Thomas the Slav
Thomas the Slav | |
---|---|
tourmarches |
Thomas the Slav (
An army officer of
Thomas's rebellion was one of the largest in the Byzantine Empire's history, but its precise circumstances are unclear due to competing historical narratives, which have come to include claims fabricated by Michael to blacken his opponent's name. Consequently, various motives and driving forces have been attributed to Thomas and his followers. As summarized by the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, "Thomas's revolt has been variously attributed to a reaction against Iconoclasm, a social revolution and popular uprising, a revolt by the Empire's non-Greek ethnic groups, Thomas's personal ambitions, and his desire to avenge Leo V."[1] Its effects on the military position of the Empire, particularly vis-à-vis the Arabs, are also disputed.
Early life and career
The 11th-century
Two different accounts of Thomas's life are recounted in both Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus. According to the first account, Thomas first appeared in 803 accompanying general
The first tradition relates that Thomas served as a
In July 813, Leo the Armenian became emperor and quickly rewarded his old companions, giving them command over elite military forces. Michael received the
Rebellion
Background and motives
On Christmas Day 820, Leo was murdered in the palace chapel by officials under the direction of Michael the Amorian, who was quickly
Two rivals fought for a crown, which one of them had seized, but could not yet be said to have firmly grasped. Michael had been regularly elected, acclaimed, and crowned in the capital, and he had the advantage of possessing the Imperial city. [Thomas] had the support of most of the Asiatic provinces; he was only a rebel because he failed.
J. B. Bury[7]
Consequently, the empire became divided in a struggle that was less a rebellion against the established government and more a contest for the throne between equal contenders. Michael held Constantinople and the European provinces, controlled the imperial bureaucracy, and had been properly crowned by the
Byzantine accounts of Thomas's rebellion state that he did not in fact claim the throne under his own name but assumed the identity of Emperor Constantine VI, who had been deposed and murdered by his mother, Irene of Athens, in 797.[26] Most modern scholars follow Lemerle, who dismisses this as yet another later fabrication.[27][28] If it contains any truth, it is possible that this story may originate from Thomas choosing to be crowned under the regnal name of "Constantine", but there is no evidence for such an act.[4] The possible appropriation of Constantine VI's identity is linked in some Byzantine sources with the statement that Thomas was a rumoured supporter of iconolatry, as opposed to Michael's support for iconoclasm: it was under Constantine VI that veneration of the icons was restored. Nevertheless, the ambiguous phrasing of the sources, the iconoclast leanings of many themes in Asia Minor, and Thomas's alliance with the Arabs seem to speak against any open commitment to icon worship on his part.[28][29] Indeed, given Michael II's conciliatory approach during his early reign, the icon worship controversy does not seem to have been a major issue at the time, and in the view of modern scholars most probably did not play a major role in Thomas's revolt. The image of Thomas as an iconophile champion opposed to the iconoclast Michael II in later, Macedonian-era sources was probably the result of their own anti-iconoclast bias.[30] Warren Treadgold furthermore suggests that if true, Thomas's claim to be Constantine VI may have been little more than a tale circulated to win support, and that Thomas pursued a "studied ambiguity" towards icons, designed to attract support from iconophiles. In Treadgold's words, "Thomas could be all things to all men until he had conquered the whole empire, and then he would have time enough to disappoint some of his followers".[31]
The account of Theophanes Continuatus on Thomas's revolt states that in this time, "the servant raised his hand against his master, the soldier against his officer, the captain against his general". This has led some scholars, chiefly Alexander Vasiliev and George Ostrogorsky, to regard Thomas's revolt as an expression of widespread discontent among the rural population, which suffered under heavy taxation.[32][33] Other Byzantinists, notably Lemerle, dismiss rural discontent as a primary factor during the revolt.[34]
Genesios and other chroniclers further state that Thomas won the support of "
Outbreak and spread of the revolt in Asia Minor
As commander of the Foederati, Thomas was based at
Michael's first response was to order the Armeniac army to attack Thomas. The Armeniacs were easily defeated in battle and Thomas proceeded through the eastern parts of the Armeniac Theme to occupy the frontier region of Chaldia.[41] His conquest of the Armeniac province was left incomplete because the Abbasids, taking advantage of the Byzantine civil war, launched raids by land and sea against southern Asia Minor, where Thomas had left few troops. Instead of returning to face these raids, Thomas launched a large-scale invasion of his own against Abbasid territory in spring 821, either in Syria (according to Bury and others) or in Arab-held Armenia (according to Treadgold).[40][42] Thomas then sent an emissary to the Caliph al-Ma'mun, who was sufficiently impressed by Thomas's show of force to receive his proposals, especially in view of the Caliphate's own problems with the rebellion of the Khurramites under Babak Khorramdin. Thomas and Ma'mun concluded a treaty of peace and mutual alliance. The Caliph allowed Thomas to recruit men from Arab-ruled territories, and gave leave for him to cross the border and travel to Arab-held Antioch, where he was crowned emperor by the iconophile Patriarch of Antioch, Job. In exchange, Thomas is said to have promised to cede unspecified territories and become a tributary vassal of the Caliph, though the agreement's exact terms are left unclear in the sources.[43] At about the same time, Thomas adopted a young man of obscure origin, whom he named Constantius and made his co-emperor.[31]
Meanwhile, Michael II tried to win support among the iconophiles by appointing a relative of his as
By summer 821, Thomas had consolidated his position in the East, though the Opsician and Armeniac themes still eluded his control. He set his sights on the ultimate prize, Constantinople, the possession of which alone conferred full legitimacy to an emperor. Thomas assembled troops, gathered supplies, and built
At this point, Thomas suffered his first reversal of fortune: before his departure for Abydos, he had sent an army under his adoptive son Constantius against the Armeniacs. Constantius was ambushed by strategos Olbianos and killed, although the army was able to withdraw with relatively few casualties. Constantius's severed head was sent to Michael, who dispatched it to Thomas at Abydos.[47] Thomas was undaunted by this relatively minor setback, and crossed over into Europe some time in late October or early November. There, Constantius was soon replaced as co-emperor by another obscure individual, a former monk whom Thomas also adopted and named Anastasius.[48]
Siege of Constantinople
Anticipating Thomas's move, Michael had gone out at the head of an army to the themes of Thrace and Macedonia in Constantinople's European hinterland and strengthened the garrisons of several fortresses there to secure the loyalty of their populace. When Thomas landed, the people of the European themes welcomed him with enthusiasm, and Michael was forced to withdraw to Constantinople. Volunteers, including many Slavs, flocked to Thomas's banner. As he set out towards Constantinople, chroniclers recount that his army swelled to some 80,000 men.[49] The capital was defended by the imperial tagmata, augmented by reinforcements from the Opsician and Armeniac themes. Michael had ordered the city walls to be repaired, and chained off the entrance to the Golden Horn, while the Imperial Fleet further guarded the capital from the sea. Nevertheless, judging from Michael's passive stance, his forces were inferior to Thomas's; Warren Treadgold estimates Michael's army to have numbered approximately 35,000 men.[50]
Thomas's fleet arrived at the capital first. Facing no opposition from the Imperial Fleet, the rebels broke or unfastened the chain and entered the Golden Horn, taking station near the mouths of the Barbysos river, where they awaited the arrival of Thomas and his army.
After subduing the cities around the capital, Thomas resolved to attack Constantinople from three sides, perhaps hoping his assault would impress its inhabitants or lead to defections. His deputies Anastasius and Gregory Pterotos would attack the Theodosian land and sea walls, respectively, while he would lead the main attack against the less formidable defenses protecting Blachernae. All of Thomas's forces were amply supplied with siege engines and catapults, and his fleet fielded quantities of Greek fire in addition to large shipborne catapults.[53] Each of Thomas's attacks failed: the defenders' artillery proved superior and kept Thomas's engines away from the land walls, while adverse winds hindered the fleet from taking any meaningful action. Deciding that operations in the midst of winter were hazardous and unlikely to succeed, Thomas suspended all further attacks until spring and withdrew his army to winter quarters.[54][55]
Michael used the respite to ferry in additional reinforcements from Asia Minor and repair the walls of Blachernae. When Thomas returned in spring, he decided to focus his attack on the Blachernae sector. Before the offensive, Michael himself ascended the walls and addressed Thomas's troops, exhorting them to abandon their commander and promising amnesty if they would defect. Thomas's army viewed the plea as a sign of weakness, and advanced confidently to begin the assault, but as they neared the wall, the defenders opened the gates and attacked. The sudden onslaught drove back Thomas's army; at the same time, the Imperial Fleet defeated Thomas's ships, whose crews broke and fled to the shore in panic.[56] This defeat diminished Thomas's naval strength, and although he continued blockading the capital by land, the loss demoralized his supporters, who began defecting. Gregory Pterotos, whose family was in Michael's hands, resolved to desert Thomas, followed by a small band of men loyal to him. He departed the rebel camp, headed west, and sent a monk to inform Michael of his defection, but the monk failed to circumvent the blockade and reach the capital. Upon learning of this defection, Thomas reacted quickly: with a select detachment, he followed Gregory, defeated his troops and killed the deserter.[55][57]
Thomas exploited this small victory for all it was worth, widely proclaiming that he had defeated Michael's troops "by land and sea". He sent messages to the themes of
Through this victory, Michael secured control of the sea, but Thomas's army remained superior on land and continued its blockade of Constantinople. Minor skirmishes ensued for the remainder of the year, with Michael's forces sallying forth from the city to attack Thomas's forces. Although both sides claimed minor successes in these clashes, neither was able to gain a decisive advantage.[59]
Michael turned to the empire's northern neighbour,
Defeat and death of Thomas, end of the revolt
Thomas was unable to resume the siege: aside from the heavy casualties his army likely suffered, his fleet, which he had left behind in the Golden Horn, surrendered to Michael during his absence. Thomas set up camp at the plain of Diabasis some 40 kilometres (25 mi) west of Constantinople, spending winter and early spring there. While a few of his men deserted, the bulk remained loyal.
