht.
BZ  (),  – ; G. Reinink / B. Stolte (eds.), The reign of Heraclius ( – ). Crisis
and confrontation. Groningen Studies in Cultural Change, . Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA ; W.
Open Access. © 2022 The Author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
70 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 115/1, 2022: I. Abteilung
many of these challenges, Heraclius operated within a network of powerful al-

lies. Among his most trusted supporters were members of the imperial family.
In this context, Heraclius’s eldest son, usually referred to as Heraclius Constan-
tine III (613 – 641) in modern scholarship, played an eminent role in the political
planning of his father. Until now, however, there has not been a detailed study
focusing on his son’s reign and its significance for Byzantium. It is the goal of
this paper to systematically collect and analyse the relevant source material in
order to examine this often overshadowed ruler to understand and evaluate
his function for the survival of Byzantium during the first half of the 7th century.
In doing so, the analysis will additionally provide insight into some transforma-
tions of Byzantium’s imperial ideology until 641.
Since Heraclius Constantine III always stayed in Constantinople while his fa-
ther fought against external threats during the 620s and between 634 and 638, he
contributed to the imperial family’s representation in the capital and thus to the
continuity of the Byzantine state. He therefore occupied a key position within the
Heraclian family (Fig. 1). However, his significance can only be evaluated in de-
tail by taking into account the varying historical circumstances as well as the ac-
tions of prominent officials surrounding him. This is the reason why this exami-
nation will follow a chronological order and continuously consider socio-
political networks of which the ruler was part.
In a first passage, this paper will focus on the birth and coronation of Her-
aclius Constantine III as well as his depiction as Heraclius’s successor. A second
section will deal with his functions as his father’s deputy in Constantinople
while Heraclius himself fought Sasanian troops in the East during the 620s. A
third segment explores the relationship between the two emperors after Hera-
clius’s victories against the Persians in 628, his return to the capital and his sub-
sequent reign, followed by an examination of the brief period when Heraclius
Constantine III acted as Augustus senior after his father’s death in 641.
Kaegi, Heraclius. Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge ; A. Louth, Byzantium transforming

( – ), in J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire (c.  – ).
Cambridge ,  – ; J. Howard-Johnston, Witness to a world crisis. Historians and his-
tories of the Middle East in the seventh century. Oxford ,  – . See as well the recent
publications by J. Howard-Johnston, The last great war of antiquity. Oxford ; T. Raum, Sze-
nen eines Überlebenskampfes. Akteure und Handlungsspielräume im Imperium Romanum
 – . Roma Aeterna, . Stuttgart ; N. Viermann, Herakleios, der schwitzende Kaiser.
Die oströmische Monarchie in der ausgehenden Spätantike. Millennium-Studien, . Berlin
.
N. Hächler, Heraclius Constantine III 71
Fig. 1. Stemma of Heraclius’s dynasty, based on PLRE III 1543 (sole emperors and Augusti se-
niores appear in bold letters). Source: author.
Establishing a new dynasty – birth, coronation

and political functions of Heraclius Constantine
III between 613 and 622
Φλάβιος Ἡράκλειος ὁ νέος Κωνσταντῖνος (PLRE III, 349 f., Heraclius Constanti-
nus 38; EPLBHC II, 238 f.) was born in Constantinople on May 3, 612 as the eldest
son of the emperor Heraclius and the Augusta Eudocia (PLRE III, 457, Eudocia
quae et Fabia EPLBHC III 6 f., Flavia Eudokia).² He was the younger brother of
Epiphania quae et Eudocia (PLRE III 445 f., Epiphania 2), who was born on
July 7, 611 in the Hiereia palace.³ As his name indicates, his father actively at-
tempted to revitalize the memory of Constantine the Great when consolidating
his own dynasty, thereby depicting his offspring as a new hope for the future
 Chronicon Paschale, I, rec. L. Dindorfius. Bonn , I, ,  –  = Chronicon Paschale,

 – , trans. M. Whitby/ M. Whitby. Translated Texts for Historians, . Liverpool , ;
Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History, ed. C. Mango. CFHB, . Washington,
DC ,  (,  – ) = Nicephorus, Breviarium; Theophanis Chronographia, I, AM ,
rec. C. de Boor. Leipzig , ,  –  = The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine
and Near Eastern history, AD  – , trans. C. Mango / R. Scott / G. Greatrex. Oxford ,
.
 Chronicon Paschale (as footnote  above), ,  – ; Ioannis Zonarae Epitome Historiarum
, , ed. L. Dindorfius. Leipzig , III, ,  – .
of Byzantium based on its well-remembered past.⁴ This action marked

simultaneously a departure from Justinian’s I family, which ended abruptly
after the assassination of Maurice as well as the disruptive reign of Phocas. Bap-
tized by patriarch Sergius, Heraclius’s eldest son was blessed by saint Theodore
of Sykeon at the Sophianae palace.⁵ Heraclius’s daughter and son were then
raised as Augusta and Augustus while they were still infants. As the eldest,
Epiphania Eudocia was crowned on October 4, 611.⁶ Heraclius Constantine III
subsequently became co-emperor on behalf of his father on January 22, 613:⁷
 The expression “ὁ νέος Κωνσταντῖνος” first appears to denote Constantine II ( – ), see
C. Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies byzantines de la Bibliothèque Nationale, I: D’Anastase
Ier à Justinien II ( – ). Paris ,  f.; M. Whitby, Images for emperors in Late Antiq-
uity. A search for New Constantine, in P. Magdalino (ed.), New Constantines. The rhythm of im-
perial renewal in Byzantium, th–th centuries. Papers from the Twenty-sixth Spring Sympo-
sium of Byzantine Studies. St. Andrews, March . Society for the Promotion of Byzantine
Studies, . Cambridge ,  f.; A. Berger, Legitimation und Legenden. Konstantin der
Große und sein Bild in Byzanz, in A. Goltz / H. Schlange-Schöningen (eds.). Konstantin der
Große. Das Bild des Kaisers im Wandel der Zeiten. Beihefte zum Archiv für Kulturgeschichte,
. Cologne/Weimar/Vienna ,  – . As Berger notes, this adjective – meaning here
“the Younger” – was repeatedly used to indicate the relationship between a son and a father
or a grandson and a grandfather in Byzantine history. In earlier times, Venantius Fortunatus re-
fers to Justin I as a new Constantine. Tiberius II appears as a νέος Κωνσταντῖνος as well, see G.
Rösch, Onoma basileias. Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitulatur in spätantiker
und frühbyzantinischer Zeit, Dissertation der Universität Heidelberg. Byzantina Vindobonensia,
. Vienna , .
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , , ed. Mango  – ; see also: Vie de
Théodore de Sykéôn, écrite par Géorgios prètre et higoumène du mème monastère, ed. et trans.
A.-J. Festugière. Subsidia hagiographica, . Brussels , I,  f., and C. Rapp, All in the
family. John the Almsgiver, Nicetas and Heraclius, Nea Rhome  (),  – , here
 – . With regard to Theodore of Sykeon as a holy man and his relation to the imperial
court see C. Rapp, Holy bishops in Late Antiquity. The nature of Christian leadership in an
age of transition. Berkeley/ Los Angeles / London ,  – ; J.O. Rosenqvist, Die byzan-
tinische Literatur. Vom . Jahrhundert bis zum Fall Konstantinopels . Berlin , ; S.
Efthymiadis / V. Déroche, Greek hagiography in Late Antiquity (fourth–seventh centuries), in
S. Efthymiadis (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography. Farnham/Bur-
lington ,  – . On the Sophianae see A. Cameron, Notes on the Sophiae, the Sophianae
and the harbour of Sophia. Byzantion  (),  – .
 Chronicon Paschale (as footnote  above), ,  – ; Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM
, ed. de Boor ,  – .
 Chronicon Paschale, ,  – , ; trans. Whitby/Whitby (as footnote  above),  f. See
also Ps.-Sebeos, : Patmowt’iwn Sebeosi, ed. G. Abgaryan. Erevan ,  for a similar de-
piction of events. Compare, however, the description presented by Theophanes (as footnote 
above), AM , ed. de Boor, ,  – , who reports that Heraclius Constantine III was
crowned already on December  by patriarch Sergius. C. Zuckerman, On the title and the office
Τούτῳ τῷ ἔτει μηνὶ αὐδυναίῳ, κατὰ Ῥωμαίους ἰανουαρίῳ κβʹ, ἡμέρᾳ δευτέρᾳ, ἐστέφθη τὸ
παιδίον Ἡράκλειος νέος Κωνσταντῖνος βασιλεὺς ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρακλείου εἰς τὸ
παλάτιν· καὶ εὐθέως ἀνῆλθεν εἰς τὸ Ἱπποδρόμιον, κἀκεῖ στεφθεὶς προσεκυνήθη ὑπὸ τῶν
συγκλητικῶν ὡς βασιλεύς, καὶ εὐφημήθη ὑπὸ τῶν μερῶν, καὶ οὕτω σὺν τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ
ἐξῆλθεν εἰς τὴν μεγάλην ἐκκλησίαν, βασταζόμενος ὑπὸ Φιλαρέτου. Καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτῆς τῆς κβʹ
τοῦ ἰανουαρίου μηνὸς ἐπετράπη γράφεσθαι μετὰ τὸ ἐν ὀνόματι, βασιλείας τῶν θειοτάτων
ἡμῶν δεσποτῶν καὶ μεγίστων εὐεργετῶν Φλαβίου Ἡρακλείου τοῦ εὐσεβεστάτου ἔτους γ’
καὶ μετὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν αὐτοῦ ἐτους βʹ καὶ Φλαβίου Ἡρακλείου νέου Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ
θεοφυλάκτου αὐτοῦ υἱοῦ ἔτους αʹ, τῶν αἰωνίων Αὐγούστων καὶ αὐτοκρατόρων.
In this year in the month Audynaeus, on January 22nd according to the Romans, a Monday,
the child Heraclius Constantine III was crowned emperor by his father Heraclius in the
Palace; and straightway he ascended into the Hippodrome and there, wearing the crown,
he received obeisance from the senators as emperor, and was acclaimed by the factions;
and so carried by Philaretus, he departed to the Great Church with his father. And from this
22nd of the month January, it was ordered that it be recorded, after the introductory ‘In the
name of …’ as ‘In the reign of our most sacred lords and greatest benefactors, in the year 3
of Flavius Heraclius the most pious, and in year 2 after his consulship. And in year 1 of
Flavius Heraclius II Constantine his God-protected son, the eternal Augusti and emperors’.
The coronation of the infant followed traditions established already during the
5th and 6th centuries, involving various supportive groups in the capital.⁸ Hera-
clius crowned his son in the imperial palace in the presence of close advisors
from the senatorial elite. This was followed by a public procession to the hippo-
drome, where he was recognized as emperor by additional members of the sen-
ate as well as representatives of the circus factions. Afterwards, the infant was
taken to the Hagia Sophia, carried by the cubicularius Philaretus (PLRE III
1019, Philaretus 1),⁹ where he was introduced to the inhabitants of Constantino-
ple within an ecclesiastical context. The Easter Chronicle additionally highlights
that, from this point onwards, official documents incorporated the titles of Her-
aclius and Heraclius Constantine III, thereby establishing the notion of a shared
dynastic reign.¹⁰ This is not only reflected in papyrological documents but in
of the Byzantine basileus. TM  (, Mélanges C. Morrisson),  – , here  proposes
two coronation ceremonies for Heraclius Constantine III. The first one on Christmas Day
would then have included the traditional liturgical prayer by the patriarch comparing the
young emperor with king David.
 G. Dagron, Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le “césaropapisme” byzantin. Paris ,  – ;
.
 The cubicularius et chartularius Philaretus was already present at the baptism of Epiphania
Eudocia together with the castrensis sacri palatii Synetus (PLRE III , Synetus).
 As noted by Zuckerman, Title (as footnote  above), , all imperial formulae were as
much ideological statements as they were dating instruments. Egyptian papyri dating before
the completion of the Persian conquest of Egypt in summer  show formulae that mention
some inscriptions as well.¹¹ Naturally, both emperors carried the full imperial
title.¹² Shortly after the coronation, Gregoria (PLRE III 547, Gregoria 3), daughter
of the influential patrician Nicetas (PLRE III 940 – 943, Nicetas 7), was betrothed
to the young monarch, thereby strengthening family alliances and further con-
solidating the ruling dynasty.¹³
The emperor’s decision to swiftly crown his infant son was probably moti-
vated by his plans to reconquer Antioch from the Persian Sasanids in 613.¹⁴ Her-
only the regnal year of Heraclius. An exception might be found in F. Preisigke et al. (eds.), Sam-
melbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, I. Wiesbaden , I, no.  (). After the
reoccupation of Egypt, Heraclius Constantine III is sometimes mentioned together with his fa-
ther. In these cases, however, the regnal year of Heraclius is usually applied to both emperors,
see, e. g., Berliner griechische Urkunden. Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen zu
Berlin, I. Munich , no.  (),  (between  and ); II. Munich ,  ();
Corpus papyrorum Raineri Archeducis Austriae, IX. Vienna , no.  ( – ); Papiri
greco-egizi, papiri fiorentini. Supplementi filologico-storici ai monumenti antichi, ed. G. Vitelli,
III. Milan , no.  (); Greek Papyri in the British Museum III, ed. F.G. Kenyon et al.
London , no.  (); The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. B. P. Grenfell et al., . London
, no.  (/); Papyri Graecae Wessely Pragenses I, ed. R. Pintaudi / R.
Dostálová / L. Vidman. Florence , no.  (); Neue Texte aus dem antiken Unterricht,
ed. H. Harrauer/ P. J. Sijpesteijn. Vienna , no. r (); Preisigke, Sammelbuch, I
(as above), nos.  (),  (),  (between  and ); E. Kiessling, ibid.,
VI. Wiesbaden , no.  (); H.-A. Rupprecht, ibid., XVI. Wiesbaden ,
no.  (); idem, ibid., XVIII. Wiesbaden , nos.  (between  and )
and  (). For the regnal years in Egyptian papyri see K. A. Worp, Regnal formulas of
the emperor Heraclius. JJurP  (),  – ; R. S. Bagnall / K. A. Worp, Chronological
systems of Byzantine Egypt. Leiden/Boston  (nd edition),  –  against C. Zuckerman,
La formule de datation du SB VI  et son témoignage sur la succession d’Héraclius. JJurP 
(),  – , esp.  – ; Zuckerman, Title (as footnote  above),  – , here
 – . Note that there are some instances outside of Egypt, where Heraclius Constantine’s
III name appears in official contexts, e. g., J.-O. Tjäder, Die nichtliterarischen lateinischen Papyri
Italiens aus der Zeit  – , I. Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae °, : . Lund ,
no.  (Ravenna, ); I. Konidaris, Die Novellen des Kaisers Herakleios, in D. Simon (ed.),
Fontes minores, . Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte . Frankfurt am Main
, Nov. II,  – , here ; Nov. III,  – , here ; Nov. IV,  – , here .
 H. Grégoire, Recueil des inscriptions grecques-chrétiennes d’Asie Mineure, I. Amsterdam
, , no.  (Smyrna): Κων[σ]ταντίνων τῶν νέων Ἡρακλήου / καὶ Ἡρακλήου τῶν εὐσεβε-
στάτων / καὶ θεοφυλάκτων ἡμῶν δεσπο(οτῶν); ibid., , no.  (Ephesus): + Ἡρακλίου / καὶ
Ἡρακλίου / τῶν νέων Κων/σταντίνων τῶν / θεοφυλάκτων / ἡμῶν δεσποτῶν. Apparently, both
emperors are addressed here as new Constantines (Κωνσταντῖνοι).
 Zuckerman, Title (as footnote  above), . Compare the cases of Leo I and Leo II, Theo-
dosius II and Valentinian III or Basil I as well as Romanus II and their children.
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above),  f., ed. Mango, .
 See A. N. Stratos, Byzantium in the seventh century I, translated by M. Ogilvie-
Grant / H.T. Hionides. Amsterdam ,  – ; G. Greatrex / S. Lieu, The Roman Eastern
aclius personally led Byzantine troops into battle together with his brother The-
odore. Apparently, he did not want to or could not entrust another commander
with this task. Possible candidates for this position did not exist or may not have
seemed reliable enough. At the same time, the ruler needed an imperial deputy
in order to guarantee that a member of his still very young dynasty would remain
in the capital. Traditionally, Byzantine emperors were expected to be present in
Constantinople. This went so far that the emperor’s prolonged absence could
cost him the throne. Patriarch Nicephorus depicts this particular notion of
ideal imperial dominion in his historiography. While presenting his readership
with a (fictitious) verbal argument between Heraclius and Phocas’s former sup-
porter Priscus (PLRE III 1052– 1057, Priscus 6) in Caesarea in 611, the latter explic-
itly stated that it was perceived as improper behavior for a Byzantine ruler to
abandon the palace and to tarry among distant armies.¹⁵ By installing his son
as a formally equal emperor in the capital – like his personal avatar so to
speak – Heraclius could circumvent such concerns at least to a certain extent
on an ideological level, as he guaranteed that a representative of the ruling dy-
nasty would remain in Constantinople, while he himself would fight against ex-
ternal threats. Heraclius’s decision to leave his son in Constantinople had thus
primarily symbolic character and was a result of traditional expectations of suc-
cessful imperial rule in Byzantium. Admittedly, the child, who was only one year
old at the time, had to be supported and, above all, protected by supporters of
the imperial party in the capital.
The swift coronation of Heraclius Constantine III after his birth should also
be seen within the context of the surprising death of his mother Fabia Eudocia
on August 13, 612, which was perceived as a sad personal loss for the emperor as
well as a perilous occurrence for the establishment of his reign and the stability
of his dynasty.¹⁶ Heraclius subsequently married his niece Martina (PLRE III
837 f., Martina 1).¹⁷ This decision was again and again criticized by various au-
frontier and the Persian wars II (AD  – ). A narrative sourcebook. Abingdon / New York
,  f.; Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above),  f.
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango, .
 Fabia Eudocia’s funeral was held in the Church of the Apostles, see Chronicon Paschale (as
footnote  above), ,  – , ; Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed.
Mango,  –  (similar Zonaras, as footnote  above, , , ed. Dindorf, ,  – ) reports
that a young slave spat on the empress’ body during her funeral procession. An angry mob is
said to then have seized the transgressor and burned her publicly, which the historiographer
strongly condemned since the empress’ funeral was thus accompanied by a sacrilegious and
barbaric act.
 Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above), .
thors since the wedding was perceived as an incestuous connection.¹⁸ An impor-

tant reason for the generally negative characterization of Martina in historio-
graphical works around 800 in particular may be found – unsurprisingly – in
the fact that she, together with her son Heraclonas, did not prevail against Her-
aclius Constantine III and his successors after Heraclius’s death in 641. Further-
more, she constituted a foil for the expression of displeasure towards the actions
of empress Irene of Athens (797– 802), who acted as regent to her son Constan-
tine VI between 780 and 790 and ruled alone after his downfall in 797. As a result
of these literary characterizations, we are hardly able to grasp the historical Mar-
tina. Instead, we have to deal with unfavorable constructions of her persona as
portrayed by later writers. From today’s point of view, however, her marriage
with Heraclius stabilized the imperial dynasty. Shortly after their wedding, Mar-
tina gave birth to two sons named Fabius (PLRE III 477, Fabius) and Theodosius
(PLRE III 1299, Theodosius 44).¹⁹ The older of the two brothers appeared to suffer
from a paralyzed neck and probably died before 630. The younger survived but
was deaf. He was married ca. 629/630 to Nice (PLRE III 939, Nice), a daughter of
the Persian general Sharbarāz (PLRE III 1141– 1444, Sharbarâz).²⁰
 See Georgius Pisides, Expeditio persica ,  – , ed. L. Tartaglia, Carmi di Giorgio di
Pisidia. Torino ,  – however, it remains unclear whether there is in fact an indirect cri-
tique of this marriage in the poem or if the panegyrist just reprimanded Heraclius for his sins as
a human being in general; Antiochos Strategos, Expugnatio Hierosolymae  = La prise de Jé-
rusalem par les Perses en  I-II, ed. et trans. G. Garitte. CSCO,  – . Scriptores Iberici,
 – . Leuven , I,  f.; II,  –  = Expugnationis Hierosolymae A.D.  I-IV, recen-
siones arabicae, ed. et trans. G. Garitte. CSCO,  –  = Scriptores Arabici,  – ; CSCO,
 –  = Scriptores Arabici,  – ). Leuven , I,  f.; II,  – ; III,  f.; IV  f.,
where Heraclius is depicted as not daring to enter Jerusalem in  while Martina accompanied
him – however, this is only found in the Georgian versions of the text and not in the Arabic
transmissions; prominently Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – ; ,  f.,
ed. Mango, ; ; Michael Syrus ,  = Chronique de Michel le Syrien I–IV, Patriarche Jaco-
bite d’Antioche ( – ), ed. J.-B. Chabot. Paris  – , , IV, ; Chronicon
syriacum a. , §  = Chronicon ad annum  pertinens I–II, ed. J.-B. Chabot. Paris
 = Extract from the anonymous chronicle AD , with supplementary material in the
notes from the Chronicle of the Jacobite Patriarch Michael (died AD ), in A. Palmer/ S.
Brock / R. Hoyland, The seventh century in the west-Syrian chronicles. Translated Texts for His-
torians, . Liverpool , , § ; Fredegar ,  = Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii
Scholastici libri IV cum Continuationibus. MGH Scriptores, . Scriptores rerum Merovingiaca-
rum. Fredegarii et aliorum vitae sanctorum, edidit B. Krusch. Hannover , ,  –  =
Quellen zur Geschichte des . und . Jahrhunderts / Fontes historiam saeculorum septimi et oc-
tavi illustrantes, übers. H. Wolfram / A. Kusternig / H. Haupt. Ausgewählte Quellen zur deut-
schen Geschichte des Mittelalters, a. Darmstadt , .
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango, .
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango, .
Literary sources provide us in fact with two points in time when Heraclius
could have married Martina. Following Theophanes, the marriage took place
in 613/614.²¹ Patriarch Nicephorus, however, portrays another sequence of
events, suggesting that the marriage may have occurred as late as 623.²² The em-
peror was certainly married to her by the spring of 624 when he began his second
military campaign against the Persians.²³ Chronological uncertainties encoun-
tered in the historiography by Theophanes often result in scholars giving more
credit to Nicephorus’s account in this regard. However, there exist folles from
615/616 until 628 from Constantinople, Thessalonica, Ravenna, Nicomedia, Cyzi-
cus and Cyprus (Fig. 2) depicting Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III togeth-
er with a female figure,²⁴ thereby presenting us with an innovative public repre-
sentation of the imperial family.²⁵ A differentiation between male and female
figures especially on earlier coins of this type is sometimes possible thanks to
the crowns they are wearing. While Heraclius and his son both have crowns
 Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM , ed. de Boor, ,  – . Constantinus Ma-
nasses, Breviarium chronicum, ed. O. Lampsidis. CFHB, . Athens , ll.  –  follows
Theophanes in the depiction of events insofar as he notes as well that Heraclius married Martina
soon after the death of his first wife.
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), , ed. Mango,  – .
 Chronicon Paschale (as footnote  above), . P. Speck, Das geteilte Dossier. Beobachtun-
gen zu den Nachrichten über die Regierung des Kaisers Herakleios und die seiner Söhne bei The-
ophanes und Nikephoros. Poikila Byzantina, . Bonn ,  –  places the marriage in the
year .
 W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini. Rekonstruktion des Prägeaufbaues auf synoptisch-ta-
bellarischer Grundlage I–III. Veröffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission, , ,  =
Denkschriften der Österr. Akad. der Wiss., philos.-hist. Klasse, , , . Vienna  –
 [= MIB], III, .
 For corresponding coins minted in Constantinople see, e. g., the Catalogue of the Byzantine
Coins and the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection I–V, ed. A.
Bellinger/ P. Grierson. Washington, DC  –  [= DOC], II ,  f., nos.  – . Mor-
risson, Catalogue (as footnote  above),  f.; MIB, III, Tab. , nos.  f.; D. R. Sear, Byzan-
tine coins and their values. London, , ; A.U. Sommer/ C. Boehringer, Katalog der by-
zantinischen Münzen. Münzsammlung der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen im
Archäologischen Institut. Göttingen , , pl. . On the depiction of empresses on Byzan-
tine coinage see C. Morrisson, Byzance et sa monnaie (IVe–XVe siècle). Précis de numisma-
tique byzantine suivi du catalogue de la collection Lampart. Réalités byzantines, . Paris
,  – . Note that there are other instances when a female individual is depicted on
coins under Heraclius, i. e. in the case of half siliquae from Carthage, on Hexagram coins and
decanummia from Ravenna as well as on half folles from Constantinople, Thessalonica, Rome
and Ravenna. Finally, there are rare Bronze coins from Cherson showing Heraclius and Heraclius
Constantine III on the obverse and a solitary female figure on the reverse.
Fig. 2: Follis of Heraclius, Heraclius Constantine III and Martina (?) from Constantinople (618/
619).
Obv.: Three figures standing frontally, Heraclius in the middle, Heraclius Constantine III on
his right side and Martina (?) on his left. All three hold a globus cruciger in their right hand.
The emperors wear crowns with a cross, Martina (?) a stemma with pendilia. No inscription.
Rev.: Large M, below with A, on the left side: [A]/N/N/Ọ (poorly legible), on the right side:
ЧI/II (poorly legible); below: CON.
Münzkabinett der Universität Göttingen (Inv.-Nr. Byz-0417), Archäologisches Institut, Foto Ste-
phan Eckardt, Namensnennung 4.0 Deutschland (CC BY 4.0 DE). Persistent URL: http://hdl.
handle.net/428894.vzg/efda2be4-0790-4e21-a7ba-ee36e17e00e5
with crosses, the female figure usually possesses a stemma with pendilia. ²⁶ As
Wolfgang Hahn notes, she may appear on the left as well as on the right side
of individual objects, possibly due to varying practices of the responsible engrav-
ers at a times.
Whether the female figure depicted on these coins was Martina or not is, how-
ever, disputed in current scholarship. Unfortunately, no inscriptions reveal the
identities of the portrayed individuals. Following Nicephorus’s account, Con-
stantin Zuckerman strongly argues that the coin actually shows Epiphania
quae et Eudocia, Heraclius’s eldest daughter. According to his assessment, it ap-
pears fitting that this depiction disappears in 628 and is replaced by a new image
program, since precisely at that time the young empress had set off to the khagan
of the Turks to become his wife, as described by Nicephorus.²⁷
 For the evolution of crowns worn by female rulers see V. Rousseau, Emblem of an empire.
The development of the Byantine empress’s crown. Al-Masāq / (),  – , here . Com-
pare DOC (as footnote  above), II ,  with regard to the difficulties associated with the
identification of the three figures when studying later coinage of this type.
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), , ed. Mango,  – . See C. Zuckerman,
La petite Augusta et le Turc. Epiphania Eudocie sur les monnaies d’Héraclius. Revue Numisma-
tique  (),  – . Compare also P. Speck, Epiphania et Martine sur les monnaies
d’Héraclius. Revue Numismatique  (),  – , who argues that Epiphania was first
However, it should also be noted that the timing of the marriage between
Martina and Heraclius seems more convincing when chronologically placed
after the unexpected and – with regard to the young dynasty’s stability – unset-
tling death of Fabia Eudocia than after the attack of the Avars on the capital in
623. Nicephorus or his sources could have deliberately mixed up events to
present Heraclius’s decisions in times of public crisis in a most negative light.
If Epiphania Eudocia had actually been depicted on bronze coinage since 615/
616, one would furthermore expect that the proposed marriage of Heraclius
and Martina in 623 would have resulted in an adjustment of the coin program
after that time.²⁸ However, this is not the case. Instead, the already established
portrayal continued apparently unchanged until 628. The disappearance of Mar-
tina (?) on numismatic evidence after 628 could be explained by a deliberate
adaptation of the emperor’s image due to his return to the capital after his suc-
cessful Persian campaigns. Finally, the fact that at least some of Byzantium’s in-
habitants considered the female figure depicted on bronze coins to be the re-
sented empress Martina can be deduced from the occasional purposeful
destruction of her image.²⁹ In view of the difficult source situation such conjec-
tures must, however, remain hypothetical.
The representation of the young dynasty was further advanced on coinage.
Heraclius Constantine III was pictured on numismatic documents together with
his father. Solidi from Constantinople between 613 and 625, for instance, promi-
nently show the frontal busts of father and son side by side, with Heraclius tak-
ing the honorable place on the left from the viewer’s point of view (Fig. 3).³⁰ Her-
aclius Constantine’s III youth is indicated by his depiction as a smaller childlike
figure at his father’s side. Both emperors wear a chlamys and crowns with a
shown on coins in , but that Martina was actually depicted on folles after . C. Morrisson
presents a similar argument already in her reply to Zuckermann, La petite Augusta (as above),
.
 Compare, however, Hahn in MIB (as footnote  above), III,  f., who assumes that Mar-
tina was depicted on folles because a reduction of the coin base took place in  and therefore
an adjustment of the image program became necessary. He categorically excludes possible dy-
nastic messages connected to this measure.
 See DOC II  (as footnote  above),  f.: ; , no. a. (/). Regarding the
disappearance of the female figure on folles after , MIB III,  (as footnote  above), sug-
gests that this change was primarily related to the numismatic reform undertaken by Heraclius,
which was intended, on the one hand, to improve the metal value of bronze coins and, on the
other, to introduce more traditional image programs.
 MIB (as footnote  above), III, Tab. , nos.  – ; DOC (as footnote  above), II   –
, nos.  – ;  – .
Fig. 3: Solidus of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III from Constantinople (613–ca. 616).
Obv.: Frontal busts of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III with a small cross above the
emperors, who wear a chlamys and crowns with centrally attached crosses. Inscription: ddNN
hϵRACLIVS ET hϵRA CONST [PP A]VG. Rev.: Cross on four steps, on the right side N. Inscrip-
tion: VICTORIA AVG Чϵ, below: CONOB.
Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, Public domain (CC 1.0). Persistent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
428894.vzg/9bfcf766 – 69ce-4b94-ac16 – 3a76d81a282b
cross, referencing their formal equality as Augusti. ³¹ The factual inequality be-
tween the two is clearly indicated by the differences in height and the juvenile
appearance of Heraclius Constantine III. Representations on imperial lead
seals of the time look similar.³² Descriptions of Heraclius Constantine’s III depic-
tions on numismatic documents according to mint sites and metal value can be
found in the appendix of this paper.
Heraclius’s decision to be depicted together with his son in such a fashion re-
minds us to a certain extent of former portrayals of himself and his own father
 With regard to the depiction of two emperors on numismatic objects see DOC II  (as foot-
note  above),  – . Although there are comparable representations of two emperors on
coins already from the th century, as was the case with Justin I and Justinian I (DOC I, as foot-
note  above,  – , nos.  – ) or Justin II and Tiberius (ibid., , nos.  f.), it was Hera-
clius who first used these media to establish his own dynasty in such a purposeful way, see Mor-
risson, Byzance (as footnote  above),  f.
 G. Zacos / A. Veglery, Byzantine lead seals. Basel , I , , no.  ( – ca. );  f.,
no. , Var.  (ca.  – ca. ); W. Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich. . Teil:
Kaiserhof. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik, /. Vienna ,  – , with a
detailed classification of different types of seals under Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III
betwen  and . See as well J. Nesbitt / C. Morrisson, Catalogue of the Byzantine seals at
Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, : Emperors, Patriarchs of Constantinople, Ad-
denda. Washington, DC ,  – , nos. . –  (ca.  – );  – , nos. . – 
(ca.  – ca. ).
during the civil war against Phocas between 608 and 610. Their shared claim to
power was clearly illustrated when they both accepted the title of consul at the
beginning of the disputes in 608.³³ Since the consulship had de facto been abol-
ished by Justinian I, or rather, ex officio always belonged to the emperor since
that time, the two contestants for the throne thereby clearly marked their inten-
tions to succeed to the imperial throne.³⁴ In addition, they both placed them-
selves in a tradition that propagated traditional values of the res publica romana.
Finally, Walter Kaegi assumes that they might have considered themselves hold-
ers of (pro‐)consular powers as governors of North Africa, thereby apparently
only expressing mandates that would have fallen to them anyway due to their
political offices.³⁵
As becomes clear when studying the first years of Heraclius’s reign, it was
the emperor’s intention to systematically create stable governmental and admin-
istrative structures as fast as possible in order to systematically assemble resour-
ces to fight the Persians after 620. This included the rapid formation of a sound
domus divina with the prospect of long-term political and ideological stability.
Heraclius Constantine III in particular played a vital role for his father’s plans.
As Heraclius’s imperial deputy in the capital, he was not only perceived as a
symbol of hope for the state’s secured future. It also allowed his father to
wage war against external enemies, since an emperor of Byzantium still resided
in Constantinople during Heraclius’s absence, thereby responding to traditional
expectations of Byzantium’s inhabitants. This approach to the staging and uses
of the imperial family appears rather innovative from today’s point of view – es-
pecially compared to Heraclius’s predecessors – and contributed to the survival
of Byzantium in times of acute crisis. Heraclius Constantine’s III role in securing
 See DOC (as footnote  above) II , ;  – ; MIB III (as footnote  above),  – 
and especially P. Grierson, The consular coinage of ‘Heraclius’ and the revolt against Phocas of
 – . Numismatic Circular  (),  – ; A. Cumbo, La monetazione consolare di Era-
clio. Numismatica, N.S. / (),  – ; G. Rösch, Der Aufstand der Herakleioi gegen Phokas
( – ) im Spiegel numismatischer Quellen. JÖB  (),  – ; D. Olster, The dynastic
iconography of Heraclius’ early coinage. JÖB / (),  – ; M. Braunlin / J. Nesbitt,
Selections from a private collection of Byzantine bullae. Byzantion  (),  – ; Kaegi,
Heraclius (as footnote  above),  – . With regard to lead seals see C. Morrisson, Du consul
à l’empereur. Les sceaux d’Héraclius, in C. Sode / S. Takács (eds.), Novum Millenium. Studies on
Byzantine History and Culture Dedicated to Paul Speck. Aldershot/Burlington ,  – .
 M. Meier, Das Ende des Konsulats im Jahr / und seine Gründe. Kritische Anmerkun-
gen zur Vorstellung eines “Zeitalters Justinians”. ZPE  (),  – . For the history of
the consulate in the Later Roman Empire see L. Sguaitamatti, Der spätantike Konsulat. Para-
dosis, . Freiburg .
 Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above), .
imperial claims at a very young age is also revealed on occasion of public cere-
monial events. When empress Martina gave birth to a son named Constantine
(PLRE III 348, Constantinus 34), who was baptized in the church of St. Mary
of Blachernae by patriarch Sergius, it was Heraclius Constantine III, who, appa-
rently at the age of five, crowned his half-brother as Caesar on January 1, 617.³⁶
A child as sole emperor in Constantinople

