Constantine V — The Iconoclast Warrior-Emperor
Constantine V (18 June 741–14 September 775) ranks as one of the most capable Byzantine Emperors and one of the best military leaders Byzantium had. During Michael I’s (811–813) reign, when the victorious Bulgars approached Constantinople, the agitated people of the city broke open the tomb of Emperor Constantine and cried, “Arise and aid the city that is perishing!”. That tells much about the reputation of Constantine as a military leader.
Byzantium in Constantine’s Time
Byzantium in the second half of the eighth century was in a far better shape than it had been at the start of the century. In the 640s, a wave of Arab and Slavic invasions had crippled the Empire, reducing it to a mainly Anatolian state with footholds in Thrace, coastal Greece, Sicily, parts of Italy and North Africa (which was conquered by 698). The Heracleian Dynasty had been successful in preventing a complete collapse of the Empire and in reorganizing the Empire’s administrative and military structures (by adopting the Themes system: provinces which had a military leader responsible for both civic and military affairs), but had not been able to halt the Arab advance. That task fell to the Isaurian Dynasty.
The founder of the Isaurian Dynasty was Leo III. A capable ruler, he came to the throne in 717, just when the Arabs were besieging Constantinople. He successfully defended Constantinople from the Arabs and this victory had long term repercussions: although the Arabs would continue to attack the Empire, the outright conquest of the Byzantine Empire was ruled out due to this defeat. Leo would later on decisively defeat the Arabs at Akroinon in 740. This battle signaled the halt of Arab expansionism and the beginnings of a Byzantine counterattack.
Leo III was also a capable administrator. He secured the frontiers by populating depopulated districts with Slavic settlers. Leo reformed the law too by publishing a new Code (the Ecloga). This code substituted the death penalty with mutilation in a lot of cases (this was considered more humane than death). Leo also remodeled the family and maritime law.
The Isaurian Empire was mainly a rural and depopulated imperial state. As already stated above, Leo III populated depopulated districts in the frontiers by settling Slavs and Constantine V would follow the same policy, settling prisoners taken from the Arab border into Kastra (castles) in Thrace. In 756, Constantine repopulated Constantinople with Greeks from mainland Greece and the islands.
The scarcity of men transformed the Empire and its economy. Rather than being a network of cities as in late antiquity (some scholars describe the Roman Empire as ‘federation’ of city-states), the Empire was now a mostly rural state with few towns and supervised by Constantinople, the only major city in the Empire. A large number of cities had been abandoned, others shrunk into fortresses while in some other cases the inhabitants moved into higher (and thus more defensible) ground. In some instances, cities were created on virgin sites or on the sites of ancient fortresses that could provide better defense to the inhabitants.
Overall, it is estimated that cities shrunk to a quarter of their previous size and all of them were fortified. Cities though continued to function as sites of markets and fairs. Although there was a demographic and economic depression, that can be seen in numismatic records, there was still a vivid, rural economy. The basic unit of the fiscal system were the villages (choria) in the countryside, where the peasants that worked the farmlands lived. Arab geographers would describe the Empire as having no cities and being instead made up of prosperous fortresses and villages.
Iconoclasm (Part I)
The Iconoclasm was a religious policy began under the Isaurian Emperor Leo III (717–741). It was an attempt to ban the use and veneration of Christian icons as this was viewed as a form of idolatry. The first phase lasted until 787, when icons were restored by Empress Irene of Athens. The second phase lasted from 814 to 842, when Empress Theodora restored the icons.
The causes of Iconoclasm are debated among scholars. One of the reasons may be that the eastern parts of the Empire, which were influenced by the aniconism of Judaism and Islam, were the backbone of the Empire after the loss of much of the Balkans to the Slavs. Those were the regions that provided most of the Thematic armies that defended the Empires. It was from those regions that the Isaurian dynasty originated. Another explanation, offered by chronicles, was that Leo II viewed a terrifying volcanic eruption at Thira in 726 as a sign of God’s wrath at the idolatry of the Byzantines.
