In a world of empires and kingdoms, the Byzantine Empire stood as a symbol of power and prestige,
a perennial bastion of strength, and an enduring stronghold that at times dominated the medieval
age. However, beneath the veneer of splendour that graced the Byzantine court lay a long history of
intrigue and civil conflict. The empire spent more time at war with itself rather than the enemies
that circled its borders, as rival factions and claimants tore at the empire’s very fabric,
only able to unite under its greatest rulers. So what were the causes that led to centuries
of instability and unrest? And why did the Byzantines find themselves embroiled in so
many destructive and costly civil wars? In this video, we will delve into the reasons
why the Eastern Roman Empire of the Middle Ages was as habitually unstable as it was.
This video was kindly sponsored by our youtube members and patrons. Right now, the patrons
and youtube members are exclusively watching our First Punic War and Pacific War series,
while the series on the history of Prussia and Italian Unification Wars - Risorgimento
have been concluded, and the series on the Russo-Japanese War and Albigensian Crusade
and Xenophon’s anabasis will be released next. You can join their ranks via the links in the
description and pinned comment to get exclusive videos, early access to all public videos,
schedule, access to a special discord server, where we are very active and
much more. Thanks for supporting us, we couldn’t be doing it without your help!
The Byzantine Empire inherited a long-standing tradition of civil wars that dated back to the
collapse of the Roman Republic. In this tumultuous period, commanders with enough loyal soldiers
could seize the capital and impose their will upon the state. This trend persisted in the later Roman
Empire, where powerful generals could claim the imperial title when the opportunity arose.
One such example was the year of the four emperors, which saw a large-scale civil
war erupting in the aftermath of Nero's death, with numerous contenders vying for the throne.
The Byzantines would inherit this same problem that would become deeply ingrained
in the empire's political culture. The early Byzantine Empire initially
struggled with internal difficulties from the new peoples who settled its lands. In 399 AD,
Byzantium faced a rebellion from the Ostrogoths in Phyria under Tribigild, joined by Gainas and
his goths in 400. His rebellion would only be quelled after the Greco-Roman citizenry
of Constantinople rebelled against Gainas’s gothic garrison, forcing him to flee to the Hellespont,
where his force was crushed. This racial tension between the numerous peoples of the empire
sparked conflicts across the nation, such as the Samaritan revolts and the Isaurian War, and was a
key reason for some of its early instability. The Eastern Roman state, like its unified
predecessor, also faced internal strife due to the meritocratic system of government it
had developed. Unlike other monarchies of the time, the Byzantine realm didn’t have any laws
of succession, and though powerful emperors could launch dynasties, in Byzantine political theory,
the emperor was chosen by God based upon their competence. This meant that the imperial purple
could not be limited to those with ‘royal blood.’ Instead, it was extended to all others, so if a
general or courtier were able to rebel against the sitting Emperor successfully, it would have
been through God's favour, and thus he would have had some legitimacy. However, this legitimacy was
contingent on the usurper's ability to maintain support from key factions, including the military,
clergy, and nobility, while also defending against other usurpers inspired by their success.
Despite all this, the early Byzantine state remained relatively stable internally. The only
reign that met instability was that of Zeno, who ruled without the support of the many factions,
resented by many as a barbarian due to his Isurian background. But despite plots and rebellions by
Marcian and Illus, his support base among the Isurian soldiers allowed him to retain power.
The reason for this early stability was the administrative structure of the early empire.
The initial Byzantine state apparatus was a combination of the late Roman diocese system
established by Diocletian and Constantine in the late 3rd century AD and Justinian's innovations
in the 6th century AD. However, in the years 535 and 536, Justinian's administrative reforms were
formalized, essentially eliminating the antiquated diocese system hierarchy established in previous
centuries and the strict military and civic divisions within the empire that had come with
it. Instead, various provincial circumscriptions were directly governed by deputies of the emperor,
such as the Stratalates, Strategoi, and Harmost, who were given extraordinary
military and administrative powers. These changes were accompanied by the
appointment of prestigious new titleholders in an attempt to lessen corruption and simplify
the emperor's direct handling of its domains. These reforms were endorsed by contemporary
monarchical philosophy in the Greek-speaking eastern Mediterranean, and this administrative
restructuring was one of the reasons why the early Byzantine state was relatively stable
compared to later periods, as the emperor's control was more centralized, while many of the
early emperors were able to retain popularity with the factions that could overthrow them.
Despite all the measures implemented, it was inevitable that a large-scale civil conflict
would eventually erupt due to the meritocratic system and lack of succession laws. The first
spark of this unrest came with the rebellion led by Phocas. Emperor Maurice's failure to
maintain the army's support, resulting from wage cuts and constant gruelling campaigns,
led them to raise Phocas on their shields in the traditional act of declaring a new emperor
before swiftly seizing Constantinople. Phocas's reign, however, was marked by his inability to
control the army and the state, making him deeply unpopular. Consequently, he faced rebellion first
from General Narses and later from the exarch of Carthage, which ultimately led to his ousting
in favour of the more competent Heraclius the Younger. Despite some lingering pockets of support
for Phocas, Heraclius maintained his position through his exceptional leadership skills.
While Heraclius provided a temporary respite for the empire, the sweeping conquests of the
natal Rashidun caliphate posed a significant challenge, shaking confidence in imperial rule.
The subsequent death of Heraclius further destabilized the climate,
leading to significant opposition and the eventual demise of his grandson, Constans II.
During Constans II's reign, however, the introduction of the new thematic system would
become one of the main factors contributing to the later instability of the Eastern Roman state.
Though this system allowed for the raising of large armies at a low cost, the large size and
power of the themes made generals more prone to revolt, decentralizing imperial authority and
undoing the reforms of Justinian. The detrimental consequences of this decentralization became
fully apparent during a subsequent period known as "the twenty years of anarchy."
This tumultuous era was initiated by the despotic rule of Justinian II, plunging the empire into a
state of chaos as influential commanders from powerful themes, such as Opsikion, Anatolikon,
and Armeniakon, vied for the imperial throne. The instability persisted until the reign of Leo III,
governor of the Anatolic theme, who successfully defended his title and implemented a series of
reforms aimed at consolidating the administration, including restructuring the thematic system.
However, tranquillity proved fleeting as chaos once again engulfed the realm following Leo's
death. His successor, Constantine V, faced a formidable challenge from Artabasdus,
the leader of the Opsikion theme, who sought to claim the imperial seat for himself. A brutal
civil war ensued, with thematic governors aligning themselves with either the usurper or the deposed
Constantine. The Armeniac, Opsikionion, and Thracian themes rallied behind Artabasdus,
while the Anatolic and Thracesian themes lent their support to Constantine. These conflicts
clearly illustrated the shift of power away from the emperors, with authority now divided among the
thematic governors and strategoi. These leaders held comprehensive civic and military powers
within their respective regions. However, their positions were precarious, lacking hereditary
succession and subject to the whims of often paranoid emperors. Any challenge or opportunity
to seize the imperial seat was met in such an environment with a ruthless and violent response.
The 11th and 12th centuries marked a high point of Byzantine civil wars.
Though the causes of this civil unrest are complex, with varying factors, at the heart
of this turmoil was the emergence of influential noble houses known as the Dynatoi. Although the
exact definition of the term "Dynatio" has been the subject of debate, it refers to the wealthy
landowners who rose to prominence during this era. These Dynatoi were typically members of military
families who had acquired vast tracts of land in Anatolia during the 7th to 8th centuries. The
lands had become relatively inexpensive due to the constant raids and invasions plaguing the region,
however, as the 9th century unfolded and the Macedonian Renaissance brought stability to the
region, the fortunes of these territories turned around, once again becoming lucrative. Thus,
large provincial magnate families appeared on the land, and by the 10th century and such families
as the Phokades and Maleinoi had monopolized the senior administrative and military posts in Asia
Minor and much of Anatolia, enriching themselves at the expense of the penetes, the much larger,
poorer, agrarian populace who had been the backbone of the Byzantine military and economy
previously. And now they had the power and influence to challenge the emperor's rule.
The Byzantine emperors soon realised the threat from these growing noble
families and attempted to curtail their rising influence. Starting with Romanos I Lekapenos,
legislation was passed to stop the activity of the dynatoi, this included agrarian reforms such as
preventing them from acquiring the stratiotika ktemata: the military lands allocated to the
maintenance of the thematic armies. Basil II, in particular, tried to limit the dynatio’s power,
perhaps encouraged to do so after the rebellion of the Phokades clan, headed by Bardas Phokas. Basil
II also punished the dynatoi who refused to comply with his demands, enacting a series of heavy taxes
such as the allelengyon, in an attempt to curb their influence. Ultimately, these measures
failed, as demonstrated by the rise of one of the most powerful dynatoi families, the Komnenids.
Even before the Komnenids' ascent, the Byzantine Empire faced significant instability.
The reconquest of the Balkans, an extremely ethnically diverse region, caused civil unrest,
such as a revolt of the Serbs' under Stefan Vojislav and the Bulgarian uprising led by
Peter Delyan. Simultaneously, the growing rift between the dynatoi and civil magistrates fueled
more internal conflict. The Byzantine bureaucracy, often headed by the emperors, actively distrusted
and undermined its generals and members of the military aristocracy, such as by removing the
day-to-day control of the military forces from the traditionally aristocratic strategoi and
giving it to the praetors. These actions spurred the strategoi to rebellion like Leo Tornikios
did against Constantine IX. The instability was further compounded by the Battle of Manzikert,
which dealt a severe blow to the Byzantine army, leaving the empire at the mercy of
scheming court officials and dynatoi families. These officials and families played a pivotal
role in the empire's instability, working against the emperor and state's authority
for their own benefit and often feuding with each other, which further eroded imperial power.
Rather than supporting capable emperors who could lead the empire, they lent their aid to
weaker emperors who could be better controlled. This was demonstrated when Romanos IV Diogenes
returned from Seljuk captivity, only to be betrayed by the Doukas family and forced to
battle the puppet emperor Michael VII Doukas, a war he lost that weakened the state even more.
By this point, the Byzantine Empire's central authority was extremely weak,
and the divide between the military families and state officials became almost insurmountable.
The increasing reliance on mercenaries, loyal only to coin, made rebellion even easier while
the mercenary dependency would see the rise of foreign mercenary lords on Byzantine land,
such as Hervé Frankopoulos and Roussel de Bailleul. The incompetent Michael
VII only exacerbated the situation, pushing his general Nikephoros III Botaneiates to rebellion,
a war he would ultimately win. This victory was followed by a series of continuous rebellions and
usurpations by the empire's various generals. Confidence in central Byzantine authority had
been destroyed, and the strategoi and dynatoi, alienated by the courtiers in Constantinople,
no longer felt any loyalty to the state. Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder,
Philaretos Brachamios, Nikephoros Basilakes, and Nikephoros Melissenos would all make plays for
Constantinople, with the holder of that city possessing the now symbolic title of emperor.
This state of chaos would only be ended by the ascension of Alexios I Komnenos to the imperial
purple. With the support of his own Komneni family and the Doukai, another powerful dynatoi house,
the cunning general usurped the throne before setting out to restore imperial rule
to the fractured empire. Alexios would defeat the cuman-backed insurrection of Constantine Diogenes,
the revolt of Theodore Gabras, governor of Chaldia, and the rebellions of Karykes at Crete
and Rhapsomates at Cyprus. In this manner, the grand Komnenian restoration commenced, heralding
a period of renewed stability for the beleaguered empire. However, as with the ebb and flow of
Byzantine history, this era of tranquillity proved all too brief, and chaos would once again reign.
Using discontent among the people at the regency of the Latin, Maria of Antioch,
one Andronikos Komnenos would resurface from exile, usurping the throne for himself.
However, his reign would prove even more unpopular, inciting the general Andronikos
Lapardas, as well as the Thracian and Prusan governors, John Komnenos Vatatzes and John
Kantakouzenos, respectively, to take up arms against him. Amidst the tumult,
Isaac II Angelos would emerge the victor, yet at the cost of irrevocable damage to the empire.
While the Komnenian restoration initially reinstated confidence in Byzantine governance,
the deep-seated mistrust and divisions that plagued the empire from the preceding era endured.
Andronikos's despotic rule and subsequent civil unrest completely shattered imperial authority.
As a result, Philadelphia, Tarsia, Laconia, Peloponnese, and Central Greece all broke
away from the empire. The newly crowned emperor was ultimately overthrown and blinded by his
elder brother, Alexios III Angelos, while a series of revolts erupted in Macedonia.
This catastrophic collapse occurred at the most inopportune moment, coinciding with the assembly
of the fourth crusade in Venice in 1202. The empire, already weakened, could not withstand
this storm. The provinces of the fragmented empire refused to aid the stranded Alexios,
and the city of Constantinople eventually succumbed to the might of the Crusaders.
Although Nicea attempted to mend the shattered pieces of the empire, it would never again be
the same. Internal tensions within the Palaiologos family, like the conflict between Andronikos II
and his grandson Andronikos III and the subsequent struggle involving the Kantakouzenos family and
the Palaiologi, further destabilized the empire. All while, the Ottoman Empire relentlessly
encroached upon its limited territories, gradually eroding its already weakened holdings,
until Constantine's great empire finally fell after Constantinople's fall in 1453.
The Byzantine Empire is one of the greatest paradoxes of the medieval age. When united,
as demonstrated by Basil and Alexios, it was a force to be feared whose power
seemed boundless. But ultimately, the Romans' empire, whether through scheming court officials,
powerful thematic governors, or great dynatoi houses, never proved able to unite for long,
instead descending into anarchy and civil unrest even while enemies eyed its territories.
As the relentless bombardment from Mehmed's cannons shook the walls of Constantinople,
Byzantine territories still remained in civil war. A chronic problem that prevented the empire from
ever eclipsing its unified predecessor and sealed its eventual destruction.
More videos on Byzantine history are on the way, and if you don’t want to miss them,
make sure you are subscribed and pressed the bell button. Please, consider liking,
subscribing, commenting, and sharing - it helps immensely. Recently we have started
releasing weekly patron and YouTube member exclusive content, consider joining their
ranks via the link in the description or button under the video to watch these weekly videos,
learn about our schedule, get early access to our videos, access our private discord,
and much more. This is the Kings and Generals channel, and we will catch you on the next one.