Priscus (magister militum)

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Priscus
Allegiance
Byzantine–Sassanid Wars
RelationsHusband of Domentzia, son-in-law of Emperor Phocas and Leontia

Priscus or Priskos (

against the Persians in 611–612. After the failure of this campaign, he was dismissed and tonsured
. He died shortly after.

Biography

Under Maurice

Map of the Byzantine-Persian frontier

Priscus first appears in the historical sources when he was appointed, in late 587 or early 588, to command in the East

Germanus, as their leader. Priscus's attempts from Constantina to calm the soldiers by employing the local bishops as mediators and rescinding the decree also failed. Philippicus was restored to command by Maurice, while Priscus returned to Constantinople.[2][4][5]

Despite this debacle, in the same summer he was entrusted with the post of magister militum for

Map of the northern Balkans during the 6th century.

In spring 593, Priscus was re-appointed in command as commander of the cavalry in Thrace, with

Musocius. Crossing the river, both Slavic hosts were annihilated in surprise night attacks. At the same time, however, Priscus reportedly quarrelled with his men over the distribution of the booty captured, and especially the considerable portion Priscus allocated to the imperial family. The soldiers were eventually placated, and the booty sent back to the capital with an escort.[9][10] Maurice also sent orders for the army to winter north of the river, but this caused great resentment and unrest amongst the soldiers. Priscus chose to disobey the emperor's order and crossed again with his army to winter in the southern bank.[11] In the autumn of 593, he was replaced by Maurice with his own brother Peter. Before the latter could assume command, however, Priscus arranged for a truce with the khagan, to whom he returned all Avar captives, some 5,000 in number, a fact for which he was criticized by Maurice.[9][12]

In late 594, however, after Peter was heavily defeated by the Slavs,[13] Priscus was again appointed to command as magister militum of Thrace, a post he proceeded to hold continuously for several years. In 595, he marched up the Danube, crossing the river and marching along its northern bank to Novae, despite the khagan's protests. There, he learned that Singidunum had been captured by the Avars. He sailed his army to the city and, after failed face-to-face negotiations with the khagan, sent the taxiarches Guduin to recapture it. The Avars, having razed the city's walls, abandoned it at the approach of the Byzantine force.[14] Next the Avars launched a raid against Dalmatia. Guduin was dispatched with 2,000 men to shadow them. He managed to ambush the Avar detachment carrying their booty, recovered it and sent it to Priscus. After these events, the khagan turned west to campaign against the Bavarians and the Franks, leaving the Byzantine territories quiet for a period of a year and a half, until the summer of 597. Nevertheless, Priscus and his army remained on watch along the Danube border.[15]

Gold solidus of Emperor Maurice (r. 582–602).

When the Avars resumed their operations with a large invasion in autumn 597, they appear to have caught Priscus, who was probably operating with his army at the eastern

Gepid settlements by surprise. According to Simocatta, 30,000 were killed and many were taken captive. Nineteen days later, another great battle was fought by the Tisza, which ended in a decisive Byzantine victory: the Avars and especially their Slavic allies suffered greatly, and Priscus took 3,000 Avars, 8,000 Slavs, and 6,200 other barbarians captive, who were sent south as slaves. Maurice, who had not yet realized the extent of his army's victory, ordered their release as a gesture of goodwill to the khagan.[15][19][20] Nevertheless, Priscus's campaign was a remarkable act of aggressive defence. In the words of Michael Whitby, the main modern expert on Maurice's reign, it was "without parallel in the sixth century" for the Danube frontier, and which essentially decided the war for Byzantium.[17][21]

After this success, which secured the Balkans, Maurice intended to consolidate Roman control by bringing in Armenian settlers who would be given land in exchange for military service. To this end, Priscus was sent to Armenia to recruit men and their families. His mission there, however, was interrupted by a large-scale military revolt that brought about the downfall of Maurice.[22][23] In 602, Maurice again ordered his troops on the Danube frontier to winter north of the river. Again, this provoked widespread discontent, and when Peter, who had replaced Priscus, refused to bow down and rescind the order, an outright mutiny broke out. The army chose the officer Phocas as its new leader and marched down to Constantinople. Without any credible military forces of his own, Maurice had to flee, but was captured with his family and executed by Phocas, who now became emperor.[24]

Under Phocas

Gold solidus of Emperor Phocas (r. 602–610).

