Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, page 3
While art and architecture from the era was affected by contemporary politico-religious choices, archaeological evidence for the iconoclast period has been greatly impacted by more modern decisions. Archaeological investigation of the Late Antique/Early Medieval east lags behind other geographical and chronological periods, leaving ‘Byzantine’ archaeology a relatively young subject. That said, strides are being made to address that. Such as it is, archaeological evidence can provide insights into various facets of Roman life, being particularly important for the social aspects which get little or no attention from the written sources. It can present us with a more complex urban picture; goods production and movement can enlighten the transfer of populations; new fortifications and repairs to the walls of Constantinople can highlight the resetting of imperial defences in the wake of Arab conquests, and the focus on certain areas and cities can show the attempts to ‘systemise’ the themes. However, even with these potential benefits, caution must still be advised on the extent of what archaeology can tell us. Not only are virtually all excavations limited in scope, they also only present a small snapshot of time and place.
Epigraphy as a genre straddles the boundary between written and archaeological. Changing priorities and cultural values amongst the governing and elite classes and perhaps the reduction in urban culture saw a marked decline in the field throughout the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries. This means that there is very limited epigraphical material from the entire iconoclast period, although examples survive such as the inscription on the walls of Nicaea commemorating the successful defence of the city in 727.29
Coins and their circulation can demonstrate the reach of the empire or a specific emperor, militarily and economically. They can also provide insight into the aims of revolts during the reign of Leo III – was its leader looking to claim imperial power and therefore minted coins bearing their image? Some significant numismatic change occurred under Leo III. His gold coins (solidi/nomismata) depicted his son Constantine on the reverse from 729 instead of the usual ‘cross on steps’ motif, an innovation that continued throughout the eighth and on into the ninth century. Initially, Leonid copper coins followed this nomismata innovation, only to revert to the formula of both emperors on the obverse and a value mark on the reverse in the 730s. Perhaps most poignantly, Leo also re-introduced the silver miliaresion that took influences from previous Roman silver issues, but also took significant cues from the new Islamic silver dirham, demonstrating a momentous shift in numismatic trend-setting. One other significant development with numismatics under Leo is that his eastern coins no longer sport mintmarks, presumably because Constantinople was the only eastern mint in operation. That said, western mints in Sicily, Naples, Rome and Ravenna continued to issue, although their coins were debased during Leo’s reign.30 Much of the imperial propaganda employed by Leo on his coins is repeated in the seals issued during his reign, with the styles Leo followed being used continually through much of the eighth century. Unlike coins, which under Leo saw the date replaced by a purely decorative formula, seals frequently carry the indiction and so there are many dated seals from this period. Something which can hinder the dating of certain coins and seals is that under the Isaurian dynasty it became a more common practice to depict emperors long after their deaths. Indeed, Leo III continued to appear on the issues of his successors perhaps up to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787.31
The iconoclast era has drawn an immense amount of scholarship, with the attached bibliography only scratching the surface. Because of this, it is difficult to pick out just a few. I have already mentioned the extensive dual volume on the sources (2001) and history (2011) of the period by Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, with both of these authors publishing useful articles and books on various aspects of religion, military and empire as well. Of particular note is Brubaker’s 2012 work raising questions on Leo III’s actual role in the initiating of iconoclasm. More generally, there are the subject-shaping works by the likes of George Ostrogorsky and Alexander Vasiliev; the numerous publications of E.W. Brooks, Averil Cameron, Walter Kaegi and Warren Treadgold on aspects of the Roman Empire in the era of Iconoclasm; Hugh Kennedy on aspects of the Umayyad caliphate; the twin works by Stephen Gero on iconoclasm during the reigns of Leo III and Constantine V, while I found Thomas Noble’s 1984 work on the development of the ‘Papal State’ of particular use in deciphering the maelstrom of early-eighth century Italy.
Spelling Conventions and Nomenclature
Given the various languages involved in the eighth century and its recording – Latin, Greek, Armenian, Syriac, Arabic, Germanic, Avar, Slavic, Bulgar, Khazar Turkic, Berber – some spelling conventions are required. Lacking real knowledge about any of these languages, I have aimed for consistency rather than any overriding linguistic principle. That said, direct quotation from various sources will see some different spellings used.