The debate over the use of icons goes further back in time, during the early Byzantine era as the use of icons began to be popularized. In the early Christian era, much of Christian art was symbolic (Jesus was represented as a lamb). This began to change as Christianity was popularized and especially during the fifth and sixth centuries. This change was bound to cause reactions in the Church.
Constantine V was to be an even fiercer persecutor of Icons and far more systematic than his father in his efforts to eradicate Iconolatry. Constantine was also much more of a theologian than his father and seemed to have a better gasp of Iconoclastic theological theory. We will expand on Constantine’s actions regarding Iconoclasm below but for now let us state that while Iconoclasm was quite popular among the armies of the Anatolian Themes, it was unpopular with the monks, many civil servants and the populace and armies of the Western provinces of the Empire.
A Usurpation
Constantine, just twenty-two years old, succeeded his father in 741 and was crowned in Constantinople. This was the first peaceful imperial succession since the reign of Justinian II and thus showcased that Byzantium was entering a period of stability and normalcy after the quick succession of different Emperors known as the Twenty-Years Anarchy period. Yet Constantine was not without rivals: the obvious rival to the throne was Artavasdus, commander of the Opsician Theme (one of the largest in the Empire) and son-in-law of Leo III.
When Constantine left the capital (entrusting it to the magister Theophanes Monotes) for a campaign against the Arabs, he called Artavasdus to meet him in Bithynia for a conference regarding the offensive against the Arabs. Artavasdus did come but surprised the young emperor by attacking his men near Dorylaeum. Constantine’s men were routed and he himself was barely able to escape on horseback.
Artavasdus announced that Constantine had been killed and gained the support of Theophanes Monotes and of Theophanes’ son, Strategus of Thrace. Theophanes welcomed Artavasdus in Constantinople and arrested the supporters of Constantine. Artavasdus was crowned Emperor by the Patriarch and exploited the Iconophile sentiment among the capital’s populace, clergy and officials by allowing the icons to be restored.
Meanwhile, the young emperor had fled to Amorium and managed to gain the support of the Anatolic and Thracesian Themes. He marched to the Bosporus but without a fleet he could not cross the straits and had to withdraw back to Amorium. Thus the Empire was divided into two. Attempting to put an end to the civil war, Artavasdus marched himself in Asia Minor and in 742 in Sardis his army was crushed by Constantine in a decisive battle. Constantine also defeated Artavasdus’ son, Nicetas, in a battle near Modrene. Constantine was able to cross the Bosporus and laid siege on the capital. By fall 743, the populace of Constantine was demoralize and starving and in November, in a surprise assault, Constantine captured the city.
Thankfully for Constantine, the Arabs had not been able to exploit the Byzantine civil war as they had their own domestic troubles. Constantine set about to restructure the Byzantine military in order to prevent a similar attempt by a Strategos to usurp the throne. He broke up the overly powerful Opsician Theme into three smaller units (Opsician, Optimates and Boukellarioi).
Constantine also formed a new elite field force that would act as an imperial guard and owe allegiance to the Emperor. The new force was made up of two Tagmata (regiments): the Scholai and the Excubitors. Those units had been active in the early Byzantine era but had become decorative bodies. Constantine transformed them into well-paid, equipped and trained elite troops. They were favored above the Thematic armies and were the partisan supporters of Constantine and of the Iconoclastic religious policy; when Irene in 786 first tried to restore the Icons, her attempt failed as the Tagmata intervened.
Military Campaigns
With domestic issues settled for the time being, Constantine could focus on taking on the Arabs. In order to understand the military campaigns of the period, it is important to have a brief look at the tactics and equipment of the Byzantines during this period.
In order to respond to this threat from the Arab raiders, the Byzantine had to change their tactics and strategy. The contingents from the main field armies of the second half of the seventh and the eighth centuries were known as kaballarika themata (cavalry armies), which shows the emphasis the Byzantines now placed on mobility.
During this time, on the influence of the steppe nomads, the Byzantines adopted the lamellar armor that was crafted from leather, bone, or metal lamellae sewn together. Regarding the equipment of infantry units: archery equipment was comprised of a composite recurve bow, arrows, quiver and darts. As far as spears were concerned, there were three types. There were the small/peltast spears (kontarion mikron), the large/hoplite spear and the menavlion, another type of short spear. Bladed weapons consisted of a long, heavy single-edged knife, straight, double edged sword (spathion) and slightly curved, single edged sword (paramerion). Foot soldiers also used axes. With regards to the cavalry: the lightest equipped were the horse archers. They were equipped with paramerion but the primary armament was the bow. Next were the koursores, medium troops with flexible role in combat. They had armor in order to have protection but not so heavy that it would be cumbersome to their flexibility. They wore mail shirt or shirt of scales. They were equipped with round shield and 2.9 m lance. Finally, there were the cataphrats (kataphraktos), the heavily armored shock troops. They carried one spathion and one paramerion. They were also armed with a kontarion lance.
In 746, taking advantage of revolts in the Caliphate, Constantine went on the offensive. In this campaign, he probably used the Tagmata for the first time. He easily took Germanicea and the towns of Teluch and Sozopetra. Constantine though made no effort to permanently controlled those cities; instead he expelled the Arab garrisons and took the Christian populations to the Empire where, as already stated above, he settled them in Thrace. As mentioned above, the Empire was scarce in men and thus the Byzantines wanted to bring more people into the Empire in order to repopulate depopulated frontier areas.
While civil conflicts continued in the Caliphate, Constantine exploited again this weakness by besieging in 751 the key stronghold of Melitene. He forced its surrender, demolishing it and taking prisoners and booty. He settled the captives once more in Thrace. The only setback Constantine had suffered was in Italy: that same year the Lombard king Aistulf seized Ravenna, capital of the Exarchate. By that time though, the Exarchate had already been reduced to a shadow of its former self, had lost most of its territories and had little influence. The pursuing of Iconoclastic policies by Byzantium had estranged it from its Italian territories. Ironically enough, this has much to do with the fact that the Papacy was in a large degree Hellenized as many of the Popes of the period were native Greek speakers and there was a large presence of Greek monks in Rome (reinforced by Greek priests and monks fleeing Byzantium due to their opposition with the Iconoclast religious policies of the Isaurian Dynasty). As many Greeks opposed the Iconoclasm, the Papacy became a center of Iconophile activity.
In 755, Constantine attacked again the Arabs, taking over the border fort of Camachun and the city of Theodosiopolis. While Camachun was held on, the Christian inhabitants of Theodosiopolis were deported to Thrace. In 757 Constantine came to an agreement with the Arabs, accepting a truce and exchange of prisoners. What his Arab campaigns show is that Constantine used his military offensives in the East not to conquer territory but rather to capture population to repopulate Thrace.
His truce with the Arabs allowed him to turn his attention to the West. In Europe he faced the twin challenge of the Bulgar state that had established itself as major power in the Balkans and of the Slavs who had settled in much of former imperial Balkans. After defeating a Bulgar raid, Constantine marched against the Slavs of Western Thrace in 759 and conquered much of their lands. In 760, he invaded the Bulgar Khanate. He sent a fleet in the Danube delta while he himself led the land troops to the border at Marcellae, where he fought against the Bulgars and emerged victorious in a bloody battle. Constantine agreed to a temporary truce and was granted hostages.
In 762, though, the Bulgars hanged the leaders who agreed to the truce and replaced them with ones hostile to the Empire. Constantine thus began a second sea and land expedition against them in spring 763. About nine thousand cavalry were shipped to the Danube delta. He himself meanwhile led another army to Anchialus on the Black Sea. In a bloody battle, he once again bested the Bulgars. In 765 the Emperor raid Bulgaria once again. In 766, Constantine launched another expedition against the Bulgars, sending the fleet to Anchialus while marching northward across the coast. Unfortunately for the Empire, this time his fleet was wrecked by storm and he had to retreat.
The Emperor had more bad luck as the Arabs began once again raiding Anatolia. In 770, they sacked the city of Laodicea Combusta, deporting its population, in 771 they raided once more and captured more people (although the Byzantines retaliated with a raid into Arab Armenia) and in 772 they besieged Sycae. Although Constantine order Thematic troops to counterattack, they were defeated.
Wanting to reinforce his damaged prestige, Constantine decided to campaign against his weaker enemy, the Bulgars, hoping for a victory that would boost his position. He thus sailed to the Danube delta in spring 774 with the tagmata while cavalry from the Thematic armies advanced on land. The Bulgars asked for a truce and Constantine agreed though he kept his cavalry in forts in Thrace and looked for a pretext to strike again. In fall 774 he sent his army into the Bulgarian frontier to protect Slavic populations friendly to the Empire that were about to be deported by the Bulgars. The Byzantines ambushed and soundly defeated the Bulgar troops. Another expedition against the Bulgars in spring 775 had to be abandoned after Constantine’s fleet was destroyed by a storm. He was about to retaliate with a new campaign when he was stricken with fever on his way to Bulgaria. He had to go back to his capital, where he died.
Iconoclasm (Part II)
As already stated above, Constantine had a far better grasp of theological disputes than his father and was a more committed Iconoclastic ideologue. As such, he took a step that his father had not taken and decided to use the institution of the Church itself to enforce his theological position. In 753, Constantine summoned a church council to condemn the veneration of icons as heresy.
The council convened in early 754. The Patriarch, Anastasius, had died shortly before the gathering and there had been no effort to replace him. As such, the council was held without representation from the Patriarchy of Constantinople or the Papacy or the Orthodox Patriarchates of the (under Arab control) East. For six months the bishops met and deliberated at the imperial palace of Hieria, near Chalkedon under the leadership of the archbishop of Ephesus, Theodosius. The council compiled scriptural and patristic references that were unfavorable to iconolatry and crafted an elaborate theological argument condemning iconolatry as heresy. This argument is summarized in the Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum:
Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Mosaic law and the prophets cooperated to undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son, who turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and these adorned the Church, his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the Church the holy Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved inviolate. But the before-mentioned demi-urgos of wickedness could not endure the sight of this adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity.
And:
The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy-the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those fall into the same blasphemy who venerate the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the Acephali. When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart? So is it wish the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dulness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity.
For the whole text see: Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum — Bible Study Tools
Constantine also launched a purge against the supporters of the Icons. While Iconophile chronicles do exaggerate greatly about imperial purges, claiming that Constantine (who was compared to Diocletian) wiped out whole areas of Asia Minor from monks, the monks were indeed a target of imperial anger due to their resistance. The veteran general Michael Lachanodrakon seems to have eradicated monasticism within his theme and is said to have set the beards and faces of monks on fire.
Another example of Constantine’s purge was the arrest in 765 of Stephen, an Iconophile hermit on Mount Auxentius. Constantine had Stephen lynched by an angry mob. In 766, Constantine launched a purge of the civil service after discovering a plot against him by admirers of Stephen. Among the accused were the Postal Logothete Constantine Podopagurus, his brother and commander of the Tagma of Excubitors Stategius, the generals of Thrace and Sicily and the count of the Opsician. All of them were paraded in the Hippodrome, with the Podopagurus brothers executed and the rest blinded while the prefect Procopius was flogged and the Patriarch Constantine jailed.
Legacy
Constantine V was demonized by his opponents, the Iconophile historians, especially Theophanes the Confessor. He was compared to Diocletian and accused of being “a ferocious beast” and “unclean and bloodstained magician taking pleasure in envoking demons”. On the other hand, his military capabilities were widely recognized, even by his opponents.
Overall, it is fair to argue that Constantine left behind a mostly positive legacy. While he could be brutal in his pursuit of enforcing his Iconoclast agenda, he was a quite competent military commander who successfully raided Arab territory (repopulating Thrace in the process using captive population) and launched countless successful expedition against the Bulgar Khanate that almost crippled that state. With regards to domestic issues, he broke up the power of the Opsician Theme in order to prevent another civil war and created the Tagmata, an elite imperial guard.
Constantine can thus be ranked among the greatest of the Byzantine Emperors