Michael blockaded Thomas's cities of refuge but organized no assaults, instead aiming to capture them peacefully by wearing out their defenders. His strategy was motivated by the political and propaganda expedient of appearing merciful—"in order to spare Christian blood", as Michael himself put it in his letter to Louis the Pious—but also, according to the chroniclers, by fear of demonstrating to the Bulgarians that the Byzantine cities' fortifications could fall to attack.
When the inhabitants of Bizye heard of Thomas's fate, they surrendered Anastasius, who suffered the same fate as Thomas. In Panion and Heraclea, Thomas's men held out until an earthquake struck in February 824. The tremor severely damaged the wall of Panion, and the city surrendered. The damage at Heraclea was less severe, but after Michael landed troops at its seaward side, it too was forced to surrender.
Aftermath and effects
The end of Thomas the Slav's great rebellion was marked by Michael II's triumph, held in May 824 in Constantinople. While he executed Thomas's volunteers from the Caliphate and perhaps also the Slavs, the sheer number of individuals involved, the necessity of appearing clement and sparing with Christian lives, and the need to restore internal tranquillity to his realm compelled Michael to treat Thomas's defeated partisans with leniency: most were released after being paraded in the Hippodrome during his celebration, and only the most dangerous were exiled to remote corners of the empire.[71] In an effort to discredit his opponent, Michael authorized an "official" and heavily distorted version of Thomas's life and revolt. The document was written by the deacon Ignatios and published in 824 as Against Thomas. This report quickly became the commonly accepted version of events.[72]
Thomas failed in spite of his qualities and the widespread support he had gained, which brought him control of most of the empire. Lemerle holds that several factors played a role in his defeat: the Asian themes he did not subdue supplied reinforcements to Michael; Thomas's fleet performed badly; and the Bulgarian offensive diverted him away from the capital and weakened his army. But the most decisive obstacles were the impregnable walls of Constantinople, which ensured that an emperor who controlled Constantinople could only be overthrown from within the city.[73]
Thomas's rebellion was the "central domestic event" of Michael II's reign,[74] but it was not very destructive in material terms: except for Thrace, which had suffered from the prolonged presence of the rival armies and the battles fought there, the larger part of the empire was spared the ravages of war.[75][76] The Byzantine navy suffered great losses, with the thematic fleets in particular being devastated, while the land forces suffered comparatively few casualties.[75][77] This is traditionally held to have resulted in a military weakness and internal disorder which was swiftly exploited by the Muslims: in the years after Thomas's rebellion, Andalusian exiles captured Crete and the Tunisian Aghlabids began their conquest of Sicily, while in the East, the Byzantines were forced to maintain a generally defensive stance towards the Caliphate.[75][78] More recent scholarship has disputed the degree to which the civil war was responsible for Byzantine military failures during these years, citing other reasons to explain them: Warren Treadgold opines that the empire's military forces recovered fairly quickly, and that incompetent military leadership coupled with "the remoteness of Sicily, the absence of regular troops on Crete, the simultaneity of the attacks on both islands, and the government's long-standing lack of interest in sea-power" were far more responsible for the loss of the islands.[79]
See also
References
- ^ a b c d e f g Hollingsworth & Cutler 1991, p. 2079.
- ^ Bury 1912, p. 11; Lemerle 1965, pp. 264, 270, 284; Treadgold 1988, p. 229.
- ^ Kiapidou 2003, Note 1.
- ^ a b c d PmbZ, p. 33.
- ^ PmbZ, p. 34.
- ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 267–272; Treadgold 1988, pp. 244–245.
- ^ a b Bury 1912, p. 84.
- ^ Vasiliev 1935, pp. 28–30.
- ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 259–272, 284; Treadgold 1988, pp. 244–245.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 10–12; Kaegi 1981, p. 246; Lemerle 1965, pp. 264, 285.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 12–13; Treadgold 1988, pp. 131–133, 196–197.
- ^ Lemerle 1965, p. 285.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 84–85.
- ^ Kiapidou 2003, Note 3.