In general, Anglicised versions of personal names will be used over Latin or Greek, so for the most part we will be in the realms of Leo and Constantine rather than Leon and Constantinus; however, on occasion, due to the number of individuals sharing the same name, different spellings may be employed to differentiate them, such as ‘Artabasdus’ and ‘Artabasdos.’ The neighbours of the Roman Empire present trickier linguistic issues as names incur different spellings in their transliterations into Latin/Greek and then English. For example, the name of the founder of the Umayyad dynasty is rendered Muawiyah, Mu’awiya, Muawiya, Mauias to list a few. There can be similar problems with Bulgar, Slavic and Turkic names.
The Anglicised ancient name of an existing town, city or region prevails in the text, such as Constantinople over Istanbul, Antioch over Antakya or Anatolia over central Turkey. Roman-era provincial names are preferred, although on occasion, lesser-known place names will be accompanied by more famous modern names to aid in its identification. As for the empire as a whole, some trace the beginning of the ‘Byzantine Empire’ to the reign of Constantine I, using the ‘Byzantine’ label that inhabitants of Constantinople had come to refer to themselves as, which in turn came to be applied to the whole empire in the sixteenth century. However, I view this as something of an historiographical creation of a new, but essentially fictitious state in the form of the ‘Byzantine Empire’. For me, the state based on Constantinople was recognisably and lineally the ‘Roman Empire’ until at least 1204, if not all the way to 1453. Therefore, aside from in quotations from other historians, throughout this work, the realm of Leo III will be referred to as the ‘Roman Empire’ and its inhabitants as ‘Romans.’ The only significant deviation comes when delving into events in Italy, where the duchy and people of Rome are an active factor – in this case, the Roman Empire will be referred to as ‘imperial’ and its agents as ‘imperials’. As for its neighbours, ‘Umayyad’ and ‘Arab’ are used largely interchangeably, while the proto-states of the Lower Danube and the northern Caucasus are referred to respectively as the ‘Bulgar Khanate’, with their ruler known as the ‘khan’ and the ‘Khazar Khaganate’, with its ruler the ‘khagan’.
Dating Issues
By the eighth century, the Romans were using a combination of Anno Mundi – ‘World Year’ measured from the Creation based on the Septuagint text of the Bible and a 15-year indiction cycle, which saw the year begin on 1 September. This causes some issues when attempting to translate it to the modern Gregorian calendar. The year of Leo III’s accession is AM6209, which began on 1 September 716 and ended on 31 August 717, so if we were only told that he attained the throne in AM6209, we could only posit 1 September 716 to 31 August 717; however, as we are told it occurred on 25 March of AM6209, we can say Leo acceded to the throne on 25 March 717. An example of the problem that can arise comes in the birthdate of Justinian II. Theophanes records it taking place in AM6160: 1 September 668 to 31 August 669. Without any outside help on a specific date, month or season, we are left with a Gregorian date of 668/669. A similar problem arises when using Muslim sources. The Islamic calendar is usually denoted as ‘AH’ – Anno Hegirae: ‘in the year of the Hegira’, starting in 622 and is based on the lunar cycle. This means that it is always considerably out of sync with Roman and modern calendars. Therefore, the Roman indiction/Anno Mundi and Islamic Hijri calendars can date the same events months, even years apart. However, it seems that the long-held idea that virtually every major event of the late-seventh/early-eighth century was ‘systematically misdated’32 is not correct. Theophanes in particular seems much more accurate in his dating than was usually thought, and while there are still some individual mistakes these likely show that, rather that some systemic issues, ‘Theophanes like the rest of us had trouble converting eastern sources’ years of the Hegira into ordinary solar years.’33
Any errors in continuity and consistency remain my own.
Lists of Office Holders
Roman Emperors
Constantine IV 15 September 668–14 September 685
Justinian II 14 September 685–695
Leontios 695–15 February 698
Tiberius III 15 February 698–21 August 705
Justinian II 21 August 705–4 November/11 December 711
Philippikos Bardanes 4 November/11 December 711–3 June 713
Anastasius II 3 June 713–November 715
Theodosius III May 715–25 March 717
Leo III the Isaurian 25 March 717–18 June 741
Constantine V 18 June 741–14 September 775
Artabasdos June 741–November 743
Leo IV the Khazar 14 September 775–8 September 780
Constantine VI 8 September 780–19 August 797
Irene 19 August 797–31 October 802
Umayyad Caliphs
Abd al-Malik b. Marwan 12 April/7 May 685–9 October 705
Al-Walid I 9 October 705–25 January/11 March 715
Sulayman b. Abd al-Malik 25 January/11 March 715–24 September 717
Umar II 24 September 717–4 February 720
Yazid II 4 February 720–26 January 724
Hisham 26 January 724–6 February 743
Popes
Benedict II 26 June 684–8 May 685
John V 23 July 685–2 August 686
Conon 21 October 686–21 September 687
Sergius I 15 December 687–8 September 701
John VI 30 October 701–11 January 705
John VII 1 March 705–18 October 707
Sisinnius 15 January 708–4 February 708
Constantine 25 March 708–9 April 715
Gregory II 19 May 715–11 February 731
Gregory III 18 March 731–28 November 741
Patriarchs of Constantinople
George I 679–January/February 686
Paul III 687–693
Kallinikos I 693–705
Cyrus 705–early 712
John VI Early 712–715
Germanos I 715–730
Anastastios 730–754
Lombard Kings
Perctarit (second reign) 671–688
Alahis 688–689
Cunincpert 688–700
Liutpert 700–701
Raginpert 701
Aripert II 701–712
Ansprand 712
Liutprand 712–744
Lombard Dukes of Benevento
Transamund I 665–703
Faroald II 703–724
Transamund II (first reign) 724–739
Hilderic 739–740
Transamund II (second reign) 740–742
Lombard Dukes of Benevento
Romuald I 662–687
Grimoald II 687–689
Gisulf I 689–706
Romuald II 706–730
Audelais 730–732
Gregory 733–739
Godescalc 739–742
List of Illustrations and Maps
All Maps, Plans and Diagrams were drawn by Faye Beedle
Stemmata
Isaurian Dynasty
Umayyad Dynasty
Maps and Diagrams
Roman Empire c.685
Constantinople, city plan
Themes of the Roman Empire c.717
Caliphate of the Second Fitna
Arab/Roman Frontier
Bulgar Khanate c.717
The Caucasus
Lombard Italy
Thracian Chersonese
Siege of Constantinople 717–718
Umayyad Caliphate and Roman Empire c.750
Greek Fire Apparatus
List of Plates
Coins
ABD AL-MALIK: gold aniconic dinar, issued in AH80 (699–700) from the Damascus mint. Courtesy of Noble Numismatics (http://www.noble.com.au/)
JUSTINIAN II: (second reign, 705–711): gold solidus, issued in 705 from the Constantinople mint. Obverse: facing bust of Christ, with cross behind head, curly hair and close beard, wears pallium and colobium, raising hand in benediction, dN IhS ChS REX REGNANTIUM. Reverse: crowned facing bust of Justinian, wearing loros and holding crosses, DN IUSTINIA NUS MULTUS A, PAX. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (http://www.cngcoins.com)
LIUTPRAND: gold tremissis issued during his reign (712–744) from the Pavia mint. Obverse: bust looking right, DN LI TPRAN; P in right field. Reverse: St Michael standing left, SCS MIHHIL, holding long cross and shield. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (http://www.cngcoins.com)
Al-WALID I: gold aniconic dinar, issued in AH94–95 (713) from the Damascus mint. Courtesy of Noble Numismatics (http://www.noble.com.au/)
PHILIPPIKOS BARDANES: gold solidus, issued between 711 and 713 from the Constantinople mint. Obverse: facing and crowned bust of Philippikos, DN FILIPICЧS MЧL TЧS [AN], wearing loros, holding cross globe and eagle-tipped sceptre. Reverse: cross on steps, VICTORIA AЧGЧ Z/CONOB. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (http://www.cngcoins.com)
ANASTASIUS II: gold solidus, issued between 713 and 715 from the Constantinople mint. Obverse: facing, crowned and draped bust of Anastasius, ∂ N APTЄMIЧS A NASTASIЧS MЧL, holding cross globe and akakia. Reverse: cross on steps, VICTORIA AЧGЧ ӨӨ/CONOB. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (http://www.cngcoins.com)