Due to his absence from Constantinople at the time of Phocas's takeover, and because he retained a large measure of support within the soldiery, Priscus was the only one of Maurice's senior generals who was retained by the new regime,

comes excubitorum, commander of the imperial bodyguard. In 606 or 607, he also married Phocas's daughter, Domentzia, becoming the effective heir-apparent to the sonless ruler. In the games celebrated at the Hippodrome to honor the event, however, Phocas reacted violently when he saw portraits of Priscus and Domentzia carried alongside his by the citizens. From this moment on, the chroniclers report, Priscus turned against Phocas.[23][25][27]

Phocas's rule lacked legitimacy and quickly came to be resented by the populace and the elites of the Byzantine Empire. What prestige he had further eroded when the Persian shah

John of Nikiu to have safeguarded the women of Heraclius's family from retribution by Phocas.[31]

Under Heraclius

Gold solidus of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641).

After Phocas's fall, Heraclius became emperor of Byzantium. The

Monastery of the Chora, where he died in 613.[25][33][36]

Assessment

Priscus comes across as an able and versatile military leader. In many instances, his operations against the Slavs resemble the prescriptions of the most influential Byzantine military manual, the Strategikon, ascribed to Emperor Maurice.[37] Despite his reputation as a strict disciplinarian and his aloof stance which led to the mutiny of 588,[33] in later campaigns he showed ability in dealing with the soldiers and calming their discontent.[25] This cleverness was also employed against the Avar khagan. For instance, during the siege of Tomi in 598, Priscus managed to persuade the Avars to supply the Byzantine army, which was in fact close to starvation, with grain. As the scholar Walter Kaegi comments, Priscus's policy in defending the Danube frontier consisted in keeping the peace with the khagan "by sly negotiations", allowing him focus his efforts against the Slavs raiding imperial territory.[25]

The main Byzantine source for the period, Theophylact Simocatta, displays a marked bias in favour of Priscus, especially in its account of the Balkan campaigns, where the other generals are denigrated and made to appear incompetent, with their achievements regularly belittled while Priscus's successes are extolled and his defeats glossed over. This may be due to the fact that for this period, Simocatta relied on a semi-official "campaign log" compiled during the years of Emperor Phocas, when Priscus was pre-eminent while most of his rivals were either executed or in exile.[38]

References

  1. ^ Martindale 1992, pp. 1052–1053.
  2. ^ a b Greatrex & Lieu 2002, p. 170.
  3. ^ Whitby & Whitby 1986, p. 72.
  4. ^ a b c Martindale 1992, p. 1053.
  5. ^ Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 72–75; Whitby 1988, pp. 154, 286–288.
  6. ^ Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 162–164.
  7. ^ Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 162, 164–166.
  8. ^ Martindale 1992, pp. 1053–1054; Whitby & Whitby 1986, p. 167 (Note #35).
  9. ^ a b Martindale 1992, p. 1054.
  10. ^ Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 167–173; Curta 2001, pp. 100–102.
  11. ^ Curta 2001, p. 103; Whitby & Whitby 1986, p. 173.
  12. ^ Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 176–178.
  13. ^ Martindale 1992, pp. 1009–1010; Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 179–185.
  14. ^ Martindale 1992, pp. 1054–1055; Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 186–188, 193–194.
  15. ^ a b c Martindale 1992, p. 1055; Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 194–196.
  16. ^ Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 196–197.
  17. ^ a b Treadgold 1997, p. 234.
  18. ^ Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 197–202.
  19. ^ Curta 2001, p. 99.
  20. ^ Whitby & Whitby 1986, pp. 210–214.
  21. ^ Whitby 1988, p. 164.
  22. ^ Whitby 1988, pp. 167–168, 177.
  23. ^ a b c Martindale 1992, p. 1056.
  24. ^ Treadgold 1997, p. 235; Martindale 1992, pp. 1031–1032.
  25. ^ a b c d e Kaegi 1991, p. 1722.
  26. ^ Martindale 1992, pp. 324, 1010–1011, 1025.
  27. ^ Treadgold 1997, p. 239.
  28. ^ Kaegi 2003, pp. 37, 39; Treadgold 1997, pp. 236–239.
  29. ^ Kaegi 2003, pp. 42–43.
  30. ^ Kaegi 2003, pp. 43–49.
  31. ^ Kaegi 2003, p. 43; Martindale 1992, pp. 1056–1057.
  32. ^ Kaegi 2003, p. 52.
  33. ^ a b c d Martindale 1992, p. 1057.
  34. ^ Kaegi 2003, p. 70.
  35. ^ Treadgold 1997, pp. 287–288; Kaegi 2003, pp. 68–69; Greatrex & Lieu 2002, pp. 188–189.
  36. ^ Kaegi 2003, pp. 69–70; Treadgold 1997, p. 289.
  37. ^ Curta 2001, pp. 50, 58–59.
  38. ^ Whitby 1988, pp. 93, 98–105; Curta 2001, p. 56.

Sources

  • .
  • Greatrex, Geoffrey; .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .