One can be worth of hundreds – Gaius Petronius Arbiter

Gaius Petronius Arbiter (ca. 27–66 AD), a Roman courtier during the reign of Emperor Nero and the author of “Satyricon”, was once invited to attend a large banquet in the imperial palace.

All kinds of delicacies were served at the banquet and, by Nero’s order, the tables were decorated with naked virgins – more than a hundred of them.

When Petronius arrived, the emperor immediately sent a servant to ask him about his opinion regarding banquet’s decoration.

 

Petronius replied: “Tell your Emperor that a hundred naked girls are not as hundred times more exciting than a girl we cry for”.

read more...

Unusual tax – Roman emperor Vespasian

In an effort to economically empower the Roman state and return to her the former glory, Roman emperor Vespasian (9-79) introduced a tax on everything that came to his mind.

Among many things, the citizens of Rome had to pay tax even for using public urinals.

When Vespasian's son Titus objected his father's decision on this kind of tax, considering it unworthy for any man, Vespasian grabbed a handful of coins, brought them under his son’s nose and uttered the famous phrase: "No olet" ("They don’t stink!")

 

 

In remembrance of this tax, public toilets in France are even today called "Vespasiennes”.

read more...

Great Byzantine defeats - Part VI - Battle of Pelekanon

Battle of Pelekanon (1329)

After the civil war in Byzantium that occurred between 1321 - 1328, a younger generation of nobles came to power, led by Emperor Andronicus III Palaeologus (Ruled from 1328-1341) and his best friend and collaborator, and later emperor, John Cantacuzenus. 

The new emperor, and his close associates, have properly assessed that the Ottomans are the greatest threat and that the territory of Asia Minor will determine the fate of the Empire.

In the late spring of 1329, that is, the first war season after the takeover, they led a not so large army to Nicaea, the glorious Byzantine city in which two ecumenical councils were held, and which was then under the Turkish siege.

This was the first time that some Byzantine emperor goes into direct conflict with the Ottoman ruler, and in this case, it was Orhan I (ruled from 1324-1361). This heroic endeavor, worthy of all praise, ended unsuccessfully for the Romans.

First, in the skirmish near Pelekanon, one arrow hit Andronicus III in the leg. He was immediately dispatched to Constantinople, and thus, he did not participate in the decisive battle, which took place the next day.

On June 11, 1329, the Turkish troops, situated near Pelekanon, a city on the east coast of the Marmara Sea, encouraged by the confusion among the Byzantines caused by emperor injury, inflicted a heavy defeat to Byzantine troops. John Cantacuzenus remarkable composure didn’t help at all, and he barely saved the rest of the army. He scarcely saved his own head.

However, comparing this defeat with the Byzantine disaster at Manzikert in 1071, that is often done in the scientific writings, in spite of certain similarities that are very appealing, is somewhat unjustified. The collapse of Romanos IV Diogenes and Byzantine troops, like it was said, was an event of global and historic significance, while the failure of Andronicus III Palaeologus and John Cantacuzenus is just one of the final forms of long-weaned historical flows, and as such, it doesn’t have nearly the weight of Manzikert collapse.

It turned out that the campaign from 1329 was, in fact, the last serious effort of the Byzantines on the eastern front. The remaining Byzantine cities in Asia Minor where left to their own fate and temperament the Islamic invaders.

Great Byzantine defeats - Part I - The Battle of Adrianople

read more...

Great Byzantine defeats - Part V - Battle of Myriokephalon

Battle of Myriokephalon (1176)

A century after the battle of Manzikert, Byzantines suffered another heavy defeat by the Seljuks. This time the main actors were the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (ruled from 1143-1180) and Iconium’s sultan Kilij Arslan II (ruled from1156-1192).

During his reign, the Byzantine emperor was able to slightly improve the relationships between the Empire and the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm. Kilij Arslan visited Istanbul in 1161 as a guest of the Byzantine emperor, and his host organized a magnificent reception for him. He even pledged to Manuel Komnenos that he would send military support and return him some of the cities in the border zone. However, due to emperors many obligations and commitment to Western politics, the sultan "forgot" his obligations and, furthermore, encouraged by the support of the German emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (ruled from 1152-1190), he took hostile attitude towards Byzantium. 

At the head of a huge army, in the summer of 1176, Manuel Komnenos headed towards the Seljuk border. Emperor firmly refused Sultan's peace offer and continued the march.

Kilij Arslan was trying to avoid conflict in the open field, so he only occupied long and narrow Tzibritze pass near the city Myriokephalon in Asia Minor area of Phrygia. In addition, he sent his supporting troops to disturb the progress of emperor’s army. They burned the grass to make it difficult to feed Byzantine horses and poisoned wells by throwing bodies and dirt in them. And indeed, during this campaign a great number of Romans died from stomach diseases.

On September 17, 1176, in Tzibritze pass, the Seljuks surrounded and attacked the Byzantine army, and completely defeated it. The Byzantines were as trapped, powerless to resist properly. In addition, it was not possible to establish any type of connection between the individual Roman troops.

The battle lasted all day. A large number of Byzantine soldiers and several prominent military leaders were killed while Manuel Komnenos, in a moment of despondency, was thinking to leave his army and run for his life. Later, the Byzantine soldiers openly blamed the emperor for the defeat. 

The state and the mood of the Roman army didn’t change even when the darkness of the night surrounded them. Byzantine historian, who lived in those times, Niketas Choniates, wrote that those who managed to escape spent the next few long sleepless hours filled with horror and suspense.

Since the Turkish losses were also significant, in the evening hours Kilij Arslan accepted Manuel’s proposal for the conclusion of peace. According to concluded agreement, the Byzantines were required to destroy their two fortress in the border area.

After two days, the remaining Roman army began to retreat. Manuel Komnenos, himself, compared this loss to the disaster in Manzikert 150 years earlier. 

Great Byzantine defeats - Part VI - Battle of Pelekanon 

Great Byzantine defeats - Part I - The Battle of Adrianople

read more...

Great Byzantine defeats - Part IV - Battle of Manzikert

Battle of Manzikert (1071)

Throughout its history, Byzantium had misfortune to, roughly speaking, constantly fight wars on two fronts, east and west. In the East, the enemies of the Empire were at first the Persians, then Arabs and finally the Turks, Seljuks and Ottomans.

In the 11th century, Byzantium was dangerously threatened by an invasion of Seljuks who easily broke the Arabian forces in Asia, conquered a number of areas, penetrated through Mesopotamia and conquered caliph’s capital Baghdad. Soon, the whole part of Asia to the borders of the Byzantine Empire and the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, belonged to the Seljuk. They penetrated Armenia, ravaged Cilicia and with invasion of Cappadocia, they made it clear that they have intensions to occupy Asia Minor.

Precisely at that time, the Emperor Constantine X Doukas (ruled from 1059-1067) died, and his widow Eudokia, under the pressure of one part of the public, married the Roman general Diogenes who was the only one capable to take action against invasive Seljuks.

The new emperor, Romanos IV Diogenes (ruled from 1068-1071) was skilled military leader and he immediately went to the East. His campaigns in 1068 and 1069 could be called relatively successful, but his third campaign ended with heavy defeat.

In the summer of 1071, two armies collided, the Byzantine - which consisted and of many foreigners (Frankish, Russians, Pechenegs, Uz, Normans) - and Seljuk led by sultan Alp Arslan (ruled from 1064-1072). The battle was fought in Armenia, near the town Manzikert, which is near Lake Van. It was thought previously that the battle occurred on August 19, 1071, but based on the data of the Byzantine Short chronicles, the event was placed a whole week back, on August 26, 1071.

The facts from preserved sources - Byzantine, Eastern and Western - are considerable contradictory so it is not easy to discern what has happened. There is no doubt that the Byzantine army was numerically stronger than the Seljuk, but it was also diverse and less disciplined.

The impression is that the Byzantine emperor clearly underestimated the opponents and that he split his army so that one part of it - the Normans, led by Commander Roussel de Bailleul - did not participate in the battle, and were directed on the other side. Furthermore, when the battle began, they have retreated to the west.

In the first phase, the Byzantine cavalry attacked and the Seljuks retreated, pretending to flee, but then they unexpectedly turned and caught their enemies into a trap. However, the majority of the Byzantine army attacked those Turkish detachments, forcing them to retreat, and safely returned to their camp.

The next day, sultan Alp Arslan managed to draw on his side a number of Uz units, a tribe related to the Seljuks, but that was still far from victory. Therefore, he proposed a truce, but the terms offered by the Romanos IV Diogenes were unacceptable.

When the battle began anew, the Byzantine army, under the command of the emperor, struck at the center. Just then, Andronikos Doukas, Emperor's old rival, spread the word that emperor is defeated. He immediately left the battlefield and caused general chaos and retreat. Romanos IV Diogenes found himself surrounded by Seljuks and desperately fought until he was captured.

Today, researchers believe that one of the reasons for Turkey's victory was and the fact that they used their archers more cleverly.

In the beginning, the defeat was not that heavy. Byzantine losses were relatively small, and Alp Arslan treated the captured Byzantine emperor like a true knight and signed an honorable peace with him. However, the Roman disputes turned this event into a disaster with unforeseeable consequences. Opposing party at Constantinople, led by John Doukas, a father of Manzikert’s traitor, and Michael Psellos, performed a sort of coup, and placed Michael VII Doukas (ruled from 1071-1078) on the throne.

Upon his return from Turkish captivity, Romanos IV Diogenes reached out for the protection of his royal rights. This initiated a civil war. Eventually, his opponents captured and blinded him on fraud by not keeping their word.

On news of Romanos blindness and death, in 1072 the Seljuks began to penetrate Asia Minor because the contract that they signed several months ago, was no longer valid. Byzantium didn’t have enough strength to stop the Turkish invasion and, in just few years, they conquered most of Asia Minor. They won even Nicaea, a town not far from Constantinople. The participants of the First Crusade returned it to Byzantium only in 1097.

Battle of Manzikert was a significant turning point in Byzantine history and an event of global historical significance.  It marked the arrival of the Turks in Asia Minor, and the foundation of their Sultanate of Iconium state (Rûm), on one side, and gradual turn of focus of Byzantium on the European area, on the other side.

In 1971, the modern Turkey celebrated this event in a special way, with a great public holiday. They celebrated their ninth centenary.

Great Byzantine defeats - Part V - Battle of Myriokephalon

Great Byzantine defeats - Part I - The Battle of Adrianople

read more...

Great Byzantine defeats - Part III - Battle of Vărbitsa Pass

Battle of Vărbitsa Pass (July 26,  811)

When Charlemagne destroyed the Avar state in Pannonia, at the beginning of the 9th century, the Bulgarians gained their freedom. Soon, the head of Pannonian Bulgars - warlike Krum, took the Bulgarian throne. In 809, he attacked Byzantine Serdica (Sofia), destroyed the fortress and killed everyone who served there.

Emperor Nicephorus I (ruled from 802-811) immediately replied – he penetrated to the Bulgarian capital Pliska, and then restored the destroyed fortifications. However, the main campaign came after two years of extensive preparation, in the spring of 811.

As reported by the chronicler Theophanes, confident emperor ignored the advices of astrologers who warned him that the arrangement of stars is not favorable. With his army, he entered Bulgaria through the mountain passes in July 20, at the time of unfortunate ascent of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky and the main star in the constellation of The Great Dog, when she can be seen at the east, at dawn.

However, the way the campaign was developing, the emperor had every right to think that this time he will completely destroy the Bulgarian state. Frightened Krum begged for peace, but Byzantine emperor refused the offer. He concentrated on the capital Pliska, which he destroyed, and then he took all the valuables from Khan Krum’s court and then burned it. Nicephorus was totally convinced that he holds everything in his hands and that it was now only a matter of time before he breaks the Bulgarian resistance. Therefore, with arrogant disdain he once again rejected Krum’s peaceful offer and moved on.

While the Byzantines were busy devastating their country, the Bulgarians retreated to the canyons of the mountain Balkan. Aware that it could be hard to withstand Roman attack in the open field, they made an ambush in the Vărbitsa Pass and waited quietly.

Byzantine army progressed confidently, not expecting that the Bulgarians would dare get in the battle. However, on July 26, 811, a very fast and sudden attack in Vărbitsa Pass occurred. 

When he saw what happened, emperor Nicephorus, in panic and desperation, allegedly said: "Even if we have had wings we could not have escaped from peril!"

In the chaos that swept of the Byzantines ranks, a horrific massacre occurred. Almost the entire Roman army was killed, the Byzantine nobility elite, and the emperor himself.

Byzantine chronicler Theophanes dejectedly and bitterly concluded that "the flower of Christianity was destroyed!" Let me remind you that, at that time, the Bulgarians were still pagans, and that they received Christianity half a century later.

Krum chopped the head of the dead emperor, put it on the long stick and for days ostentatiously and triumphantly showed it to the tribes that came to him. Then he took the emperor's skull, cleaned it to the bone, lined with silver on the outside and made a cup from which he drank at his feasts.

It was the first time since the battle of Adrianople and Valens' death - after over almost four and a half centuries! - that a Byzantine emperor lost his life in a war battle. Moreover, the king's son and heir, Staurakios, was badly wounded and immediately transferred to Edirne, but it was obvious that he will not recover. He died several months later, on January 11, 812, in Constantinople, but before that, on October 1, 811, he had to relinquish the throne and receive monastic vows.

This was followed by three difficult years for the Byzantine Empire, filled with anxiety and restlessness.

And just when he was preparing to attack Constantinople, the Bulgarian Khan Krum died suddenly from a stroke, in April 814.

Great Byzantine defeats - Part IV - Battle of Manzikert

Great Byzantine defeats - Part I - The Battle of Adrianople

read more...

Great Byzantine defeats - Part II - The Battle of Yarmouk

The Battle of Yarmouk (August, 636)

Until the first decades of the 7th century, Arabs, who have been neighbors of the Byzantine Empire for centuries, were not a very significant political factor. But then, Muhammad united this large group of people, made them a state and brought them Islam. On the wings of the new faith, Arabs have, several years after the prophet's death, started their conquests.

First to be affected were Byzantine Empire and Persia, who just emerged from a long and exhausting war with each other. While Persia succumbed quickly, the Byzantine Empire resisted the invasion of Arabs for a long time.

The fact remains that since their first conflict, in 634, and all the way to the Arabian siege of Constantinople (674-678), therefore almost half a century, Byzantium didn’t have any significant victory.

One of the most important events in that period was the famous battle near the Yarmouk River in August 636, in which the Arabs completely crushed Byzantine army.

After several defeats suffered by Theodore, brother of emperor Heraclius (ruled from 610-641), the emperor sent great but diverse army led by Theodore Trithyrius. In this army there were Armenians, Persians, even Arabian mercenaries.

According to the chronicler Theophanes, each of the two armies had 40,000 troops, but some modern researchers, after reading all the available resources, claim that the Byzantines and their allies were much more: apparently, about 100,000.

The day was warm, a real summer day. The humidity was pressing down while the wind carried the clouds of sand and dust to the one of the driest places in the desert that Arabian military leaders have cleverly chosen.

Aware that, for the first time, they are facing numerous and serious army, the Arabs have shown that they are up for it. Leaving aside the former mutual rivalry, the military leaders have chosen the most competent person among them to be their Commander in Chief of the Muslim army. They have chosen Khalid ibn al-Walid, who, with his intellect and courage, proved to be better than the others were. 

The Battle of Yarmouk was one of the bloodiest in history of Arabian wars.

Under pressure from the Byzantine cavalry, the Muslims had to withdraw three times, but they always returned to the battle because the women who stood behind them didn’t allowed them to flee.

Eventually, Khalid managed to cut the enemy's cavalry from the infantry, and strike with all forces the Byzantine camp, set between the river and nearby hills. With unstoppable rush and thunderous cry "Allahu Akbar" (Allah is the Greatest), which echoed all around, "the sons of the desert" completely shattered the Byzantine troops.

Neither crosses nor chants of Byzantine priests, who were singing church hymns, helped raising the morale of Roman soldiers. Some sources mention and disunity in the colorful Byzantine army, and that in the decisive moment the Arabian mercenaries changed sides.

Christians defeat was complete, since one part of their soldiers drowned in the river, while others were killed by Muslim sword.

With the victory that was won on the Yarmouk river, the Arabs have secured success in the subsequent conquest.

Heraclius, who was already in his sixties and didn’t participate in this battle, was aware of what this defeat means. This confrontation with the Arabs was in fact a battle for Syria, one of the most important Byzantine provinces. With dignity in defeat, in the moments when he saw that his life's work is breaking apart –  just a few years before he succeeded to recover the province from the Persians – the emperor Heraclius had enough strength to utter the proud pathos " Farewell, a long farewell to Syria, my fair province. Thou art an infidel's (enemy's) now. Peace be with you, O Syria – what a beautiful land you will be for the enemy"

Soon most Syrian cities surrendered themselves to the victorious Arabian troops, almost without a struggle, and the very capital Antioch fell into the hands of a new master.

The greatest temptations of Byzantium begin from here.

Great Byzantine defeats - Part III - Battle of Vărbitsa Pass

 
Great Byzantine defeats - Part I - The Battle of Adrianople

read more...

Great Byzantine defeats - Part I - The Battle of Adrianople

Byzantium is the only state that continuously survived from ancient times to the dawn of the modern age. Byzantium existed for more than a thousand years, and experienced great rises and deep crisis.

In this vast period, Byzantium has undergone a long way, from world force that was spread across three continents - Europe, Asia and Africa – to the dwarf state in the eastern Mediterranean, which can be compared to a infirm organism with a huge head - Constantinople.

In comparison to the surrounding nations, the Persians, Goths, Avars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Russians, Arabs, Cumans, Ugrians, Serbs, Turks (Seljuks and Ottomans), Byzantine history knew many victories, but also a fair number of heavy defeats ...

Here are some of those great defeats.

The Battle of Adrianople (August 9, 378)

In 375, the Huns have started an invasion on the area between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea, and suppressed the Goths, who then lived on that territory (present southern Russia).  Western Goths (Thervings) arrived on the borders of the Roman Empire, and Emperor Valens (ruled from 364-378) allowed them to settle in the Thracian diocese.

Due to constant abuses by the Romans, they soon started an uprising.  Eastern Goths (Greutungs) and a group of Huns joined with the Western Goths, and the whole Thrace was flooded with barbarians.

In those dangerous moments, Emperor Valens left the eastern battlefield, where he was in war with Persia, and rushed to the Balkan Peninsula.

The battle with the barbarians occurred near Adrianople (Edirne), on August 9, 378.  The Roman army was completely defeated.

Ammianus Marcellinus, the best historian of the fourth century, gives an exciting description of this battle: 

“And while arms and missiles of all kinds were meeting in fierce conflict, and (Goddess) Bellona, blowing her mournful trumpet, was raging more fiercely than usual, to inflict disaster on the Romans… Then the two lines of battle dashed against each other, like the beaks (or rams) of ships, and thrusting with all their might, were tossed to and fro, like the waves of the sea. And by this time such clouds of dust arose that it was scarcely possible to see the sky, which resounded with horrible cries… while with mutual blows of battle-axes, helmets and breastplates were dashed in pieces. The plain was covered with carcases, strewing the mutual ruin of the combatants; while the groans of the dying, or of men fearfully wounded, were intense, and caused great dismay all around.”

Valens himself, who lacked no courage, died on that battlefield.  According to some, an arrow dangerously wounded him, and caused his death, but his body was never found. Some say that he was burned in a farmhouse that the Goths put on fire, not knowing that the wounded emperor was inside.

Ammianus Marcellinus compared this defeat with the Roman defeat in the battle of Cannae, the famous battle in ancient history, when on August 2, 216 BC, Hannibal defeated the Romans.

Great Byzantine defeats - Part II - The Battle of Yarmouk

read more...

Byzantine Art of Persuasion (Part IV)

Not on earth nor in the sky

Story says that in the year of 986 Prince Vladimir of Kiev was visited by missionaries from various parts of the medieval world. First who came was the Bulgarian delegation from the middle Volga who recommended Islam, then Pope's envoys trying to religiously subjugate multiple Russian people, who inhabited large areas, to papal curia, then Khazar missionaries who recommended Judaism, and, finally, a redundant sage, envoy of the Byzantine emperor. With haughty contempt and ostentatious arrogance, this Greek "philosopher" mocked the other competitors. At first he spoke with rough and unmeasured way of Muhammad, and then, he confidently revoke dogmatic teachings of Rome as well as Jews. In response to Vladimir's theological questions, this proud Byzantine smatterer gave a speech of nearly five thousand words. However, halting Russian prince, even after this adept and oratory brilliant speech remained somewhat cautious. Since it was a very important national issue, Prince Vladimir sent emissaries to all the above-mentioned religious destinations.

Finally, the odds went to Byzantine "proposal." This time the brilliant rhetoric of the Roman negotiator was, with the best way, supported by unsurpassed Byzantine art to, in Constantinople, the "Empress City" as Byzantine writers called it with grace, in the most important temple of Capital, in the magnificent Hagia Sophia, serve Divine Liturgy to confused visitors from the north. The question is whether the doubts recorded in Russian source really existed, or, it was just a need to subordinate the facts to an exciting plot that somehow had to maintain tension and suspense by telling of how the Russians made difficult and historic decision.

The words of the Russian chronicle say distinctly: "And we have come to the Greek country, and they took us to a place where they worship their God, and we did not know whether we are in heaven or on earth; because the earth there is no such sight and such beauty and we do not know how to describe it. We know that there is a God among men and their service is prettier than in all other countries. "

And, finally, evidence of barbarian fascination with Byzantine persuasion skills brings Theodore Metochites. I am telling you about famous Byzantine-Serbian negotiations from 1299, important for the events and the balance of power in the Balkans at the turn of the 13th the 14th century. The good thing is that we possess the so-called "Ministerial letter" which is confidential report that a Byzantine negotiator Theodore Metochites sent to Constantinople within his last of his five trips to Serbia during 1298/1299. It is reasonable to assume that this interesting writ was compiled in the first half of April in the year of 1299 when long and difficult negotiations between Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II Palaeologus (1282-1328) and Serbian King Milutin (1282-1321) where completed.

It is necessary to emphasize that this is a unique source, a text which, apparently, was sent to Nicephorus Chumnus, then mesazon, that is the "first minister" of the Byzantine Empire, who was at the time Metochites superior officer. Hence the text of this confidential writ overgrows usual official reports which are characterized with routine drafting, arid and established lexicon, but also and the redundancy of any imagination. Before us, therefore, we have educated writing with which a young intellectual - Theodore Metochites was then only thirty years old, and was at the beginning of a great scientific and statesmen career – is trying to impress the older, respected and already famous colleague. Therefore, this "talk" of two wise men should be viewed as a kind of clash of intellects, conflict between two scientific vanities, and spiritual contest in which the younger is trying hard to fascinate the older one. Leaving aside colorful and exciting events from his travel to Serbia during one of the coldest winters in the period of the Middle Ages, and extensive diplomatic "wrestling" between Byzantine and Serbian negotiators, I bring you just one assessment that Theodore Metochites is telling at the very end of his "Ministerial letter". He notes: "Because, question is if someone can win in everything just with words and not be defeated by evil, and if the suffering will not manage those who use only words, and relying only on them. In every matter, namely, every word is certainly just a shadow of a true act. And this is especially so with the barbarians and limited people who do not easily relinquish to words, especially with such plots, intrigues and wickedness, and moreover because they think that we use words most skillfully, better then them and the others, and that we use them to rule, persuade, and turn everything anyway we want. "

With regard to the presented it’s not surprising that the Byzantines in the Middle Ages were considered as shifty people. To tell the truth, the Byzantines themselves have thought of other nations as shifty. At the same time, of course, we should not lose sight of the well-known fact that people notion of each other - both then and now! – were often burdened with not only the whole set of prejudices, but also and with various forms of simplification. However, it is not without interest to mention the famous Byzantine principle of "oikonomia", which implies allowed deviation from strict adherence to church rules under irregular circumstances and for honorable goals. In other words, it’s about special Byzantine willingness to interpret the law arbitrarily, in accordance with political or personal intentions. At the same time, it is necessary to remind that "oikonomia" was raised to one of the most essential principles of political thought in the Byzantine Empire.

read more...

Byzantine Art of Persuasion (Part II)

Emperors and shepherds



The first example concerns the Khan of the Hunnish tribe Utigur and his message to Justinian “The Last of the Romans” (527-565), that, in the pages of its history, brings Procopius of Caesarea, and in which the barbarian leader is against the emperor’s insidious policy toward his people. What is this actually about?

Emperor Justinian, guided by the best traditions of Byzantine foreign policy, turned the two Hunnish tribes - Kutrigurs and Utigurs - against each other. Tribes lived in the steppes, one on the west and another on the east side of Don. Wishing to reward newcomers from Asia, the Byzantine emperor allowed two thousand Kutrigurs to settle in Thrace. In this way, supporting one group of Hunnish tribes and neglecting another, he hurt Utigurs feelings. Their Khan, to whose attention Justinian cunning political move didn’t slipped, in the state of resentment sent an envoy to Constantinople.

Hunnish emissary was supposed to file his master's complaint because of emperors fond to rival Kutrigurs. Since the Huns were illiterate, Khans oral complaint was recorded by Byzantine writer Procopius. It is permitted to assume that the historian of Justinian's era performed and her adept stylization. However the case, Khans words, in which the foreground is a simple and a great parable, reveal barbarian clarity and discernment:

"I know a proverb that I heard in my childhood, I haven’t forgotten it. Proverb goes something like this: a wild beast, a wolf, maybe, that’s how they say, can to some extent to change the color of his hair, but his mood does not change, since his nature does not allow him… One more thing I know, the experience taught me that, and it's one of those things that uncouth barbarian needs to learn: the shepherds take the dog while he is still sucking and carefully raise him so the beast is thankful to the one who feed him and it’s always returning them back with constant amiability. The shepherds probably do it for the following reason: when wolves attack the sheep, dogs will stop them, they’ll stand in front of sheep as guardians and saviors. I think this happens everywhere ... even in your empire, where almost all is in abundance, probably impossible things also, there is no denial from this rule... But if these things are by their nature, all permanent, then I think that it is not fair from you to hospitably meet Kutrigurs, make your self bad neighbors, and make a home for people who you until recently could not bear even beyond your borders ...While we barely live on wasted and infertile land, Kutrigurs have corn to spare, they are drunk in their wine cellars and they are managing easily to afford all the sweetness of this world. They certainly have access to bathrooms and they wear gold, and surely they do not miss beautiful embroidered clothes covered in gold."

It is not known what kind of impression these words have caused on Justinian I, known for his ruthlessness and infinite conceit, but they did not significantly affect the foreign policy of the government of Constantinople, which was often two-face harsh to somewhat diplomatically  naive barbarian tribes.

To read "Byzantine Art of Persuasion (Part III)", click HERE.

read more...

Byzantine Art of Persuasion (Part I)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” – a message from the New Testament (the Gospel of John, 1, 1). "Words, words, words!" – Pathetically cries Hamlet in William Shakespeare's eponymous tragedy. French writer Andre Maurois warned of power and destructive force that words can have: - “If the people better understood what danger lies in the use of certain words, dictionaries in the windows of the bookstores would have had a red ribbon with the inscription: "Explosive! Carefully Handle!"” Indeed, although they are most impermanent, at the end and after all, only words remain.

It is well known, on the other hand, that artistry in the use of the words is exactly proportional to the level of civilization of a certain society. In the period of the Middle Ages, Byzantium was a good example which confirmed the rule said. Barbarians themselves were aware of the skills of Byzantine diplomacy, that is, their ability to achieve anything they wanted with words and their clever use, which would otherwise been achieved only by the force of arms.

But this is not just about the deep impression that Roman eloquence was leaving on simple and primitive barbarians, but also and about giddiness and sometimes Byzantine perfidy which were in a special way connected with the art of handling words in the intricate political and diplomatic circumventions. In order to understand this, it is necessary to recall the Roman beliefs in their own uniqueness and Byzantines confidence in the sacred right of Byzantine Empire to rule over the entire Christian universe.

From this kind of belief, the Byzantine conception was coming out according to which all other people were less valuable than Romans and as such were worthy of contempt. It is necessary to bear in mind what was issued in order to properly understand the Byzantine attitude toward other nations, but also attitude of others towards Romans.

In order to show this, I will present four cases: two from the early Byzantine history, tied to 6th century and Turkish tribes, one from the final decades of the 10th century, in which, along with the Byzantines, the Russians are the main participants, and, finally, one which is placed in the last years of the 13th century, and it’s turned to the history of the Byzantine-Serbian relations.

To read "Byzantine Art of Persuasion (Part II)", click HERE.

read more...