THEODOSIUS III: gold solidus, issued between 715 and 717 from the Constantinople mint. Obverse: facing crowned bust, ∂ N TҺЄO∂O SIЧS MЧL A, wearing loros, and holding akakia and cross globus. Reverse: cross on steps, VICTORIA AЧGЧ H/CONOB. (© Otto Nickl)
SULAYMAN: gold aniconic dinar, issued in AH97 (715–716) from the Damascus mint. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (http://www.cngcoins.com)
LEO III: gold solidus, issued between 717–720 from the Constantinople mint. Obverse: facing crowned and draped bust, ∂ N D LEO N PA MЧL, holding cross globe and akakia. Reverse: cross on steps, VICTOR[IA AVGЧ Δ/CONOB. Courtesy of Noble Numismatics (http://www.noble.com.au/)
LEO III and CONSTANTINE V: gold solidus, issued between 737–741 from the Constantinople mint. Obverse: facing crowned bust of Leo, ∂ N D LEO N PA MЧL N, wearing chlamys and holding cross globe and akakia. Reverse: facing crowned bust of Constantine, ∂ N CONS TANTINЧ Θ, wearing chlamys and holding cross globe and akakia. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (http://www.cngcoins.com)
LEO III and CONSTANTINE V: silver miliaresion, issued between 720 and 741 from the Constantinople mint. Obverse: cross on steps, IhSUS XRISTЧS NICA. Reverse: LEON/ S CONST/ANTINE E/ C**QEЧ bA/ SILIS. Courtesy of Noble Numismatics (http://www.noble.com.au/)
UMAR II: gold aniconic dinar, issued in AH101 (719–720) from Damascus mint. Courtesy of MANTIS (http://numismatics.org/collection/1971.49.297)
YAZID II: silver aniconic dirham, issued in AH103 (721–722) from Damascus mint. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (http://www.cngcoins.com)
TIBERIUS PETASIUS: gold solidus issued in 728 or 730–731 from a mint in Blera or Naples. Obverse: facing, crowned bust, ∂ N TIЧERIЧS MЧLTЧS A, wearing chlamys and holding cross globe and akakia. Reverse: cross on steps, VICTOR IVTGTA(?)/CONOΒ. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (http://www.cngcoins.com)
HISHAM: gold aniconic dinar, issued in AH119 (737) from the Damascus mint. Courtesy of MANTIS (http://numismatics.org/collection/1917.215.3401)
GODESCALC: gold solidus, issued between 739 and 742 from the Benevento mint. Obverse: facing, crowned and draped bust, D N I-INЧS P P, holding cross globe. Reverse: cross globe on steps, VICTORI IVGVSTO, D-G across fields/CONOB. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (http://www.cngcoins.com)
CONSTANTINE V and LEO IV: gold solidus issued between 751 and 757 from the Constantinople mint. Obverse: facing crowned busts of Constantine V and Leo IV, CONSTANTINOIS S LEON O NEOS, wearing chlamys, cross above. Reverse: facing bust of Leo III, ∂ LE ON PA MЧL, holding cross potent. Courtesy of Noble Numismatics (http://www.noble.com.au/)
ARTABASDOS: gold solidus, issued between 742 and 743 from Constantinople mint. Obverse: facing, crowned and draped bust of Artabasdos, ∂ APTAЧASDOS MЧLT, holding patriarchal cross. Reverse: facing, crowned and draped bust of Nikephoros, ∂ NIChFORЧS MЧLTЧM, holding patriarchal cross. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (http://www.cngcoins.com)
Pictures
All in the public domain, unless stated otherwise
Tervel the Bulgar as St Trivelius.
Pope Constantine, Nuremburg Chronicle, 1493.
Pope Gregory II, Nuremburg Chronicle, 1493.
Detail of Chludov Psalter, ninth century, depicting an act of iconoclasm.
‘Charles Martel divides the realm between Pepin and Carloman’, Grandes Chroniques de France, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ms. fr. 2615, fol. 72.
Pope Gregory III, eighth century papal medallion. (© ASKI)
Patriarch Germanos.
‘Argument about icons’, Codex Skylitzes Matritensis, fol. 50vb.
‘The fleet of the Romans setting ablaze the fleet of the enemies’, Codex Skylitzes Matritensis, fol. 34vb.
‘The Arabs attacking Constantinople during the reign of emperor Leo III’, Constantine Manasses, Chronicle, miniature 47.