- ^ Treadgold 1988, p. 198.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 44–46; Lemerle 1965, p. 285; Treadgold 1988, p. 198.
- ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 223–225.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 48, 85.
- S2CID 191606312.
- ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 273, 284.
- JSTOR 1291437.
- ^ Treadgold 1988, p. 228.
- ^ Kiapidou 2003, Chapter 1.
- ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 228–229, 243.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 78–79, 85; Treadgold 1988, pp. 228–229.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 85–86.
- ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 283–284.
- ^ a b Kiapidou 2003, Note 5.
- ^ Kaegi 1981, pp. 265–266; Lemerle 1965, pp. 262–263, 285; Vasiliev 1935, p. 23.
- ^ PmbZ, p. 35.
- ^ a b Treadgold 1988, p. 233.
- ^ Ostrogorsky 1963, pp. 171–172; Vasiliev 1935, pp. 23–24.
- ^ Kiapidou 2003, Note 6.
- ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 296–297.
- ^ Codoñer 2016, p. 197.
- ^ Bury 1912, p. 89; Lemerle 1965, p. 265.
- ^ Ostrogorsky 1963, pp. 171–172.
- ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 285–286, 294–295.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 86–87; Lemerle 1965, p. 289; Treadgold 1988, pp. 228–229, 234.
- ^ a b Kiapidou 2003, Chapter 2.1.
- ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 286–287; Treadgold 1988, p. 229.
- ^ Bury 1912, p. 87; Treadgold 1988, pp. 229–230, 232.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 87–88; Lemerle 1965, pp. 287–288; Treadgold 1988, pp. 232–233.
- ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 233–234.
- ^ Bury 1912, p. 90; Treadgold 1988, pp. 234–235.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 90, 92–93; Lemerle 1965, pp. 289–290; Treadgold 1988, p. 235.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 90–91; Treadgold 1988, pp. 235–236.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 90–91; Treadgold 1988, pp. 236–237.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 91–92; Treadgold 1988, p. 236.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 90–91; Treadgold 1988, pp. 234, 236.
- ^ Bury 1912, p. 93; Treadgold 1988, pp. 236–237.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 93, 95; Treadgold 1988, p. 237.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 93–95; Treadgold 1988, pp. 237, 239.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 93–96; Treadgold 1988, pp. 237–238.
- ^ a b c d Kiapidou 2003, Chapter 2.2.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 96–97; Treadgold 1988, pp. 238–239.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 97–98; Treadgold 1988, p. 239.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 98–99; Treadgold 1988, p. 239.
- ^ Bury 1912, p. 99; Treadgold 1988, pp. 239–240.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 100–101; Lemerle 1965, pp. 279–281; Treadgold 1988, pp. 240, 425.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 101–102; Lemerle 1965, pp. 279–281, 291; Treadgold 1988, p. 240.
- ^ Bury 1912, p. 102; Treadgold 1988, p. 240.
- ^ a b c d Kiapidou 2003, Chapter 2.3.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 102–103; Treadgold 1988, pp. 240–241.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 103–105; Treadgold 1988, p. 241.
- ^ Treadgold 1988, p. 241.
- ^ Bury 1912, p. 105; Treadgold 1988, p. 241.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 105–106; Treadgold 1988, pp. 241–242.
- ^ Bury 1912, p. 107; Treadgold 1988, p. 242.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 107–108; Treadgold 1988, pp. 242–243.
- ^ Bury 1912, pp. 104–105, 107; Treadgold 1988, p. 242.
- ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 244–245.
- ^ Lemerle 1965, p. 297.
- ^ Ostrogorsky 1963, p. 171
- ^ a b c Kiapidou 2003, Chapter 3.
- ^ Treadgold 1988, p. 244.
- ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 244, 259.
- ^ Ostrogorsky 1963, pp. 172–173.
- ^ cf. Treadgold 1988, pp. 259–260.
Sources
- OCLC 458995052.
- Hollingsworth, Paul A.; Cutler, Anthony (1991). "Thomas the Slav". In ISBN 0-19-504652-8.
- ISBN 90-256-0902-3.
- Kiapidou, Irini-Sofia (April 28, 2003). "Rebellion of Thomas the Slav, 821–23". Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World, Asia Minor. Athens: Foundation of the Hellenic World.
- Codoñer, Juan Signes (2016). The Emperor Theophilos and the East, 829–842: Court and Frontier in Byzantium during the Last Phase of Iconoclasm. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-03427-8.
- OCLC 457007063.
- ISBN 978-3-11-016675-0.
- OCLC 301446486.
- ISBN 978-0-8047-1462-4.
- Vasiliev, A.A. (1935). Byzance et les Arabes, Tome I: La Dynastie d'Amorium (820–867) (in French). Brussels: Éditions de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales. pp. 22–49.