between 622 and 628
After successfully securing his dominion and gathering the state’s financial and
personal resources to fight the Sasanids, Heraclius began his attacks on the Per-
sians on April 4, 622 while his son – now ten years of age – remained as his fa-
ther’s deputy in the care of patriarch Sergius and the patrician Bonus (PLRE III
242– 244, Bonus 6) in Constantinople.³⁷ These three were of greatest importance
for the functioning of the Byzantine state during the 620s. Although only men-
tioned sometimes in the sources, the senate of Constantinople also must have
played an important role in this regard. On the one hand, its members executed
various tasks as high-ranking imperial office holders in civic and military admin-
istration. On the other hand, the council served as an important location for
hearings during Heraclius’s absence. Its significance becomes apparent, for in-
stance, during the siege of Constantinople in 626, when diplomatic interactions
with the Slavs, Avars and Persians were prepared in the senate, whose members
 Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM , , ed. de Boor, ,  f.;  f. Since we do
not learn more about this young member of Heraclius’s family, we have to conclude that he died
at a young age. Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  f., ed. Mango,  reports that
during the Persian campaigns, two sons and two daughters of Heraclius perished. It is unclear,
however, who of his children actually passed away. Note that it is also possible that Theophanes
confused this otherwise unknown Constantinus with Heraclonas, born in , who also bore the
name Constantinus as depicted on his coinage. In this case, the coronation mentioned here hap-
pened, in fact, in , when Heraclonas was six years old and his older half-brother already 
years of age.
 Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM , ed. de Boor, ,  – . On Heraclius’s Persian
campaigns see J. Howard-Johnston, The official history of Heraclius’ Persian campaigns, in E.
Dabrowa (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine army in the East. Proceedings of the Fourth East
Roman Frontier Conference. Kraków ,  – ; J. Howard-Johnston, Heraclius’ Persian
campaigns and the revival of the Eastern Roman Empire. War in History  (),  – ;
Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above),  – ; M. Hurbanič, The Eastern Roman Empire
and the Avar khaganate in the years  –  AD. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hunga-
ricae  (),  – ; Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War (as footnote  above).
met in the Magnaura near the imperial palace.³⁸ Already before this event, the
senate sent a letter to the Persian King Khosrow II in 614/615 to officially an-
nounce the reign of Heraclius and at the same time to (unsuccessfully) ask for
peace after Persian successes in Syria and Palestine. Unfortunately, our knowl-
edge about individual senators and their functions during the 620s is incomplete
since most historiographical texts focus on Heraclius’s deeds far away from the
capital and many documentary sources – such as lead seals testifying to the ex-
istence of individual office holders – do not allow for a precise dating. Although
emperor of Byzantium, Heraclius Constantine’s III role should not be overstated
in this context. He was above all still a child and depended entirely on the sup-
port of influential decision-makers in the capital during this period. In addition,
we are not very well informed about the first years of the young emperor’s life.
We do not know, for instance, who was responsible for his education.
After the first military confrontations against the Persians in 622/623, news
reached the emperor of Avar attacks near Constantinople.³⁹ Interrupting his
first Persian campaign,⁴⁰ the emperor returned to the capital in order to negoti-
ate with the khagan for peace on June 5, 623.⁴¹ Against his expectations, Hera-
clius was not received for diplomatic interactions but nearly felt victim to an
Avar trap.⁴² After recovering from this setback and scolding the leader of the
 Haldon, Byzantium (as footnote  above),  f.; Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above),
 – . Later on, the hearings of pope Martin I and Maximus Confessor were held before the
senate as well. With regard to the customary interaction between the Byzantine emperor and
the senate of Constantinople in the middle of the th century, see the literary depiction of
the brief speech by the young emperor Constans II addressed to the senate after the demise
of Martina and her children in  as depicted by Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM
, ed. de Boor, ,  – .
 Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century (as footnote  above), I  – ; Hurbanič,
Eastern Roman empire (as footnote  above),  – ; M. Hurbanič, The Avar siege of Con-
stantinople in . History and legend. New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture. Cham
,  f. Compare J. Howard-Johnston, Heraclius’ Persian campaigns (as footnote 
above), , who attributes the emperor’s return to the sieges of Thessalonica.
 Georgius Pisides, Expeditio persica ,  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote  above), .
.
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango, .
 Chronicon Paschale (as footnote  above), ,  – . Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote
 above), ,  –  ed. Mango, ; Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM , ed. de Boor,
,  –  (the author dates the events to the year ). Regarding the dating of this event
see the careful discussion by Whitby/Whitby in their commentary to their translation of Chron-
icon Paschale (as footnote  above),  –  (Appendix ). See also Stratos, Byzantium in
the seventh century (as footnote  above), I,  – ; A. Stratos, Le guet-apens des
Avars. JÖB  (),  – ; Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above),  – ; D. Ziemann,
Avars for his aggressive behavior, the emperor sent yet another diplomatic lega-
tion to the khagan in 623/624. Byzantium subsequently agreed to buy peace for
an annual sum of 200,000 solidi and provided hostages, namely John Atalari-
chos (PLRE III 706, Ioannes 260), an (illegitimate) son of the emperor; a certain
Stephanus (PLRE III 1196 f., Stephanus 60), who was considered a nephew of the
ruler; and John (PLRE III 706, Ioannes 259), an (illegitimate) son of the patrician
Bonus.⁴³ In addition, the khagan was symbolically addressed as guardian and
protector (ἐπίτροπος) of Heraclius Constantine III.⁴⁴ With the situation in the
west seemingly under control, Heraclius lost no time in launching a second of-
fensive against the Persians on March 25, 624, which has to be regarded as the
actual goal of the hurried peace provisions. The same arrangement as before
sprang into action in Constantinople, as depicted by Ps.-Sebeos who highlights
the young age of the emperor’s deputy: “Heraclius and all the senators decided
to install Constantine, son of Heraclius, on the throne of the kingdom; he was a
young child. […]. At that time they confirmed even more [securely] Constantine in
Vom Wandervolk zur Großmacht. Die Entstehung Bulgariens im frühen Mittelalter (.–. Jh.).
Kölner Historische Abhandlungen, . Cologne/Weimar , ; F. Dölger, Regesten der Kai-
serurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von  – . Teil , . Halbband: Regesten von  –
, unter Mitarbeit von J. Preiser-Kapeller und A. Riehle bes. von A. E. Müller, Munich
 (nd ed.),  f., no. a–b; Hurbanič, Eastern Roman empire (as footnote  above),
 – ; W. Pohl, The Avars. A steppe empire in central Europe,  – . Ithaka ,
 – . Compare, however, F. Barišić, Le siège de Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves
en . Byzantion  (),  – , here ; A. Cameron, The Virgin’s robe. An episode in
the history of early seventh-century Constantinople. Byzantion  (),  – , who argue for
a dating of the events in  and thus follow Theophanes’s depiction. A. Avenarius, Die Awa-
ren in Europa. Bratislava ,  considers both  and  as possible dates. N. Baynes,
The date of the Avar surprise. A chronological study. BZ  (),  – ; V. Popović et al.,
Les témoins des invasions avaro-slaves dans l’Illyricum byzantin (V). Mélanges de l’École fran-
çaise de Rome  (),  – , here ; Haldon, Byzantium (as footnote  above), 
consider the year . Speck, Das geteilte Dossier (as footnote  above),  –  does not
present a specific date.
 Avenarius, Awaren (as footnote  above), ; Speck, Das geteilte Dossier (as footnote 
above),  f.; Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above), ; Dölger/Müller, Regesten (as foot-
note  above),  f., b; Hurbanič, Eastern Roman empire (as footnote  above),  –
; Pohl, The Avars (as footnote  above), .
 Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM , ed. de Boor, ,  – . See L. Waldmüller,
Die ersten Begegnungen der Slawen mit dem Christentum und den christlichen Völkern vom VI.
bis VIII. Jahrhundert. Die Slawen zwischen Byzanz und Abendland. Enzyklopädie der Byzantinis-
tik, . Amsterdam , ; Speck, Das geteilte Dossier (as footnote  above),  – ;
Dölger/Müller, Regesten (as footnote  above), , no. b (um ); Hurbanič, Eastern
Roman empire (as footnote  above),  – ; Pohl, Avars (as footnote ),  f.
the royal dignity according to the previous agreement.”⁴⁵ This decision “accord-
ing to the previous agreement” (ըստ առաջին բանին) surely refers to the regu-
lations of 622, when Heraclius first departed from Constantinople. The chronicle
by Constantine Manasses as well remembers the emperor’s decision to put his
son in charge during his absence.⁴⁶ His subsequent departure is depicted prom-
inently in the Chronicon Paschale as well:⁴⁷
Τούτῳ τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ μηνὶ δύστρῳ, κατὰ Ῥωμαίους μαρτίῳ εʹ καὶ κʹ τοῦ μηνός, τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ
εὐαγγελισμοῦ τῆς δεσποίνης ἡμῶν τῆς θεοτόκου, ἐξῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη ὁ βασι-
λεὺς Ἡράκλειος ἅμα τοῖς αὐτοῦ τέκνοις Ἡρακλείῳ καὶ Ἐπιφανίᾳ τῇ καὶ Εὐδοκίᾳ καὶ τῇ
βασιλίσσῃ Μαρτίνᾳ, καὶ ἐποίησεν σὺν αὐτοῖς τὴν πασχαλίαν ἑορτὴν πλησίον τῆς πόλεως
Νικομηδείας. Καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἑορτὴν αὐτὸς μὲν ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἡράκλειος μετὰ Μαρτίνης τῆς
βασιλίσσης ὥρμησαν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη, συνόντος αὐτοῖς καὶ ᾿Aνιανοῦ δομεστίκου τοῦ
μαγίστρου. Τὰ δὲ τέκνα αὐτοῦ ὑπέστρεψαν ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει.
In this year [624] in the month Dystrus, March according to the Romans, on the 25th of the
month, on the day of the Annunciation of our Lady the Mother of God, the emperor Her-
aclius departed for the eastern regions, together with his children Heraclius and Epiphania,
who was called Eudocia, and the empress Martina. In their company he kept the Easter
festival near the city of Nicomedia; after the festival the emperor Heraclius himself with
Martina the empress set out for the eastern regions, and Anianus domesticus of the magister
was also with them; but his children returned to Constantinople.
The emperor’s children, Eudocia Epiphania and Heraclius Constantine III, ac-
companied their father and Martina to Nicomedia in order to celebrate the Easter
festival together with them. On a symbolic level, this gave the impression of the
 Ps.-Sebeos (as footnote  above), , ed. Abgaryan ,  – ;  f. = The Armenian History
attributed to Sebeos, transl. R.W. Thomson / J. Howard-Johnston / T. Greenwood. Translated
Texts for Historians, . Liverpool , I,  f.: Հաճոյ թուեցաւ Երակլի կ ամենայն
սինյղիտոսացն նստուցանել զԿոստանդոս որդի Երակլի յաթոռ թագաւորութեանն, որ էր
մանուկ փոքր: […]. Ապա յայնժամ աւելի կս հաստատեցին զԿոստանդին ի պստիւ
թագաւորութեան ըստ առաջին բանին.
 Constantinus Manasses, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ll.  – .
 Chronicon Paschale (as footnote  above), ,  – ,  = trans. Whitby/Whitby, as foot-
note  above,  f. Similar Georgius Pisides, Expeditio persica ,  – , ed. Tartaglia (as
footnote  above),  – . Compare also Theodore Synkellos , ,  –  [] = L. Stern-
bach, Analecta Avarica. Kraków  = F. Makk, Traduction et commentaire de l’homélie écrite
probablement par Théodore le Syncelle sur le siège de Constantinople en , avec un préface
de S. Szádeczky-Kardoss. Acta Universitatis de Attila József nominatae. Acta Antiqua et Archae-
ologica,  = Opuscula Byzantina, . Szeged , , where the emperor’s children and the en-
tire city of Constantinople are given into the care of God and the Theotokos. Heraclius is then
depicted as “βασιλεὺς ὁ μέγας”, leading the armies to war, compared to his son, who is por-
trayed as “ὁ βασιλεὺς ὁ νεώτατος”, remaining in Constantinople, see Zuckerman, Title (as foot-
note  above), .
beginning of a comprehensive renewal of the Byzantine Empire under the Herac-

lian dynasty. Heraclius’s children then returned to the capital, while Martina ac-
companied her husband on his campaigns. This arrangement might have been
based on the personal wish of the couple. It simultaneously gave rise to hopes
for further offspring. Finally, Heraclius could (perhaps) take care more easily
of his second wife’s safety as long as she was near him during his campaigns.
We do not know in detail how Heraclius Constantine III acted as Heraclius’s
deputy in Constantinople. It has to be assumed that he primarily performed cer-
emonial functions because of his still young age. He was surely influenced by his
environment, above all by the patrician Bonus and patriarch Sergius. We are,
however, better informed about his role during the siege of Constantinople in
626, where he contributed to the defense of the city at least on a symbolic
level. In the poem In Christi resurrectionem, written in 625 or 626 on the occasion
of the Easter festivities on April 1,⁴⁸ George of Pisidia urged Heraclius Constan-
tine III to prepare himself, like his father, for battles against various enemies
of Byzantium, thus following in his father’s footsteps.⁴⁹ In the first part of the
 For the dating of the poem see M. Lauxtermann, Byzantine poetry from Pisides to Geo-
metres. Texts and contexts, II. Wiener Byzantinische Studien, /. Vienna ,  f. Compare
Howard-Johnston, Witness (as footnote  above),  – , who dates the text to the year ,
and Giorgio di Pisidia. Poemi I. Panegirici epici. Studia patristica et byzantina , a cura di A.
Pertusi. Ettal ,  f., who proposes the years /. Compare as well M. Whitby, A
new image for a new age. George of Pisidia on the emperor Heraclius, in Dabrowa, Byzantine
Army (as footnote  above),  – , here ; M. Whitby, George of Pisidia’s presentation
of the emperor Heraclius and his campaigns. Variety and development, in Reinink/Stolte, Reign
of Heraclius (as footnote  above),  – , here .
 With regard to the life and poetical work by George of Pisidia see N. Baynes, Some notes on
the historical poems of Georg of Pisidia. The Classical Quarterly / (),  – ; T. Nissen,
Historisches Epos und Panegyrikos in der Spätantike, Hermes  (),  – ; J. D. Fren-
do, The poetic achievement of Georg of Pisidia. A literary and historical study, in A. Moffatt (ed.),
Maistor. Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning. Byzantina Australi-
ensia, . Leiden/Boston ,  – ; C. Ludwig, Kaiser Herakleios, Georgios Pisides und die
Perserkriege, in P. Speck (ed.), Varia III. Poikila Byzantina, . Bonn ,  – ; D. Olster,
The date of George of Pisidia’s Hexameron. DOP  (),  – ; D. Olster, The Politics of
Usurpation in the Seventh Century. Rhetoric and Revolution in Byzantium. Dissertation of the
University of Kentucky. Amsterdam ,  – ; Whitby, New image (as footnote 
above),  – ; M. Whitby, The devil in disguise. The end of George of Pisidia’s hexameron
reconsidered. Journal of Hellenic Studies  (),  – ; M. Whitby, Defenders of the
cross. George of Pisidia on the emperor Heraclius and his deputies, in M. Whitby (ed.), The pro-
paganda of power. The role of panegyric in Late Antiquity. Mnemosyne Supplements, . Lei-
den/Boston/Cologne ,  – ; M. Whitby, George of Pisidia’s presentation of the emper-
or Heraclius and his campaigns. Variety and development, in Reinink/Stolte, Reign of Heraclius
(as footnote  above),  – ; M. whitby, George of Pisidia and the persuasive word: Words,
poem, the author celebrated Christ’s resurrection and expressed his hope for a
new beginning of the world and the redemption of all humankind (ll. 1– 38).
In the second part, the panegyrist then paid attention to the role of the eldest
son of Heraclius, whom he characterized against the backdrop of what was
said earlier as the future hope for the continued existence of Byzantium. The
young emperor thus appeared, as it were, as a new Adam free from sin.⁵⁰ The
poet discussed various qualities expected from the young ruler following the
prospects of traditional specula principum. ⁵¹ Despite his young age, the boy ap-
parently successfully imitated God (imitatio Christi), which provided the inhabi-
tants of Byzantium with hope for his future as a full-grown emperor. Comparable
to Christ, he successfully defeated all evil within himself:⁵²
Ὁ τοῦ δράκοντος τοῦ πάλαι καθαιρέτης.

 Ἐν σοὶ γὰρ οὐδὲν τῶν ἐκείνου κτισμάτων·
Οὐ θυμὸς ἄφρων, οὐ φιλάργυρος πόθος
– ἔρως ἀναιδὴς καὶ δακεῖν ἠπειγμένος –,
οὐ χεῖρες ὑμῖν πρὸς τὸ λῆμμα τῆς βλάβης,
ἀλλ’ εἰς τὸ δοῦναι καὶ πατάξαι τὴν βλάβην.
[…].
Οὐ τόξον ὑμῖν καίπερ οὖσι τοξόταις
ἐργῶδες οὕτως, ὡς τὸ πέμπειν εὐστόχως
βέλος κατ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πονηροῦ τοξότου.
Oh you, who exterminated the ancient serpent!

 In you there is no trace of any of its creations:
Neither foolish anger, nor lust for riches
– foul passion, always ready to harm the soul –
nor hands stretched out to assume the ruin of others,
but always ready to help and diminish harm.
[…];
and though you are a skilled archer,
words, words …, in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium. Papers from the Thirty-Fifth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Exeter College, University of Oxford, March . Aldershot/
Burlington ,  – ; Howard-Johnston, Witness (as footnote  above),  – .
 Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry (as footnote  above), II,  f.
 On the virtues expressed in Byzantine mirrors for princes, see M.Th. Fögen, Das politische
Denken der Byzantiner, in I. Fetscher (ed.), Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen. Bd. : Mit-
telalter. Munich ,  – ; Dagron, Empereur et prêtre (as footnote  above),  f. The cata-
logue of virtues traditionally includes piety, gratitude and reverence for God, justice and related
obedience to divine and secular law, self-control and prudence, benevolence and mercy, reliabil-
ity and constancy, learning and wisdom as well as integrity and paternal love.
 Georgius Pisides, In Christi resurrectionem  – ;  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote 
above),  – .
you do not make use of your bow except to strike

with your arrow the archer responsible for all evil.
The imperial adolescent already mastered his own emotions, namely his anger
and greed, and was thus indeed a suitable candidate to rule over his future sub-
jects, whom he wished to support in every way possible. He is thus portrayed in a
topical manner as a puer senex. The allusion to the youth’s metaphorical skills in
archery, through which he exterminates all evil in the world, associated Hera-
clius Constantine III, like his father before him,⁵³ with the deeds of the mythical
hero Heracles.⁵⁴ In addition, the young emperor appeared to dislike chariot races
(ll. 77– 92) thus complying with ideals of the Church Fathers. This reference
should also be interpreted as an attempt to distance him from the often vilified
circus factions who were held responsible for many of the Empire’s misfortunes
because of their violent civil-war-like fights in the Byzantine Empire, especially
within the context of the confrontation between Heraclius and Phocas.⁵⁵ Additio-
naly, he would train his body, soul and spirit by means of games with spheres or
 See Georgius Pisides, In Heraclium ex Africa redeuntem  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote
 above), .
 On the popularity of the literary figure of Heracles in the Later Roman Empire, see M. Meier,
Herakles – Herakleios – Christus. Georgios Pisides und der kosmorhýstes, in H. Leppin (ed.),
Antike Mythologie in christlichen Kontexten der Spätantike. Millenium Studies, . Berlin
, . On the subject of Heracles and the representation of the emperors in Late Antiquity
see A. Grabar, L’empereur dans l’art byzantin. Recherches sur l’art officiel de l’Empire d’Orient.
Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg, . Paris ,  f.,  f.;
Nissen, Historisches Epos und Panegyrikos (as footnote  above),  – .
 See W. Kaegi, New evidence on the early reign of Heraclius. BZ  (),  – ; Rapp,
Family (as footnote  above),  – . In Egypt, the civil strife could not be decided for some
time according to: Chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou, ed. et trans. H. Zotenberg. Paris ,
 –  = The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, trans. R. H. Charles. London ,  –
; see B. Palme, Die Revolte des Heraclius gegen Kaiser Phocas (CPR XXIV ), in M.
Puhle / G. Köster (eds.), Otto der Große und das Römische Reich. Kaisertum von der Antike
bis zum Mittelalter. Ausstellungskatalog. Landesausstellung Sachsen-Anhalt aus Anlass des
. Geburtstages Ottos des Großen. Regensburg/Magdeburg , ; B. Palme, The impe-
rial presence. Government and army, in R. Bagnall (ed.), Egypt in the Byzantine world ( –
). Cambridge ,  – . On the impact of circus factions on Byzantine politics in gen-
eral see A. Cameron, Circus factions. Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium. Oxford ;
A. Cameron, Images of authority. Elites and icons in late sixth-century Byzantium. Past &
Present (),  – ; M. Whitby, The violence of the circus factions, in K. Hopwood (ed.), Or-
ganised crime in Antiquity. London ,  – ; P. Booth, Shades of blues and greens in
the chronicle of John of Nikiu. BZ  (),  – .
balls (σφαῖραι).⁵⁶ These would help him to mentally ascend higher and higher
through various levels of thought in order to then finally recognize God. In
turn, this cognitive ascension would allow him to rule justly and efficiently as
God’s chosen deputy on earth. The poet continued to encourage the young
ruler to train and develop his own skills and talents in times of war and
peace by imitating his physical and spiritual fathers on earth and in heaven,
probably also with regard to the feared attacks by the Avars and Slavs in the
near future on the capital:⁵⁷
᾿Aλλ’ εὐτρέπιζε τοῦ λόγου τὴν ἀσπίδα,

ὅπως πρὸ πάντων εὑρεθῇς πρωτοστάτης
φράζων ἐκείνους τοῦ πατρός σου τοὺς πόνους,
οὓς ἀντὶ πάντων ἐκτελῶν καθημέραν
 κάμνει, μεριμνᾷ, δυσφορεῖ, τοξεύεται·
ζωῆς γὰρ αὐτὸν ζωπυροῦσιν ἐλπίδες.
Δέον σε λοιπὸν καὶ πρὸς ὅπλα καὶ μάχας·
χρὴ γὰρ μάχεσθαι τοῖς φιλοῦσι τὰς μάχας,
ὡς Ἡρακλείδην τῷ τεκόντι συντρέχειν.
 Κίνησον ὅπλα πατρικὰ τεθηγμένα,
παῦσον τὸν ἰὸν τῆς ἐχίδνης Περσίδος,
θλᾶσον τὰ κέντρα τῶν παρ’ Ἴστρῳ σκορπίων.
Up with the shield of the (divine) Logos!

You will be the first of all to illustrate
the glorious labors of your father.
He does them for the good of all, and day after day
 he endures fatigue, pains, exertions, and is wounded:
it is the hopes of life that give him vigor.
You must prepare for weapons and battles as well:
it is vital to fight against those who prefer battles,
as a Heraclid must follow his creator.
 Take up the sharp weapons of your father;
make the poison of the Persian viper cease;
break the spines of the scorpions that populate the Istros.
 Georgius Pisides, In Christi resurrectionem  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote  above),
. These spheres should probably be imagined as representations of the firmament, which are
described, e. g., in Cic. Rep. ,  f. and are attributed to the findings of Thales of Miletus as well
as a student of Plato named Eudoxus of Cnidus.
 Georgius Pisides, In Christi resurrectionem  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote  above),
 – .
George of Pisidia hereby pointed out Heraclius’s successes as well. The Augustus
senior already fought and continued to fight against various threats to Byzantium
while leading the state’s armies in person. In doing so, he endured numerous
physical, mental and spiritual strains for the benefit of his subjects. His son
was expected to prepare himself in a similar manner for future battles against
Byzantium’s enemies, i. e. the venomous Persian “vipers” and the Avaric and
Slavic “scorpions” for the welfare of the state. If he continued to imitate both
his fathers – Heraclius as his biological father and example on earth, and God
as his spiritual father – he would surely succeed in his endeavors, since both
would guide, protect and help him with countless (celestial) supporters
(ll. 124– 129).
Despite these words of high praise, Heraclius Constantine’s III actual role
during the siege in 626 appears to have been quite marginal on the whole.
Thanks to three eye-witness reports we are quite well-informed about the course
of events and their perception in the capital. There are two panegyrics by George
of Pisidia namely In Bonum patricium, written in the spring of 626 in honor of the
patricius, magister and imperial vicarius Bonus, as well as the Bellum Avaricum,
which was composed shortly after the siege in honor of patriarch Sergius. Then
there is Theodore Synkellos’s Homilia de obsidione Constantinopolitana, which
was probably presented publicly on December 7 in the Hagia Sophia. Finally,
we have characterizations by the anonymous author of the Easter Chronicle writ-
ten around 630, unfortunately with a transmission gap in the depiction of events
after August 4, 626. In all these texts, the siege was perceived as the culmination
of an apocalyptic battle between God’s chosen people of Byzantium and the de-
monic hordes of the Avars, Slavs and Persians.⁵⁸ All leading actors of these sto-
ries – the khagan, patriarch Sergius, Bonus, Heraclius Constantine III and even
Heraclius – were regarded as fulfilling their specific roles within God’s divine
plan.⁵⁹
 V. Déroche, Entre Rome et l’Islam. Les chrétiens d’Orient  – . Paris ,  – ; Y.
Stoyanov, Defenders and enemies of the True Cross. The Sasanid conquest of Jerusalem in 
and Byzantine ideology of anti-Persian warfare. Österr. Akademie der Wiss., Sitzungsber. der
philos.-hist. Kl.,  = Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik, . Vienna ,  f.
 The history of events can be found in Barišić, Siège (as footnote  above),  – ; G.
Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft,
/.. Munich ,  f.; A. Stratos, The Avars’ attack on Byzantium in the year , in
P. Wirth (ed.), Polychordia. Festschrift für Franz Dölger. Byzantinische Forschungen, . Amster-
dam ,  – ; Stratos, Byzantium in the seventh century (as footnote  above), I
 – ; Waldmüller, Begegnungen (as footnote  above),  – ; P. Speck, Zufälliges
zum Bellum Avaricum des Georgios Pisides. Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia, . Munich
; J. L. van Dieten, Zum “Bellum Avaricum” des Georgios Pisides. Bemerkungen zu einer
If one pays closer attention to the role of the emperor’s son, one will be
slightly disappointed at first. In fact, the magister Bonus as well as the patriarch
appear to have been far more important with regard to shaping the events during
the siege. Bonus on the one hand coordinated the strategic and tactical actions
of the city’s defenders. His military accomplishments appear all the more re-
markable as he had previously distinguished himself primarily in the field of
civic administration, for which he had been particularly praised.⁶⁰ Sergius, on
the other hand, looked after the general morale of the city’s inhabitants.⁶¹ Fur-
thermore, he played an important role regarding the planning of diplomatic in-
teractions – it was decided by the senatorial assembly in his presence to send
further envoys to the khagan on August 1, 626.⁶² In comparison, Heraclius Con-
stantine III – now 14 years of age – was less important for the defense of the city.
However, he does not remain unmentioned. After the khagan’s unreasonable and
Studie von Paul Speck. Byzantinische Forschungen  (),  – ; see P. Speck, Die Inter-
pretation des Bellum Avaricum und der Kater Μεχλεμπέ, in P. Speck (ed.), Varia II. Poikila Byzan-
tina, . Bonn ,  – , with replies; Speck, Das geteilte Dossier (as footnote  above),
 – ; J. Howard-Johnston, The two great powers in Late Antiquity. A comparison, in A.
Cameron / L. I. Conrad (eds.), The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East. Vol. : States, resources
and armies. Studies in Late Antiquity and early Islam. Princeton, NJ ,  – ; F. Curta,
The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.  – .
Cambridge ,  – ;  f.; Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above),  – ; Ziemann,
Vom Wandervolk zur Großmacht (as footnote  above),  – ; Pohl, Avars (as footnote
 above),  – ; G. Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, th–th century AD. Political,
diplomatic and cultural relations. East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages,  –
, . Leiden/Boston ,  – ; Hurbanič, Avar siege (as footnote  above),  –
.
 Georgius Pisides, In Bonum patricium  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote  above), .
 Literary sources tend to emphasize the rousing of the urban population by the patriarch in
times of need. Although rescue from the impending threat seems impossible, he calls on the
city’s inhabitants to pray to God for divine support, see Theodore Synkellos , ed. Sternbach
(as footnote  above),  –  []. Compare a similar depiction in Georgius Pisides, Bellum
Avaricum  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote  above), . Sergius is portrayed as the rep-
resentative of the Orthodox Church and thus takes responsibility for the sins of its inhabitants by
constantly asking for forgiveness on their behalf in his prayers, see Georgius Pisides, Bellum
Avaricum  – , ed. Tartaglia, . Finally, he had icons of Mary with Christ as a child
painted on the city walls, on which he walked with an icon of Christ while shedding tears to
strengthen the morale of the defenders, see Theodore Synkellos, ed. Sternbach (as footnote
 above), ,  – ; ,  – ,  [; ]; Georgius Pisides, Bellum Avaricum  – ,
ed. Tartaglia, . With regard to the life and deeds of patriarch Sergius see J. L. van Dieten,
Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. ( – ). Enzyklopädie der Byzan-
tinistik, . Amsterdam ,  – ; K.-H. Uthemann, Sergius. Biographisch-Bibliographisches
Kirchenlexikon  (),  – .
 Georgius Pisides, Bellum Avaricum  – , ed. Tartaglia, .
boastful demands for food for his troops on July 30 while camping before the
city’s walls, the young emperor apparently addressed the aggressor directly, as
depicted by Theodore Synkellos:
᾿Aλλ’ οὐδὲ τότε τὸ εἶναι κύων ἀναιδὴς καὶ λίχνος ἀπέσχετο, τροφὰς δὲ ᾔτει παρὰ τῆς
πόλεως. Ἃς καὶ δέδωκε βασιλικῶς ὁ βασιλέως υἱός, ταῦτα δηλώσας πρὸς τὸν κύνα τὸν
βάρβαρον· “Ἐγὼ καὶ μισούμενος ἀγαπῶ καὶ πολεμούμενος πρὸς εἰρήνεν προτρέπομαι· Οὕτω
γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἐμὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἐπαίδευσεν εὐσεβέστατος.”
But the voracious and greedy dog did not even hold back then, but demanded food from
the city. The emperor’s son conceded this to him out of sovereign generosity and let the
barbarian dog know: “Even if you hate me, I treat you amicably and even if I arm myself for
war, my goal is peace. For I was brought up that way by God and by my God-loving
father.”⁶³
If this interaction indeed happened this way, it can be assumed that the decision
to offer food to the khagan by the emperor – to my knowledge not depicted else-
where in Byzantine literature at that time – was actually agreed upon with Ser-
gius and Bonus in order to buy time in the fight against the Avar superiority,
while waiting upon external military support. The literary characterization of
the emperor’s deed by Theodore Synkellos is, however, still important because
it demonstrates that the city had enough resources to share with its enemies.
Moreover, it presents the Byzantine side as superior compared to its aggressors.
Even when the latter impudently demanded food, thereby disregarding any
standards of diplomacy, Constantinople is generous and stands above such bar-
baric behavior by providing the sought-after goods.⁶⁴ Finally, Heraclius Constan-
tine III is portrayed as a confident sovereign and son to a very pious father
(πατὴρ εὐσεβέστατος). Although he is prepared for battle, he still seeks peace,
thereby adapting the traditional motto: Si vis pacem, para bellum. Moreover,
he corresponds to ideal notions of a Byzantine emperor of the time, who does
not strive for war and violence at any price, but seeks to secure peace for the
state by all means. As depicted already by George of Pisidia, Heraclius Constan-
tine III thus acts as a true son of his two fathers in the eyes of the author, i. e. of
 Theodore Synkellos, ed. Sternbach (as footnote  above), ,  –  [].

 Compare Chronicon Paschale (as footnote  above), ,  when the inhabitants of Constan-
tinople sent wine and food to the khagan after the assassination of Persian envoys on August .
This act, however, marked the actual termination of all diplomatic interactions and is to be seen
as a mockery of the ruler of the Avars, maybe also in remembrance of his former unreasonable
behavior. Compare, however, Waldmüller, Begegnungen (as footnote ), , who suspects
an attempt to appease the khagan after the insult of his Persian allies.
Heraclius and God.⁶⁵ There are even allusions to king David, in whose footsteps
the young emperor apparently had already successfully followed, see Ps 109,
2– 5 (ESV): “For wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me, speaking
against me with lying tongues. They encircle me with words of hate, and attack
me without cause. In return for my love they accuse me, but I give myself to pray-
er. So they reward me evil for good, and hatred for my love.”
Heraclius himself was present in two ways in Constantonople during the
siege while simultaneously battling the Persians in the east. On the one hand,
he was represented by his own son in situ. On the other hand, he actively sup-
ported the defenders with the organization and protection of the city by
means of epistles sent from afar and by his careful planning before he left Con-
stantinople. According to the panegyrical poems by George of Pisidia, it thus
seemed as if he actually was in the capital in times of great need.⁶⁶ In the
end, however, the city’s salvation was attributed by all authors to varying de-
grees to God’s mercy and to the intervention of the Theotokos in particular.⁶⁷
Her perceived apparition is documented on July 31 along the land walls and
on August 7 during the destruction of the Slavic fleet.⁶⁸ The Chronicon paschale
even reports that she appeared to the khagan, who subsequently admitted his
defeat.⁶⁹ After this decisive victory, patriarch Sergius and Heraclius Constantine
III went together to the church of the Mother of God at the Blachernae to offer
prayers of gratitude.⁷⁰ The salvation of the city by the hands of the Theotokos
subsequently became of greatest importance for the collective memory of Byzan-
tium, as evidenced by the growing significance of her cult in the capital, by two
 Compare Georgius Pisides, In Christi resurrectionem  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote 
above), .
 Georgius Pisides, Bellum Avaricum  – ;  – , ed. Tartaglia,  – . Com-
pare, however, Theodore Synkellos, ed. Sternbach (as footnote  above), ; – f. [;
], with a rather critical depiction of the emperor’s absence and a remarkable emphasis on
the patriarch’s merits in , as highlighted by L. Rickelt, Herrscherbuße. Schuld und
Sühne byzantinischer Kaiser. Byzantinische Studien und Texte, . Münster ,  – .
 A. Cameron, The cult of the virgin in Late Antiquiy. Religious development and myth-mak-
ing. Studies in Church History  (),  – ; L. M. Peltomaa, Towards the origins of the his-
tory of the cult of Mary. Studia Patristica  (),  – ; L. M. Peltomaa, Role of the Virgin
Mary at the siege of Constantinople in . Scrinium  (),  – ; A. Cameron, Introduc-
tion. The Mother of God in Byzantium. Relics, icons, texts, in L. Brubaker/ M. Cunningham (eds.),
The cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium. Texts and images. Burlington ,  – .
 Georgius Pisides, Bellum Avaricum  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote  above),  –
; Theodore Synkellos, ed. Sternbach (as footnote  above),  f.;  [; ].
 Chronicon Paschale (as footnote  above), ,  – .
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango, .
inscriptions at the entrance to the church of the Blachernae,⁷¹ by numerous lead

seals,⁷² and by the Akathistos hymn sung on August 7, 626 out of gratitude for the
experienced rescue of the city.⁷³
Although the young emperor’s position during the 620s – at least at first
glance – is somewhat reminiscent of the situation of late antique child emperors,
such as Gratian and Valentinian II, Honorius or Valentinian III, it is actually not
quite comparable to these cases. The named emperors and their supporters con-
stantly had to (re‐)evaluate the role of the aforementioned children on the
throne, thereby usually restricting them to purely ceremonial functions often
within ecclesiastical contexts, while actual politically and militarily relevant mat-
ters were delegated to powerful office holders. In addition, followers often
struggled to provide a smooth transition from purely ceremonial to actual
power when the child emperors came of age.⁷⁴ The situation of Heraclius Con-
stantine III was rather different from the beginning. Although not constantly
present in Constantinople, his father always remained relevant for the fate of
the state on a political and military level. Thus, there was no room for potential
usurpers from the army. In addition, both emperors shared the same imperial
rank, thereby emphasizing the notion of a formally equal and even shared ruler-
ship by members of the newly established Heraclian dynasty. The imperial do-
minion would therefore be resumed by Heraclius Constantine III in case of Her-
aclius’s eventual death. In addition, Heraclius Constantine’s III role as his
father’s deputy in the capital as well as his imperial functions alongside patri-
arch Sergius and the patrician Bonus were always clearly labelled.
This notion of the formal equality of both emperors is illustrated promi-
nently on numismatic objects, where they are represented together. At the
 Anthologia Graeca I  f.; ed. H. Beckby. Munich , I,  – .
 S. der Nersessian, Two images of the Virgin in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection. DOP 
(),  – ; W. Seibt, Die Darstellung der Theotokos auf byzantinischen Bleisiegeln, be-
sonders im . Jahrhundert. Studies in Byzantine Sigillography  (),  – ; A.-K. Wassi-
liou-Seibt, Die sigillographische Evidenz der Theotokos und ihre Entwicklung bis zum Ende
des Ikonoklasmus, in L. M. Peltomaa / A. Külzer/ P. Allen (eds.), Presbeia Theotokou. The inter-
cessory role of Mary across times and places in Byzantium (th–th century). Österr. Akad.
der Wiss. Philos.-hist. Klasse. Denkschriften,  = Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung, .
Vienna ,  – .
 For the entire Akathistos hymn see C. Trypanis, Fourteen early Byzantine cantica. WBS, .
Vienna ; L. M. Peltomaa, The image of the Virgin Mary in the Akathistos Hymn. The Medi-
eval Mediterranean, . Leiden/Boston/Cologne ,  – ;  – . Note that the singing of
the hymn is attested in Constantinus Manasses, Breviarium (as footnote  above) ll.  f.
 See in particular M. McEvoy, Child emperor rule in the late Roman West, AD  – . Ox-
ford ,  – .
same time, these documents responded to the young emperor’s steady growth
and the passage of time in general, therefore presenting their addressees with
an innovative narrative about the domus divina. On solidi, for instance, Heraclius
Constantine III is depicted as isocephalic with his father around 625, who now
wears a comparatively longer beard and rather long curls on his sides.⁷⁵ Note
that his son starts to show signs of a beard as well (Fig. 4).⁷⁶
Fig. 4: Solidus of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III from Constantinople (between 629
and 631)
Obv.: Frontal bust of Heraclius with a long beard on the left and of Heraclius Constantin III
with a short beard on the right, each with a crown with a cross on a round jewel and chla-
mys. Between them appears a cross. Inscription: ddNN hϵRACLIЧS ϵT hϵRA CONST PP AV.
Rev.: Cross on three steps. Inscription: VICTORIA AVчЧ A, below: CONOB.
handle.net/428894.vzg/a06e61a2-125e-4488-8874-1ba1b8cdea8b
One could compare the treatment of Heraclius Constantine III here with that of
Maurice’s son Theodosius. In contrast to the latter, however, Heraclius’s eldest
male offspring constantly appeared in official regnal formulae and on numis-
matic as well as on sigillographic documents. Theodosius on the other hand is
depicted only occasionally on coins from Cherson and North Africa, usually to-
gether with his parents Maurice and Constantina. As Phil Booth convincingly
 DOC (as footnote  above), II ,  – , nos.  – ; MIB III (as footnote  above),
Tab. , nos.  – ; Sear, Byzantine coins (as footnote  above), ; Sommer/Boehringer,
Katalog (as footnote  above), , pl. .
 For similar depictions of both emperors on lead seals see Zacos/Veglery, Byzantine lead
seals (as footnote  above), , no. , Var.  ( – ); , no.  ( – ); Seibt, Blei-
siegel (as footnote  above), . See as well Nesbitt/Morrisson, Catalogue (as footnote 
above), , no. ,  (ca.  – );  f., no. ,  ( – ).
emphasized, Heraclius thereby actively attempted to establish his rightful suc-

cession, maybe also with an eye to Maurice’s failed attempts to do so.⁷⁷
Overall, it seems that Heraclius Constantine’s III role as his father’s deputy
in the capital was never openly questioned during the 620s. The birth of his
younger half-brother Κωνσταντῖνος Ἡράκλειος, often called Heraclonas (PLRE
III 587 f., Heraclonas), as is known from, e. g., Egyptian papyri (P.Paramone
18), on May 3, 626 during Heraclius’s campaigns in Lazica, however, marked
an important initial inflection point regarding changes of his position within
the imperial family.
Return and death of Heraclius – changes of the

position and the status of Heraclius Constantine
III between 628 and 641
After the siege of Constantinople in 626, not much is known about Heraclius
Constantine’s III actions in the capital. This is certainly related to the fact that
most historiographical sources focus on the fate of Heraclius and his battles
against the Persians. The most important text that would document conditions
in Constantinople – the Easter Chronicle – unfortunately breaks off after 628.
There are some (dubious) messages relating to diplomatic interactions between
Heraclius Constantine III and the Persian general Sharbarāz. Having received
news about the failed campaign to capture Constantinople in 626, the Sasanid
king allegedly sent a messenger with a letter ordering the removal of the unsuc-
cessful military leader. However, the envoy was captured by Byzantine forces
and taken to the capital. Subsequently, the young emperor together with patri-
arch Sergius met and informed the accused general about Khosrow’s II inten-
tions, leading to a definite alienation between Sharbarāz and his king.⁷⁸ How-
 P. Booth, The ghost of Maurice at the court of Heraclius. BZ  (),  – , here
 – .
 See Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM , ed. de Boor,  f.; Kitab al-’Unvan. His-
toire universelle, écrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj, seconde partie II (= Agapius), ed. A.
Vasiliev. PO, . Paris ,  – ; Michael Syrus (as footnote  above), , , ed. Chabot
IV,  f.; Chronicon syriacum a.  (as footnote  above), §  = trans. Palmer/Brock/
Hoyland, , § ; at-Ṭabarī: Annales auctore Abu Djafar Mohammed Ibn Djarir at-Tabari,
ed. M. J. de Goeje. Leiden  – ,  f. (for an English translation of this passage see:
The History of al-Ṭabarī, V: The Sāsānids, the Byzantines, the Lakmids, and Yemen, trans.
C. E. Bosworth. Albany, NY ,  – ), who states that Sharbarāz searched for the em-
peror by himself, after learning about the betrayal by his king. See as well Ps.-Sebeos (as foot-
ever, such stories should be treated with caution, as James Howard-Johnston

points out: “[These] allegations should probably be rejected as a piece of delib-
erate disinformation, circulated to further Roman interests as the war reached a
climax in 627/628.”⁷⁹ The alliance between Heraclius and Sharbarāz properly
began in July 629.
Literary sources portray Heraclius’s subsequent triumphs over the Persians
as a comprehensive renewal of the whole Byzantine world.⁸⁰ In addition, the vic-
note  above), , ed. Abgaryan , who asserts that the Persian general remained in the west
and did not support his king, when Heraclius attacked him, see van Dieten, Patriarchen (as
footnote  above), ; Speck, Das geteilte Dossier (as footnote  above),  – ;  –
; A. D. Beihammer, Nachrichten zum byzantinischen Urkundenwesen in arabischen Quellen
( – ). Poikila Byzantina, . Bonn ,  f.; Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above),
 – ; W. Kaegi / P. Cobb, Heraclius, Sharbaraz, and al-Tabari, in H. Kennedy (ed.), Al-Tab-
ari. A medieval Muslim historian and his work. Princeton ,  – .
 See the commentary by Thomson/Howard-Johnston/Greenwood (as footnote  above),
II, .
 E. g., Georgius Pisides, Heraclias ,  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote  above), ;
Georgius Pisides, In restaurationem Sanctae Crucis  – , ed. Tartaglia, ; Theophanes
(as footnote  above), AM , ed. de Boor, ,  – ; Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae,
, ,  – ; , ,  f. = rec. C. de Boor. Leipzig  (corr. P. Wirth. Stuttgart ), ,  –
, ; ,  – . See I. Shahîd, The Iranian factor in Byzantium during the reign of Hera-
clius. DOP  (),  f.; S. Spain Alexander, Heraclius, Byzantine imperial ideology, and
the David plates. Speculum / (),  – ; A. Cameron, Images of authority. Elites and
icons in late sixth-century Byzantium. Past & Present  (),  – ; I. Shahîd, Heraclius πισ-
τός ἐν χριστῷ βασιλεύς. DOP  –  ( – ),  – ; O. Kresten, Oktateuch-Pro-
bleme. Bemerkungen zu einer Neuerscheinung. BZ  –  ( – ), ; M. M. Mango,
Imperial art in the seventh century, in Magdalino, New Constantines (as footnote  above),
 – ; Whitby, A new image (as footnote  above),  f.; C. Rapp, Comparison, paradigm
and the case of Moses in panegyric and hagiography, in M. Whitby (ed.), The propaganda of
power. The role of panegyric in Late Antiquity. Mnemosyne Supplementum, . Leiden ,
 – , here ; O. Kresten, Herakleios und der Titel βασιλεύς, in P. Speck (ed.), Varia
. Poikila Byzantina, . Bonn ,  f.; R. Leader, The David plates revisited. Transforming
the secular and Early Byzantium. The Art Bulletin / (),  – ; W. Brandes, Hera-
kleios between restoration and reform. Some remarks on recent research, in Reinink/Stolte,
Reign of Heraclius (as footnote  above), ; J. Drijvers, Heraclius and the Restitutio Crucis.
Notes on symbolism and ideology, ibid.,  f.; Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above), ;
;  f.; C. Ludwig, David – Christus – Basileus. Erwartungen an eine Herrschergestalt, in
W. Dietrich / H. Herkommer (eds.), König David – biblische Schlüsselfigur und europäische Leit-
gestalt. Freiburg/Stuttgart ,  – ; M. Meier, Sind wir nicht alle heilig? Zum Konzept
des “Heiligen” (sacrum) in spätjustinianischer Zeit. Millennium  (),  – ; H. M. Zil-
ling, Jesus als Held. Odysseus und Herakles als Vorbilder christlicher Heldentypologie. Lei-
den/Boston ,  – ; V. Tsamakda, König David als Typos des byzantinischen Kaisers,
in F. Daim / J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – Das Römerreich im Mittelalter. Teil : Welt der Ideen,
Welt der Dinge. Mainz ,  – ; Meier, Herakles (as footnote  above),  – .
torious emperor appeared as a completely transformed person on a physical,

mental and spiritual level as savior of the True Cross.⁸¹ His return to the capital
after his victories against the Persians in 628 was celebrated frenetically by the
city’s inhabitants. According to the communis opinio, this happened at the prob-
ably around March 21, 629.⁸² It was also used to stage the first public meeting
between the two Augusti since Heraclius left Constantinople in 624:⁸³
 E. g., Georgius Pisides, Heraclias ,  – ;  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote 
above),  – ; ; Georgius Pisides, In Restaurationem Sanctae Crucis  – , ed. Tarta-
glia, . See K. Galinsky, The Herakles theme. The adaptations of the hero in literature from
Homer to the twentieth century. Oxford , ; ; Stoyanov, Defenders (as footnote 
above),  f.; Meier, Herakles (as footnote  above), .
 This deliberation is based on Nov. IV (March , ), in which Heraclius and his son first
appear as “πιστοὶ ἐν Χριστῷ βασιλεῖς”, see Konidaris, Novellen (as footnote  above),  – ;
W. Brandes, Finanzverwaltung in Krisenzeiten. Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen Adminis-
tration im .–. Jahrhundert. Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, . Frankfurt
am Main , ; ; Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above), ; Dölger/Müller, Regesten
(as footnote  above),  f., no. . The emergence of this new imperial title replacing in effect
the traditional notion of “πιστοὶ ἐν Χριστῷ αὔγουστοι” has been analyzed repeatedly in modern
scholarship see – among others – L. Bréhier, L’origine des titres imperiaux à Byzance. BZ 
(),  – ; F. Dölger, Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt. Ettal ,  – ; P.
Alexander, The strength of Empire and capital as seen through Byzantine eyes. Speculum 
(),  – ; I. Shahîd, The Iranian factor in Byzantium during the reign of Heraclius.
DOP  (),  – ; E. Chrysos, The title βασιλεύς in Early Byzantine international rela-
tions. DOP  (),  – ; Rösch, Onoma basileias (as footnote  above); C. Zuckerman,
Title (as footnote  above),  – ; P. Schreiner, Byzanz ( – ). Oldenbourg Grundriss
der Geschichte, . Munich  (th edition),  f.; M. Grünbart, Das Byzantinische Reich.
Darmstadt , . – Note that Egyptian papyri continued to deploy the formulae “αἰώνιοι
αὔγουστοι” and “αὐτοκράτορες” when presenting the emperor’s titles, see R. S. Bagnall / K. A.
Worp, Chronological systems of Byzantine Egypt. Leiden/Boston ,  – . Until now,
only one document from October or November  exists (CPR, as footnote  above, XXIII,
), which clearly displays the title “βασιλεύς”, see F. Mitthof, Neue Dokumente aus dem rö-
mischen und spätantiken Ägypten zur Verwaltung und Reichsgeschichte (.–. Jh. n.Chr.). Cor-
pus Papyrorum Raineri, . Griechische Texte, . Vienna ,  – , no. . As Meier,
Herakles (as footnote  above),  –  notes, the use of the title “βασιλεύς” was not entirely
new, but can be found on inscriptions already under Constantine I (Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones
Selectae. Supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum, II, ed. W. Dittenberger. Leipzig
, II, no.  = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, ed. A. Chaniotis et al. Leiden/Bos-
ton , XXXVII, no. ) or Constantius II (Tituli Asiae minoris, III . Vienna , no. ,
) as well as under Arcadius (Die Inschriften von Smyrna, II , ed. G. Petzl. Inschriften grie-
chischer Städte aus Kleinasien, . Bonn , no. ). Justinian I as well appears with the
title “βασιλεύς ὁ μέγας” in the Acts of the Council of Jerusalem in , see: Collectio Sabbaitica
contra Acephalos et Origeniastas destinata. Insunt acta synodorum Constantinopolitanae et Hi-
erosolymitanae a. , ed. E. Schwarz. ACO, . Berlin , . .
Ὁ δὲ λαὸς τῆς πόλεως τὴν ἔλευσιν αὐτοῦ μαθόντες ἀκατασχέτῳ πόθῳ πάντες εἰς τὴν
Ἱερείαν ἐξῆλθον εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτοῦ, σὺν τῷ πατριάρχῃ καὶ Κωνσταντίνῳ, τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ
υἱῷ αὐτοῦ, βαστάζοντες κλάδους ἐλαιῶν καὶ λαμπάδας, εὐφημοῦντες αὐτοῦ μετὰ χαρᾶς καὶ
δακρύων. Προσελθὼν δὲ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, καὶ περιπλακεὶς αὐτῷ
ἔβρεξαν ἀμφότεροι τὴν γῆν τοῖς δάκρυσιν. Τοῦτο θεασάμενος ὁ λαός, ἅπαντες εὐχαρι-
στηρίους ὕμνους τῷ θεῷ ἀνέπεμπον· καὶ οὕτω λαβόντες τὸν βασιλέα σκιρτῶντες εισῆλθον
ἐν τῇ πόλει.
When the people of the City had learnt of his coming, all of them, with unrestrained ea-
gerness, went out to meet him at Hiereia, together with the patriarch and the emperor
Constantine, his son, holding olive branches and lights and acclaiming him with tears of
joy. Coming forward, his son fell at his feet and embraced him, and they both shed tears on
the ground. At the sight of this, all the people sent up to God hymns of thanksgiving. After
receiving the emperor in this fashion, they entered the City dancing with joy.
When Heraclius Constantine III approached his father, he kneeled down before
him and embraced him, publicly expressing the difference in rank between the
two formally equal Augusti and at the same time showing gratitude for his fa-
ther’s victories. Both rulers then shed tears, which can be interpreted both as
an expression of joy over Heraclius’s return at the end of the “last war of antiq-
uity” as well as a sign of thankfulness towards God for the safety of Byzantium.
In this context, tears are also considered a medium through which the sinfulness
of men could be washed away, as patriarch Sergius already demonstrated during
the defense of Constantinople in 626. They had a cleansing quality especially if
they were shed by figures of public authority.⁸⁴ Shortly after, Heraclius Constan-
 Theophanes (as footnote  aove) AM , ed. de Boor, ,  –  = trans. Mango/Scott/
Greatrex, . See as well Georgius Pisides, Heraclias , Frg. c–e, ed. Tartaglia (as foot-
note  above), . The depiction of Constantinople’s inhabitants dancing with joy while enter-
ing the city because of Heraclius’s return might be inspired by passages of the Old Testament,
such as Miriam’s song (Ex , ) or the ill-fated dance of Jephtah’s daughter (Jdg , ). The
passage also reminds us of  Chron  –  as well as  Sam , when the ark of the covenant
was brought to Jerusalem, accompanied by joyful dances.
 Georgius Pisides, Bellum Avaricum  – , ed. Tartaglia (as footnote  above), ;
Theodore Synkellos, ed. Sternbach (as footnote  above),  f. [ – ]; see van Dieten,
Patriarchen (as footnote  above),  f. – On the role of tears in showing and repenting for
one’s own wickedness see Sancti Ambrosii epistulae extra collectionem traditae, , , rec.
M. Zelzer. Sancti Ambrosii opera, , CSEL, /. Vienna ,  – . According to Oro-
sius, Historiae , ,  (Paulus Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII, ed. K. Zange-
meister. Corpus der Lateinischen Kirchenväter, . Vienna , ), Theodosius I is said to
have wept during a prayer before the fight against the usurper Eugenius in  thereby achiev-
ing heavenly protection (praesidium caelestis) for the forthcoming battle. In a similar fashion,
Heraclius cried when he sailed for the capital to fight Phocas, thereby praying for support for
his plan, see Georgius Pisides, Expeditio persica , ;  f., ed. Tartaglia (as footnote 
tine III married his betrothed Gregoria in 629/630,⁸⁵ resulting in the birth of his
sons Heraclius Constantinus, often named Constans II, (PLRE III 333, Constans
2), born on November 7, 630 (apparently at the same day as Heraclius’s son
David [David PLRE III 390, David 8]), and baptized on November 3, 631,⁸⁶ and
later his second son Theodosius, thereby further strengthening the Heraclian dy-
nasty.
In the subsequent period, Heraclius often appears as the radiant savior of
the Byzantine Empire and as a Christ-like figure in imperial propaganda. In con-
trast, we know almost nothing about his eldest son in the period around 630. He
seems to have acted mostly in the background and probably continued to per-
form mainly within ceremonial contexts at his father’s side and on his behalf.
Bronze folles depict the division of tasks and responsibilities as well as the imag-
ination of different achievements of both emperors quite clearly. Together with
other reforms of the monetary system around 630, it was decided to exclude
the aforementioned female figure from bronze coinage in favor of a more tradi-
tional depiction of both Augusti. ⁸⁷ Heraclius is shown in military attire, reflecting
his successes against the Persians, while his son wears a chlamys representing
the more civic aspects of imperial dominion (Fig. 5).⁸⁸
above),  – . On the role of crying and shedding of tears in public representations of
powerful members of (Late) Roman society in general see J. Hagen, Die Tränen der Mächtigen
und die Macht der Tränen. Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolloquium, . Stuttgart ; S. Rey,
Les larmes de Rome. Le pouvoir de pleurer dans l’Antiquité. Paris .
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango, .
 Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM , ed. de Boor, ,  – .
 For corresponding coins minted in Constantinople see DOC (as footnote  above), II ,
 – , nos.  – ; Morrisson, Catalogue (as footnote  above),  – ; MIB (as foot-
note  above), III, Tab. , nos.  – d; Sear, Byzantine coins (as footnote  above), ;
Sommer/Boehringer, Katalog (as footnote  above), .
 MIB (as footnote  above), III,  f. For the monetary reforms of Heraclius see DOC (as foot-
note  above), II ,  f.; M. Hendy, On the administrative basis of the Byzantine coinage, c.
–c. , and the reforms of Heraclius. University of Birmingham Historical Journal  (),
 – ; Morrisson, Catalogue (as footnote  above), ; P. Yannopoulos, L’Hexagramme.
Un monnayage byzantin en argent du VIIe siècle. Numismatica Lovanensia, . Louvain-la-Neuve
, ; M. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine monetary economy, c.  – . Cambridge
, ; M. Hendy, The economy, fiscal administration and coinage of Byzantium. North-
hampton , VIII, ; Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above),  f.; D.C. Whalin, A note
reconsidering the message of Heraclius’ silver hexagram circa AD . BZ  (),  –
 (with regard to the introduction and functions of the hexagram in particular). The exclusion
of Martina should not be interpreted as a sign of political crisis within the imperial family at that
time, see MIB (as footnote  above),  against DOC (as footnote  above), II , .
Fig. 5. Follis of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III from Constantinople (634/635).
Obv.: Heraclius on the left and Heraclius Constantine III on the right side, both standing fron-
tally; Heraclius bearded, with a crown with cross, in military attire. He holds a cross staff in
his right hand. Heraclius Constantine III, also bearded, wears a crown with a cross and a
chlamys. He holds a cross globe in his right hand. Between the two emperors appears a
cross and a K. No inscription. Rev.: Capital M, below A (poorly legible). On the left side: A/N/
N/O (poorly legible), on the right side XXЧ (poorly legible), below CON.
handle.net/428894.vzg/9f897c04-016e-4584-ae40-59a7b5d23159
The idea of a common imperial rule is also expressed in the capital’s building
program at the time. According to a metric inscription preserved in the Antholo-
gia Graeca, for instance, around 630 both rulers were involved in building activ-
ities of the Magnaura with regard to its banquet hall (ὁ τρίκλινος), which served
as the central meeting place for Constantinople’s senate in the 7th century: “Em-
perors have built this palace with great care, / they who received from the cross
the scepter of salvation / lord Heracles [i. e. Heraclius] did it with Constantine,
his son.”⁸⁹ However, the conception and the subsequent depiction of the impe-
 Anthologia Graeca (as footnote  above), IX ,  – , ed. Beckby, III, : Εἰς τὸν τρίκλι-
νον τῆς Μαγναύρας: Ὀτραλέως τολύπευσαν τόνδε δόμον βασιλῆες, /αἰχμὴν ὀλβοδότειραν ἀπὸ
σταυροῖο λαχόντες, /αὐτὸς ἄναξ Ἡρακλῆς σὺν Κωνσταντίνῳ υἷι. Note that Heraclius is called
Heracles for metric reasons – I would like to thank Albrecht Berger for this observation. On
the Magnaura and its history in Constantinople see A. Berger, Die Senate von Konstantinopel,
Boreas. Münstersche Beiträge zur Archäologie  (),  – , especially . It seems pos-
sible that the Anthologia Graeca briefly refers to the recovery of the True Cross. As it appears
(according to the source text quoted above) that Heraclius had already returned to the capital,
the τρίκλινος of the Magnaura could have been built between March ,  and January ,
, when Heraclonas, who is not mentioned in the text, became Caesar of Byzantium. The con-
struction of the banquet hall would certainly fit into the period around , since the state may
have had large enough financial resources for new building projects due to the riches gained in
the Persian wars.
rial family underwent further changes during that period. The most significant
alteration was the incorporation of Heraclonas among the rulers of the Byzantine
Empire. After his appointment as Caesar on January 1, 632 he was naturally de-
picted on numismatic documents as well. The three emperors now appear to-
gether as standing figures, Heraclius in the middle, Heraclius Constantine III
on his left side – almost isocephalic – and Heraclonas on his right as a smaller
figure.⁹⁰ Note that Heraclonas is at first depicted with a diadem or a simple
crown without a cross as a lower ranking Caesar compared to both Augusti
(Fig. 6).⁹¹ However, he appears on the right side of his father, thereby granting
him a rather favorable position nonetheless. The promotion of Heraclonas to
the dignity of Caesar on this occasion had no direct impact on the regnal formu-
lae in papyri.⁹²
The rapid success of Muslim forces after 630, which called into question Hera-
clius’s earlier victories, together with the increasing age and dwindling health
of the senior Augustus led to tensions within the imperial family. After territorial
losses in Syria under Heraclius’s brother Theodore in 634, the emperor sent him
to Constantinople in order to be put on trial. Proceedings were led by Heraclius
Constantine III, emphasizing his central position within the capital.⁹³ Even in
this case, however, the emperor’s eldest son primarily acted as his deputy, oper-
ating on his behalf during his uncle’s trials. The restriction to ceremonial duties
in particular becomes apparent again when we examine passages from Constan-
tine Porphyrogennetus’s De Cerimoniis. The first documented instance of his for-
mal attendance at public events happened during the coronation of his brothers
Heraclonas as Augustus and David, who was born on November 7, 630,⁹⁴ as Cae-
sar on July 4 or 7, 638.⁹⁵ Heraclius Constantine III thus received an additional
 DOC (as footnote  above), II ,  – , nos.  – ; MIB (as footnote  above), III,
Tab. , nos.  – ; Sear, Byzantine coins (as footnote  above), ; Sommer/Boehringer,
Katalog (as footnote  above), , pl. .
 For the depiction of three emperors on coins see DOC (as footnote  above), II ,  – .
For their portrayal on lead seals see Zacos/Veglery, Byzantine lead seals (as footnote 
above),  – , no.  ( – ); Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich (as foot-
note  above),  f.
 Zuckerman, La formule de datation (as footnote  above),  – ; Bagnall/Worp,
Chronological system (as footnote  above),  – ;  – ; Zuckerman, Title (as footnote
 above), .
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango, .
 Ibid., , , ed. Mango, ; Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM , ed. de Boor, .
 Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Cerimoniis, II, ; Constantin Porphyrogénnète, Le livre
des cérémonies, ed. G. Dagron / B. Flusin. CFHB, . Paris , II,  – . According to Ni-
Fig. 6: Solidus of Heraclius, Heraclius Constantine III and Heraclonas from Constantinople
(632 – 635?).
Obv.: All standing frontally, Heraclius with long beard in the middle, Heraclius Constantine III
beardless on the right and Heraclonas much smaller and also beardless on the left; each
holds in his right a cross globe and wears a chlamys, Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine
appear with a cross crown, Heraclonas as a Caesar with a simple crown; on the top left there
is a small cross. Without inscription. Rev.: Cross on three steps, on the right side ☧-mono-
gramm. Inscription: VICTORIA AVчЧA, at the base: CONO.
handle.net/428894.vzg/0b66a08b-57f5-46aa-a1e8-56fba96d2add
equal-ranking ruler at his side as well as another Caesar. Both were children of
his stepmother Martina.
There are additional instances where De Cerimoniis mentions Heraclius Con-
stantine’s III actions. On January 1, 639 he accompanied his father together with
his half-brother Heraclonas during a public procession to the Hagia Sophia. ⁹⁶ To-
gether with other members of his family, he received acclamations on January 4
of the same year in the hippodrome.⁹⁷ Over time, Heraclius increasingly hesi-
cephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango,  an additional son of Her-
aclius and Martina named Martinus was crowned Caesar together with his sisters Augustina
(PLRE III , Augustina) and Martina (PLRE III , Martina ), who became Augustae on
this occasion as well.
 De Cerimoniis, II, , ed. Dagron/Flusin, II, .
 De Cerimoniis, II, , ed. Dagron/Flusin, II, . The phenomenon of imperial acclama-
tions in the (later) Roman empire has been treated extensively by O. Hirschfeld, Die römische
Staatszeitung und die Acclamation im Senat. Berlin ; A. Alföldi, Die Ausgestaltung des
monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen Kaiserhofe. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologi-
schen Instituts, Römische Abteilung  (),  – ; R. Talbert, The senate of imperial Rome.
Princeton , ; H.-U. Wiemer, Akklamationen im spätrömischen Reich. Zur Typologie und
Funktion eines Kommunikationsrituals. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte  (),  – ; H.-U.
tated to visit the capital in person as it is described in literary sources. Instead,

he sent his sons to Constantinople on festive days to fulfill primarily ceremonial
duties, while he remained in the Hiereia palace.⁹⁸ This alleged unwillingness to
leave the security of the imperial palace may have originated from an unsuccess-
ful assassination attempt in 637. The plot had the objective to kill and replace
him with his illegitimate son Athalaric.⁹⁹ It involved Heraclius’s nephew and
honorary magister officiorum (?) Theodore (PLRE III 1284 f., Theodorus 171), the
son of Heraclius’s brother of the same name, various local magnates in the cap-
ital and David Saharuni (PLRE III 389 f., David 6 Saharuni), an influential Arme-
nian general, who was captured but escaped his punishment by fleeing to
Armenia.¹⁰⁰ Other conspirators were, however, mutilated and banished, among
Wiemer, Voces populi. Akklamationen als Surrogat politischer Partizipation, in E. Flaig (ed.),
Genesis und Dynamiken der Mehrheitsentscheidung. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, . Mu-
nich ,  – .
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango, . See the critical as-
sessment by N. Viermann, The battle of Yarmouk, a bridge of boats, and Heraclius’s alleged fear
of water. Assessing the consequences of military defeat. Studies in Late Antiquity / (),
 – .
 It is unclear from where this illegitimate son of Heraclius actually came from. M. Nichanian,
Le maître des milices d’Orient, Vahan et la bataille de Yarmouk () au complot d’Athalaric
(), in B. Der Mugrdechian (ed.), Between Paris and Fresno. Armenian studies in honor of
Dickran Kouvmjian. Cosa Mesa ,  proposes that he was the son of the (nameless)
daughter of the Caesar Germanus (PLRE III  f., Germanus ), who might have been related
to the Ostrogoth king Athalaric. W. Brandes, Thüringer/Thüringerinnen in byzantinischen Quel-
len, in H. Castritius / D. Geuenich / M. Werner (eds.), Die Frühzeit der Thüringer. Archäologie,
Sprache, Geschichte. RGA Ergänzungsbände, . Berlin ,  – , however, proposes
familial ties with the Thuringian king Amalafrid and his son Artachis. Atalaric was then the
last representative of the Thuringians after the destruction of their kingdom in the first half
of the th century.
 Ps.-Sebeos (as footnote  above), , ed. Abgaryan, ; Nicephorus, Breviarium (as foot-
note  above), , ed. Mango, . See Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote  above),  f., who points
out different internal struggles within Heraclius’s dynasty as a possible root for the assassination
attempt. It appears that this failed coup was supported or even orchestrated by an influential
Armenian faction within Byzantium’s political elite. As P. Charanis, The Armenians in the By-
zantine Empire. Byzantinoslavica  (),  – , here  f.; P. Charanis, Ethnic changes
in the Byzantine Empire in the seventh century. DOP  (),  –  emphasizes, there were
various influential office holders from Armenia already by the end of the th century, see as well
Haldon, Byzantium (as footnote  above),  f. Compare, however, S. Gero, Armenians in By-
zantium. Some reconsiderations. Journal of Armenian Studies  (),  – . During the reign
of Heraclius and his sons in particular, Armenians continued to occupy key positions in the civic
and military administration of the Byzantine Empire. Among these, we know of the already men-
tioned David Shaharuni, who acted as curopalates, magister militum and ruler of Armenia be-
tween  and  or  and , the patricius and comes excubitorum Valentinus (PLRE
them Theodore and Athalaric. Only the confidant Armenian noble Varatiroch
(PLRE III 1363 f., Varatiroch) was spared this harsh punishment since he did
not dare to act against the emperor, but was instead sent into exile in North Afri-
ca together with his family. None of Heraclius’s legitimate children participated
in the failed attack on the emperor’s life as far as we know.
Before his death, Heraclius set forth a testament whereby his sons Heraclius
Constantine III and Heraclonas were to be Augusti of equal rank and his wife
Martina was to be honored by both as their mother and empress.¹⁰¹ Furthermore,
Ps.-Sebeos reports that Heraclius made his eldest son swear to exercise mercy on
all the transgressors, whom he had previously ordered to be exiled.¹⁰² It seems
that the dying ruler knew about the latent conflicts within his family and at-
tempted to solve them preemptively. However, this proved to be unsuccessful.
Although he tried to strengthen his dynasty overall by providing additional can-
didates for the throne during insecure times, he in fact created uncertainties with
regard to the actual transfer of power through his actions. While he surely started
his campaigns against the Persians with Heraclius Constantine III as his sole in-
tended successor, the birth and subsequent coronations of Heraclonas led to a
fragmentation of his family. As long as he was alive, Heraclius controlled the sit-
uation. After his death, however, internal claims to the throne as well as the fear
of the loss of political power necessarily led to disputes.¹⁰³
Following Heraclius’s demise, Nicephorus reports that Martina summoned
the patriarch, high dignitaries of the court and the people of Byzantium to an
assembly in the hippodrome and presented to them Heraclius’s will. While the
audience clamored for Heraclius Constantine III and Heraclonas, they apparent-
ly rejected her claim to occupy the first place in the Empire as empress. Further-
more, they paid particular respect to Heraclius’s eldest son because of his
III  f., Valentinus ), the magister militum per Armeniam (?) between  and /
named Mžēž Gnuni (PLRE III  f., Mezezius) and Theodore Rsthuni (PLRE III  f., Theodo-
rus ), who probably served as a magister militum per Armeniam between  and /.
In Italy, the Armenian exarchus Isaacius (PLRE III  – , Isaacius ; PmbZ /corr) be-
came of fundamental importance for the stability of Heraclius’s reign, see N. Hächler, Der Ex-
archat von Ravenna unter Herakleios. Transformation und Kontinuität staatlicher Herrschafts-
und Verwaltungsstrukturen in den Peripherien des byzantinischen Reiches in der . Hälfte
des . Jhs. JÖB  (),  – :  – ,  f.
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango, . See Dölger/
Müller, Regesten (as footnote  above), , no. . Compare as well the testament of Maurice
in Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae (as footnote  above) , , rec. de Boor,  – .
 Ps.-Sebeos (as footnote  above), , ed. Abgaryan,  f. This concerned the aforemen-
tioned Armenian noble Varatiroch and his family in particular.
 Dagron, Empereur et prêtre (as footnote  above),  f.
seniority,¹⁰⁴ proving in the process that Byzantium formally still functioned as an

elective monarchy where potential candidates for the throne had to present
themselves before representatives of various acceptance groups. Note that Nice-
phorus’s depiction of events as well as his negative portrayal of the empress Mar-
tina was probably strongly influenced by the so-called Pyrrhus pamphlet, as
described by Constantin Zuckerman.¹⁰⁵ John of Nikiu tells his readership that
patriarch Pyrrhus subsequently invested Heraclius Constantine III and estab-
lished him as head of the Byzantine Empire.¹⁰⁶
For a brief moment, Heraclius Constantine III ruled the Empire as Augustus
senior between February 11 and May 24, 641.¹⁰⁷ Unfortunately, there are only few
sources depicting his reign. Even numismatic evidence is rare due to, on the one
hand, his short dominion and, on the other, because comparable image pro-
grams were deployed by other members of the Heraclian dynasty, leading to dif-
ficulties when attempting to identify individual objects.¹⁰⁸ Unsurprisingly, it was
of central importance for Heraclius Constantine III at the beginning of his reign
to assert himself as quickly as possible against the rest of his family. Apparently,
he was successful in doing so. Papyrus SB VI 8986¹⁰⁹ contains an imperial for-
mula depicting himself together with his brothers and his son Constans II.¹¹⁰
It becomes clear when analyzing this document, as reconsidered by Constantin
Zuckerman, that he had no scruples about using his new-found influence as Au-
gustus senior in order to promote his own son to the rank of Caesar, thereby
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), , ed. Mango,  – .
 C. Zuckerman, Heraclius and the return of the Holy Cross. TM  (),  – , here
 f. See as well P. Booth, The last years of Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandreia. TM  (),
 f. It is in fact quite evident that Pyrrhus was a close associate of Martina and her sons.
But the apologetic Breviarium – which derives from a member of the circle of the patriarch, per-
haps even from Pyrrhus himself, when he sought to come back to the capital around  – ac-
tively tried to conceal this fact in order to appeal to Constans II and his court.
 John of Nikiu (as footnote  above), , ed. Zotenberg ,  f.
 See Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), , ed. Mango,  – , who states that
his reign lasted  days. Compare, however, Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM , ed.
de Boor, ,  and the Chronicle of Seert,  (Histoire nestorienne [Chronique de Séert], ed.
A. Scher, /. PO / (),  – ) who both record that Heraclius Constantine III ruled
for four months. According to the Origo civitatium Italie seu Venetiarum , ed. R. Cessi. Rome
, ,  f., he reigned for  days. See Booth, Cyrus (as footnote  above), .
 See DOC (as footnote  above), II ,  – ; Morrisson, Catalogue (as footnote 
above), ; ; MIB III (as footnote  above),  f.; Grierson, Byzantine coins (as footnote
 above), .
 E. Kiessling (ed.), Sammelbuch, VI (as footnote  above), no. .
 Zuckerman, Title (as footnote  above),  – .
granting him precedence over his stepuncles David and Martinus.¹¹¹ This action
indicates that by this time Heraclius Constantine III was no more a mere political
chess piece but actively persued his own agenda against his stepbrothers after
his father’s death. In addition, the sacellarius Philagrius (PLRE III 1018, Phila-
grius 3) informed the emperor that his father provided money to patriarch Pyr-
rhus on behalf of Martina so that she would not be lacking financial means if
she were driven out of the palace by her stepson. The emperor immediately sum-
moned the patriarch and forced him to surrender the named funds. Since Phila-
grius feared future repercussions, he advised Heraclius Constantine III to order
the army to support his own children after his eventual death. In order to protect
his claims, the Augustus senior dispatched 2,016,000 solidi to the soldiers. The
aforementioned patrician Valentinus (PLRE III, 1354– 1355, Valentinus 5) was re-
sponsible for the transportation of the sum and subseqently became the leading
commander of the military forces in the east.¹¹²
We know about some aspects of Heraclius Constantine’s III religious policy.
There exist reports from Carthage with complaints about the behavior of Mono-
 Zuckerman, La formule de datation (as footnote  above); R. S. Bagnall / K. A. Worp,

Dating the coptic legal documents from Aphrodite. ZPE  (),  – ; N. Gonis, SB
VI  and Heraclius’s sons. ZPE  (),  – . The reconstruction of the text follows
Zuckerman, Title (as footnote ) above, , who based his amendments on Mitthof, Neue
Dokumente (as footnote  above), ,  with regard to CPR (as footnote  above),
XXIII, no.  from /: [† Ἐν ὀνόματι τῆς ἁγίας ὁμοουσίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ τρι]ά̣δο ̣ ̣ς ̣ π̣α̣τρ̣ [ὸς]
̣
καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος / [βασιλείας τῶν θειοτάτων καὶ γαληνοτάτων καὶ θ]εοστεφῶν ἡμῶν
δεσποτῶν Φλαυίων / [Ἡρακλείου Νέου Κωνσταντίνου καὶ Ἡρακλείου τῶ]ν αἰωνίων αὐγούστων
αὐτοκρατόρων / [καὶ μεγίστων εὐεργετῶν ἔτους εἰκοστοῦ ἐνάτου καὶ μετὰ τ]ὴ̣ν̣ ὑπατείαν τῶν
αὐτῶν / [ἔτους δεκάτου καὶ τῶν εὐτυχεστάτων ἡμῶν δεσποτῶν?] Φλαυίου Ἡρακλείου καὶ Δαυ-
εὶδ / [καὶ Μαρτίνου τῶν εὐεργετῶν? Καισάρων καὶ –?– τοῦ θεο]φυλάκτου νοβελλησίμου,
Μεχεὶρ / [ – ca.  letters – τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτης ἰ]νδικτίονος ἐν ᾿Aπ[ό]λλωνος ἄνω πόλει. Zucker-
man, Title (as footnote  above),  –  furthermore argues that lead seals published by C.
Morrisson / W. Seibt, Sceaux de commerciaires byzantines du VIIe siècle trouvés à Carthage.
RN / (),  –  from North African kommerkiaroi show Heraclius Constantine III to-
gether with his wife Gregoria and their son Constans II. Furthermore, there are maybe depictions
of Heraclius Constantine III on coins wearing the impressive imperial crown of his father, men-
tioned in Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  –  ed. Mango, . The object was
first buried with the emperor, then apparently reclaimed by his eldest son. Later on, Heraclons
deposited it again in the church of the Holy Apostles.
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), , ed. Mango,  – ; Ps.-Sebeos (as foot-
note  above), , ed. Abgaryan, . See Dölger/Müller, Regesten (as footnote  above),
, no. . This large amount of money, as long as this is not a literary exaggeration, could
indicate that the economic situation of the empire was quite stable, possibly because of the suc-
cessful outcome of the Persian Wars. Otherwise, the state’s finances would probably have been
severely strained by this act, see Brandes, Finanzverwaltung (as footnote  above), .
physite nuns from Alexandria. After the Arab conquest of Syria and Egypt
around 638, many Monophysite Christians fled to the exarchate of Carthage
and first entered peacefully into communion with the Chalcedonian church
after their arrival.¹¹³ Nuns from Egyptian monasteries, however, began to propa-
gate Monophysitism in the region. This news was communicated by the prefect
Flavius Gregorius (PLRE III 554, Gregorius 19) to the emperor.¹¹⁴ Having learned
about this situation, Heraclius Constantine III reacted quickly and ordered the
expulsion of all Monophysites who resisted conversion,¹¹⁵ therefore adhering
to his father’s plan of establishing Christian orthodoxy all over the Byzantine
Empire – enforced with the state’s power if necessary. Later attempts to stop
these persecutions after the death of Heraclius Constantine III failed, apparently
due to the reluctance of the prefect Gregorius to implement new imperial orders
by declaring them a forgery.¹¹⁶ In this context, there is some information about
the relation between Constantinople and Rome. Like his predecessor Severinus,
pope John IV (December 24, 640 – October 12, 642) resisted measures to enforce
the universal implementation of the resolutions of the so-called Ecthesis as
well.¹¹⁷ To this end, he addressed a letter of protest to Heraclius Constantine
 The fate of the nuns from Alexandria is reported in detail by Maximus Confessor, Epistola
 (PG ,  A–B = CPG ,  = P. Sherwood, An annotated date-list of the works of
Maximus the Confessor. Studia Anselmiana, . Rome ,  – , no. ) to John Cubicular-
ius from November  or soon after. Further depictions of events can be found in Epistola 
(PG , D–B = CPG ,  = Sherwood,  – , no. ), Epistola  (PG ,  A–
D = CPG ,  = Sherwood , no. ), Epistola  (PG ,  A–B = CPG ,  =
Sherwood , no. ), Epistola  (PG , D–C = CPG ,  = Sherwood  f.,
no. ), Epistola B (CPG ,  = Sherwood , no. ), Epistola  (PG , D–C
= CPG ,  = Sherwood , no. ), Epistola  (PG , B–C = CPG ,  = Sher-
wood , no. ), Epistola  (PG , D–B = CPG ,  = Sherwood , no. ),
Epistola  (PG , C–D = CPG ,  = Sherwood , no. ). See as well C.
Diehl, L’Afrique byzantine. Histoire de la domination byzantine en Afrique ( – ). Paris
,  – ; van Dieten, Patriarchen (as footnote  above),  – ; M. Jankowiak / P.
Booth, A new date list of the works of Maximus Confessor, in P. Allen / B. Neil (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Maximus the Confessor. Oxford ,  – .
 Maximus Confessor, Epistola  (PG , C–B).
 Maximus Confessor, Epistola  (PG , C–B).
 Maximus Confessor, Epistola  (PG ,  A–B). See Dölger/Müller, Regesten (as foot-
note  above), , no. .
 See F. Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. Berliner Byzantinistische
Studien, . Frankfurt am Main ,  f., no. . Regarding the Ecthesis see ACO  II , ,
 – ,  as well as van Dieten, Patriarchen (as footnote  above),  – ; Winkelmann,
Streit (as footnote  above), , no. ; C. Lange, Mia Energeia. Untersuchungen zur Eini-
gungspolitik des Kaisers Heraclius und des Patriarchen Sergius von Constantinopel. Studien
und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, . Tübingen ,  – ; H. Ohme, Die Kirche von
III, in which he simultaneously defended Honorius’s I earlier actions (Apologia

Honorii).¹¹⁸ However, we are not informed about the emperor’s answer – possibly
because of his early death which prevented him from responding appropriately.
Finally, we have some knowledge about the ruler’s approach to the fights
against the Muslims in Egypt. For this purpose, he was in contact with patriarch
Cyrus of Alexandria and discussed with him possible ways of dealing with the
military threat. As John of Nikiu indicates, he intended to support the defenders
of Egypt with military forces from the capital:
And Constantine the son of Heraclius after he became emperor gathered together a large
number of ships and entrusted them to Kiryus and Salākǝryus, and sent them to the
patriarch Cyrus in order that they might bring him to him and he might take counsel with
them and give tribute to the Muslims – whether fighting were possible or not – and he
might meet him in the imperial city during the Festival of the Holy Resurrection, and all the
people of Constantinople would join with him and perform this act. And thereupon he sent
to Anastasius that he should come to him and leave Theodore to protect Alexandria and the
cities which were situated on the coastline. And he promised Theodore that he would send
to him in the summer a large force of soldiers so that they might fight the Muslims. And
when at the emperor’s command they prepared the ships for setting out, the emperor
Constantine then fell ill, and contracted a serious illness, and vomited blood from his
mouth. And when there was no more of that blood he then died.¹¹⁹
It is unclear who Kiryus and Salākǝryus are. Phil Booth suggests convincingly
that this passage might contain corrupted forms of the term sacellarius and
the name Philagrius, who could then be identified with the already mentioned
official of the same name. As an influential agent under Heraclius Constantine
III, he became responsible for the organization of the military defense against
the Muslims in Egypt.¹²⁰ It seems that the emperor’s operative(s) should bring
the formarly banished patriarch Cyrus to Constantinople on the occasion of
Zypern im sogenannten monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streit des . Jh.s. BZ  (),

 – .
 Mansi X  –  = PL , C–C = PL , C–D (not in ACO ). An Arabic
version can be found in Cod. Vat. Syr. , fol.  A–B. A German translation was made by J.
Schacht, Der Briefwechsel zwischen Kaiser und Papst von / in arabischer Überliefe-
rung. Orientalia N.S.  (),  – . Regarding the Apologia Honorii see P. Booth, Crisis
of empire. Doctrine and dissent at the end of Late Antiquity. Berkeley/ Los Angeles/London
,  f.; H. Ohme, Wer hat den Dyotheletismus erfunden? Zur Frage der Authentizität der
Apologia Honorii Papst Iohannes’ IV. ( – ). BZ  (),  – , here  – ;
 – .
 John of Nikiu (as footnote  above), ,  f. The text here is presented according to the
more precise translation by Booth, Cyrus (as footnote  above),  f.
 Booth, Cyrus (as footnote  above), .
the Easter festivities, where possible plans for dealing with the attackers could be
devised. In the meantime, general Theodorus, sometimes also known as Theodo-
sius (PLRE III 1298 – 1299, Theodosius 41), should remain in Alexandria to defend
Egypt’s capital. For that purpose, he was promised a strong military force in
summer 641. In addition, an otherwise unknown Anastasius should come
back to the capital. This person can perhaps be identified with archbishop Arca-
dius of Cyprus, who was considered a supporter of Martina and Heraclonas. Be-
cause of this, the new ruler might have summoned him to his court to judge
him.¹²¹ However, before he could pronounce a verdict, fulfill his promises or ad-
vance his military strategies, Heraclius Constantine III died. Most literary sources
depict Martina as the cause of his demise. Ps.-Sebeos accuses her directly:¹²²
On the death of Heraclius his son Constantine reigned, and he appointed as general over
his army Valentinus, who was called Arsacid. He ordered his troops to go to the east.
Constantine reigned for [only] a few days. He was put to death in a plot of his own step-
mother Martinê, wife of Heraclius.
Theophanes also reports that Martina, this time together with patriarch Pyrrhus,
killed her stepson with poison.¹²³ The same story is presented by Syriac
sources.¹²⁴ However, it appears plausible that Heraclius Constantine III, in
fact, died of natural causes. Nicephorus mentions that the emperor suffered a
chronic disease – possibly a form of tuberculosis – which was the reason why
he spent much time at Chalcedon due to its beneficial climate.¹²⁵ John of
Nikiu also does not mention Martina as reason for the emperor’s death. Hera-
 Ohme, Kirche von Zypern (as footnote  above), .
 Ps.-Sebeos (as footnote  above), , ed. Abgaryan, ,  – ,  = trans. Thomson/
Howard-Johnston/Greenwood (as footnote  above), I, : Եւ եղկ ի մահուանն Եռակլի
թագաւորեաց Կոստանդին որդի նորա, կ կարգէ ի վերայ զաւրաց իւրոց զաւրավարս
զՎաղենտիանոսն, որ կոչէր Արշակունի: Եւ հրամայեաց իւրոց երթալ յարկելս: Եւ
սակաւ ինչ աւուրս թագաւսրեալ Կոստանդին, դաւեալ ի Մարտինեայ մաւրուէ իւրմէ, ի
կնոջէն Երակլի‘ մեռանէր. See as well Michael Syrus (as footnote  above), , , ed. Chabot
IV, ; .
 Theophanes (as footnote  above), AM ; AM , ed. de Boor, ,  – ; ,  –
. Compare as well Constantinus Manasses, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ll.  – .
 Michael Syrus (as footnote  above), , , ed. Chabot IV, ; ; ; Chronicle of
Seert (as footnote  above), , ed. Scher, . Agapius, ed. Vasiliev (as footnote 
above),  reports that Heraclius Constantine III was killed by a wife of Heraclius, but does
not mention Martina’s name.
 Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote  above), ,  – , ed. Mango, . . This would
also be in accordance with the description of Heraclius Constantine’s III death in John of
Nikiu (as footnote  above), , , ed. Zotenberg  f.
clius Constantine III was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles, like his fa-
ther before him.¹²⁶
Conclusion
This paper examined the reign of Heraclius Constantine’s III in the context of By-
zantium’s turbulent history during the first half of the 7th century. Since the mo-
ment of his birth, Heraclius Constantine III continuosly stabilized his father’s do-
minion by embodying the promise of future prosperity under a new dynasty after
Phocas’s perceived reign of terror. His constant presence in Constantinople se-
cured the new ruling family’s claims to imperial power and enabled his father
to fight against external threats, thereby allowing him to rule in a much more
flexible way than Byzantine emperors before him. Heraclius Constantine III
even contributed to a form of almost miraculous imperial bilocation while repre-
senting his father most prominently during the siege of Constantinople in 626.
Whereas Heraclius acted as a successful military leader, subsequently depicted
as a savior of the Byzantine world in imperial propaganda, his son functioned for
the most part as his deputy and performed primarily ceremonial and, later on as
he matured, probably also administrative and jurisdictional duties in the capital.
The relation between Heraclius and his eldest son was therefore marked by an
efficient and ultimately beneficial division of socio-political, military and ideo-
logical tasks in the context of early Byzantine imperial rule.
As becomes clear when studying literary and documentary sources, how-
ever, there is unfortunately no way to assess Heraclius Constantine III as a per-
son or as an autonomous emperor of Byzantium in greater detail. It appears that
many of his actions were shaped by influential people who had surrounded and
advised him since his childhood, with the ultimate goal of stabilizing Heraclius’s
claim to political power. In addition, his reign as senior Augustus in 641 was too
short to truly impact Byzantine politics. However, his brief dominion was char-
acterized by ultimately successful attempts to prevail against his stepbrothers
and by the eventual establishment of his own son Constans II as emperor of By-
zantium. The fact that he was able to assert himself after his father’s death
should be interpreted as a sign that he was at that point in time no mere
 Origo civitatium Italie, ed. Cessi (as footnote  above), ,  – : […] defunctus est
Constantinus imperator, filius Eraclii, et sepultus est in templo Sanctorum Apostolorum, ubi et
pater eius in alia pila ex albo lapide proconisso […]. See P. Grierson, The tombs and obits of
the Byzantine emperors ( – ); with an additional note by C. Mango and I. Ševčenko.
DOP  (),  – , here  f.
chess piece in imperial politics but knew how to utilize his imperial senioritas in
order to exercise power against possible opponents. Short episodes in North Afri-
ca further suggest that he planned to continue his father’s religious program
with regard to the propagation of Christian orthodoxy all over the Byzantine Em-
pire. In addition, we get the impression that he intended to fight the Muslims in
Egypt, but died before he could carry out his plans. Because of his early demise,
he did not shape Byzantium as an active ruler to the same extent that his father
did. Consequentially, he did not receive the same sort of appraisal, adoration or
criticism in Byzantine historiography.
Overall, however, the case of Heraclius Constantine III exemplifies that po-
litical dominion in Byzantium in the first half of the 7th century was not only
influenced by single powerful individuals who publicly shaped events on a po-
litical and military level, but also by long term socio-political structures consti-
tuted by supportive actors who operated – by comparison – almost behind the
scenes. The often overshadowed emperor Heraclius Constantine III played an es-
sential role in and for Byzantium through his continuous presence in the capital.
From today’s perspective, his reign therefore contributed to the overall resilience
of the Byzantine state in times of existential crises.
Appendix
Depictions of Heraclius Constantine III on coins, following numismatic denomi-
nations and minting sites¹²⁷
) Facing busts of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III

Solidus
Constantinople (nos.  – , –ca. ): Two facing busts, Heraclius with short beard
and with elaborate crown with cross, Heraclius Constantine III to his left side, very small;
(nos.  – , ca.  – ): Two facing busts, both with simple crowns with a cross.
Heraclius Constantine III to Heraclius’s left side, small; (nos.  – , ca.  – ): Two
facing busts, both with simple crowns with a cross, Heraclius Constantine III large, de-
picted as an adult, still on the left side of his father; (nos.  – ,  – ): Two facing
busts, Heraclius with long beard, his son on his left side.
Thessalonica (nos. ,  – ): Two facing busts, Heraclius with short beard.
 This compilation is based on DOC (as footnote  above), II ,  – . Respective mint-
ing dates are inserted after individual catalog numbers. Compare as well Morrisson, Catalogue
(as footnote  above),  – ; MIB (as footnote  above), III, Prägetabelle I–V; Grierson,
Byzantine coins (as footnote  above),  – ; Sommer/Boehringer (as footnote 
above),  – .
Alexandria (nos.  f.,  – ): Two facing busts, to the left Heraclius with short
beard, to the right Heraclius Constantine III. Both wear a cuirass, a paludamentum and
crowns with a cross. Between the two busts there is a cross.
Carthage (nos.  – , / – /): Two busts, to the left Heraclius with a
short beard; to the right a smaller bust of beardless Heraclius Constantine III. Both wear a
cuirass, a paludamentum and a crown with a cross. Between the two emperors there is a
cross.
Ravenna (nos. ,  – ): Two facing busts, Heraclius with a short beard; (nos. ,
 – ): Two facing busts, Heraclius with a long beard.
Light weight solidus
Constantinople (nos.  f.): ;  Siliquae, similar to nos.  – ; (nos.  f.):  Siliquae,
similar to nos.  – .
Silver
Carthage (no. , ): Facing busts of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III, both
beardless, wearing a military dress and a helmet with trefoil ornament. Above both em-
perors there is a cross.
Follis
Seleucia Isauria (nos.  f., / – /): Two facing busts.
Isaura (no. , /): Two facing busts.
Sicily (no. , ): Two facing busts, Heraclius with a short beard; (no. ,  – ):
Two facing busts, Heraclius with a long beard.
Ravenna (nos. ; , /?): Two facing busts, Heraclius on the left side, bearded,
Heraclius Constantine III on the right side, smaller and without a beard. Both wear a
cuirass, a paludamentum and a crown with a cross. Above both there is a cross.
Half Follis
Seleucia Isauria (nos. , /): Two facing busts.
Rome (nos.  f.,  – ): Two facing busts, both beardless; (nos. ,  – ):
Two facing busts, Heraclius with beard.
Ravenna (no. ; ): Similar to no. .
Dodecanummium
Alexandria (nos.  f.,  – ): Two facing busts; (nos.  f.,  – ): Two facing
busts between star and crescent; (nos. , /): Two facing busts; cross above two
steps between them; (no. , /): Mold of nos.  – ; (nos. ,  – ):
Two facing busts, Heraclius with a long beard.
Decanummium
Catania (nos.  – ,  – ): Two facing busts.
) Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III, seated on throne

Hexagram
Constantinople (nos.  – ,  – ): Two seated figures.
Ravenna (no. ,  – ): Two seated figures.
) Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III, standing

Miliaresion (?)
Constantinople (no. , ca. ): Two standing figures; Heraclius with a short beard being
crowned by Victory, his son appears smaller to his left side; (no. , ): Similar to
no. , but Heraclius now with a long beard and Heraclius Constantine III appears as an
adult.
Half miliaresion (?)
Constantinople (no. , ): Two standing figures in long robes.
Follis
Constantinople (nos.  – ,  – ): Two standing figures, robed; (nos.  – ,
/ – ): Two standing figures, Heraclius in military dress.
Thessalonica (nos.  – ,  – ): Two standing figures.
Nicomedia (nos.  – ,  – ): Two standing figures.
Cyzicus (nos. , /): Two standing figures.
Seleucia Isauria (nos. , /): Two standing figures.
Ravenna (nos.  – ,  – ): Two standing figures.
Cherson (no. ,  – ): Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III (small), both
standing and facing, each wearing a chlamys and a crown with a cross and holding a globe
with a cross in their right hand.
Half follis
Constantinople (no. ): Similar to nos.  – ; (nos.  – ): Similar to nos.  –
.
Thessalonica (nos.  – ): Similar to nos.  – .
Ravenna (nos.  f.): Similar to nos.  – .
Three-quarter follis
Constantinople (no. ): Similar to nos.  – .
Thessalonica (no. , /): Two standing figures, Heraclius in military dress.
Unknown mint (nos.  f.): Similar to nos.  – .
Hexanummium
Alexandria (no. , /?): Two standing figures, facing.
) Heraclius, Heraclius Constantine III and Martina (?)

Silver (Half siliqua)
Carthage (nos. ,  – ): Obv.: Bust of Heraclius facing, beardless and wearing a
cuirass, a paludamentum and a crown with a cross. Rev.: On the left side there is a bust of
Heraclius Constantine III wearing a chlamys and a crown with a cross. To the right side
there is a bust of Martina (?), wearing robes and a crown with long pendilia and a cross.
Between the two, there is a cross.
Hexagram
Ravenna (no. , ): Three standing figures, Heraclius being crowned by Victory.
Follis
Constantinople (nos.  – , / – ): Three standing figures; “ANNO” to the left
of “M”; (nos.  – , / – /): Three standing figures; “ANNO” above “M”.
Thessalonica (nos.  – , / – /): Three standing figures.
Nicomedia (nos.  – , / – /): Three standing figures; “ANNO” to left of
“M”; (nos.  f., / – /): Three standing figures; “ANNO” above “M”.
Cyzicus (nos.  – , / – /): Three standing figures.
Cyprus (nos.  f., / – /]: Three figures standing, each wearing a chlamys
and a crown with a cross and holding a globe with a cross in their right hand hand.
Ravenna (nos.  – ,  – /): Three busts.
Half follis
Constantinople (no. ): Similar to nos.  – ; (no. ): Similar to nos.  – .
Thessalonica (no. ): Similar to nos.  – .
Rome (nos.  – ,  – ): Three facing busts.
Ravenna (nos.  f.): Similar to nos.  – .
Decanummium
Ravenna (no. ): Similar to no.  – .
) Heraclius, Heraclius Constantine III and Heraclonas

Solidus
Constantinople (nos.  – ,  – ): Three standing figures ([nos.  – ,  –
?]: Heraclonas uncrowned; [nos.  – , ?–]: Heraclonas crowned).
Ravenna (nos. ,  – ?): Three standing figures, similar to nos.  – .
Leight weight solidus
Constantinople (no.  – ): ;  Siliquae, similar to nos.  – .
Miliaresion (?)
Constantinople (no. ,  – ): Three standing figures.
Hexagram
Constantinople (no. ,  – ): Three standing figures.
Follis
Constantinople (no.  – , / – /): Three standing figures, Heraclius in
military dress.
Ravenna (nos.  – ,  – ): Three standing figures ([nos.  – , / –
/]: Heraclonas uncrowned; [nos.  f., / – /]: Heraclonas
crowned).
Half follis
Ravenna (nos.  f.,  – ): Similar to nos.  – .
Dodecanummium
Alexandria (nos.  f.,  – ): Three standing figures.
Ravenna (no. ,  – ): Three busts facing; in the center, Heraclius, a little larger
than the other two, wearing a cuirass and a helmet; Heraclius Constantine III and Her-
aclonas each wear a chlamys and a crown with a cross.

Heraclius Constantine III Emperor of Byz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heraclius Constantine III Emperor of Byz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOI 10.

1515/bz-2022-0004 BZ 2022; 115(1): 69–116

Heraclius Constantine III – Emperor of

many of these challenges, Heraclius operated within a network of powerful al-

Kaegi, Heraclius. Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge ; A. Louth, Byzantium transforming

Establishing a new dynasty – birth, coronation

 Chronicon Paschale, I, rec. L. Dindorfius. Bonn , I, ,  –  = Chronicon Paschale,

of Byzantium based on its well-remembered past.⁴ This action marked

thors since the wedding was perceived as an incestuous connection.¹⁸ An impor-

A child as sole emperor in Constantinople

beginning of a comprehensive renewal of the Byzantine Empire under the Herac-

Ὁ τοῦ δράκοντος τοῦ πάλαι καθαιρέτης.

Oh you, who exterminated the ancient serpent!

you do not make use of your bow except to strike

᾿Aλλ’ εὐτρέπιζε τοῦ λόγου τὴν ἀσπίδα,

Up with the shield of the (divine) Logos!

 Theodore Synkellos, ed. Sternbach (as footnote  above), ,  –  [].

inscriptions at the entrance to the church of the Blachernae,⁷¹ by numerous lead

emphasized, Heraclius thereby actively attempted to establish his rightful suc-

Return and death of Heraclius – changes of the

ever, such stories should be treated with caution, as James Howard-Johnston

torious emperor appeared as a completely transformed person on a physical,

tated to visit the capital in person as it is described in literary sources. Instead,

seniority,¹⁰⁴ proving in the process that Byzantium formally still functioned as an

 Zuckerman, La formule de datation (as footnote  above); R. S. Bagnall / K. A. Worp,

III, in which he simultaneously defended Honorius’s I earlier actions (Apologia

Zypern im sogenannten monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streit des . Jh.s. BZ  (),

) Facing busts of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III

) Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III, seated on throne

) Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine III, standing

) Heraclius, Heraclius Constantine III and Martina (?)

) Heraclius, Heraclius Constantine III and Heraclonas

You might also like