Download PDF | Nikos D. Kontogiannis - Byzantine Fortifications_ Protecting the Roman Empire in the East-Pen & Sword Military (2022).
283 Pages
Introduction
This handbook is intended to give a general overview of the fortifications of the Eastern Roman State, also today known as the Byzantine Empire (a term attributed much later, and never used by contemporaries), or Romania (a name widely used in Western sources).1 It aims to cover the fortifications that were executed, financed, or built with the consent (or the tolerance) of a central authority, whose official ideology was the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East. This can prove somewhat ambiguous at times, as for example in the period after 1204, when different states aspired to continue the Byzantine/Roman line of succession.
I started from a number of questions – when were the fortifications built, how were they constructed and decorated, and how could they be understood in terms of defence and military technology? In the course of my study, I understood that it would be futile, and indeed boring, to speak of the monuments alone, without integrating them into the defensive system they were meant to serve; in other words, without asking the questions about who made them, who manned them, and why, since, in the words of Oedipus, ‘a vacant fort is [simply] worthless . . .’2 For many of these issues, however, there may not be adequate answers, at least not for all the periods and regions of the Byzantine Empire. And these two words, ‘periods’ and ‘regions’ are the first problems to consider when dealing with a state that survived for more than a millennium covering an area that fluctuated from virtually the whole Mediterranean basin down to a single city (Constantinople) and some distant territories.
Chronological and geographical boundaries that would help delineate the notion of the Byzantine Empire have been a continuous struggle for Byzantine studies as a whole. Multiple versions and periodizations have been proposed over more than 200 years of scientific research. In the English-speaking world one of the earliest notable efforts was Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon saw the Byzantine era as a direct continuation of the Roman Empire, and despite the fact that his view is no longer accepted or considered valid, the interest it created for the Eastern Roman State remains undimmed until today.
Currently, there seems to be a general consensus on a tri-partite division (with an added interim part): an Early Period (also known as Early Christian, Protobyzantine, or Late Antiquity) covering roughly the period from the 4th to the 7th century (its precise end date fluctuates since the eastern provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa were only gradually lost to the Arabs); an intermediate era, previously known as the Dark Ages, and currently referred to as the Transitional Period, which extends from the late 7th century up to the first half of the 9th century; a Middle Period, starting at the mid-9th century and finishing either at the late 11th century (including parts of the empire lost to the Seljuks) or 1204 (covering the rest of the empire which was dismantled during the Fourth Crusade); and, finally, a Late Period, in which a number of polities co-existed, each aspiring to the imperial legacy while struggling at the same time to extend their territory or avoid annihilation.
The end of the Byzantine Empire is usually set in 1453, when Constantinople, a shadow of its former glory, was finally taken by the army of Mehmet II the Conqueror. However, the last remnant of Byzantine polities in the Balkans (known as the Despotate of Morea) was only conquered in 1460 and its counterpart in Asia Minor (known as the Empire of Trebizond) did not fall until 1461, thus sealing the end of autonomous Byzantine rule. The beginning date of Byzantine history is even more difficult to pinpoint, since there was practically no division point or severe change that would help distinguish it from the former Roman times. Even if most scholars (and especially historians) opt for 330 (the inauguration of Constantinople) or 395 (the final division of the two parts of the Roman Empire),3 on closer look it seems that each discipline in the spectrum of Byzantine studies finds eventually its own dating system.
And this is done according to the internal socioeconomic changes that gradually altered the fabric of the Roman establishment and brought about distinctive new conditions. Theologians and architectural historians have already integrated the 3rd century into their accounts as a necessary first stage, based on the existence and spread of Christianity. Numismatists, on the contrary, go further down in 496, when Anastasios implemented a new coinage system that would prove stable and remain in use for centuries to come. When it comes to fortifications, one should bear in mind that they are always part of a defensive system and a set of practices that depend primarily on the territory they are expected to cover, the available resources, and the enemy they have to face. The vital concerns of central authorities are to deal with threats, to defend borders, and to protect the population within them. This means that the main factors for large-scale changes in fortification patterns come usually in the form of a dramatic appearance of new enemies or changes of borders, usually following periods of relative stability. Reacting to these factors influences the way in which the state organizes its fortifications as part of its defensive system, channels its revenues into building up its military, defensive and intelligence capabilities, and deploys them to protect certain areas, usually those most exposed to enemies.
Taking this into consideration, we come up with a more ‘organic’ way to envisage the later centuries of the Roman Empire and the transition point to Byzantine history. It seems that from the mid-3rd century, when the Roman state faced a series of external attacks and internal disruptions, new defensive conditions were gradually implemented, whose concrete form lasted for at least a century, up to the end of the 4th century. Within this framework all major centres of the empire received substantial fortifications, though the primary concern remained with the frontier territories. This system, usually known as Diocletian-Constantinian, although it took advantage of pre-existing fortifications, was significantly different from the earlier defensive strategy; that had focused solely on the frontier limes, the primary concern of the army from the times of Augustus down to the mid-3rd century.
The Diocletian-Constantinian system was in turn partially remodelled in the 5th century when the Balkan territory of what was then the eastern part of the Roman Empire required its own defences. In fact, the first period when we can talk about Byzantine or East Roman fortifications should start at the moment when there is a definite East Roman State patrolling its borders and protecting its lands. This was the case only after the state was divided between the two heirs of Theodosios I in 395; this division did not simply introduce administrative reforms within a single system – it involved a definite separation of the empire into two states with separate administration and defensive policies. This is particularly true for the Balkan provinces where there was a massive fortification programme in the early 5th century, one that was intended to defend against the Gothic menace, or even an attack from the Western Roman Empire.
The eastern frontier of the empire, however, did not experience any such change of borders. In fact, the fortifications of the Eastern Roman frontier seem to have survived without significant changes from the Early Roman conquest of the area down to the time of its loss to the Arabs. Indeed, when it comes to fortification strategy in the eastern provinces, the Early Byzantine period can simply be considered as a continuation of the Diocletian-Constantinian period. In the 6th century this same system was extended in order to include new territories added to the Eastern Roman Empire as part of Justinian’s conquests (North Africa and Italy). It was supposedly further strengthened by a new string of fortifications, if one is to believe the court author Prokopios. Following the immense territorial losses at the end of Late Antiquity, in the 7th and 8th centuries (Transitional Period), the Empire was basically confined to the larger part of Asia Minor, along with Balkan and (continuously shrinking) Italian territories.
However, many issues are still unsolved as to the extent of its real or nominal authority over these lands. The new territorial reality that was consolidated in the course of the 7th century led ultimately to a new defensive system, whose aim in Asia Minor was to contain Arab raids and counteract their military tactics, and in the Balkans to regain imperial control over invaded territories and counteract Bulgarian aggression. Some of these goals had been achieved by the end of the 8th or early 9th century, by which time the Empire had a reorganized military and administrative system. Recent research on many fortified sites is rapidly changing our earlier ideas on which places were walled at the time and how they functioned. The 9th century emerges as a period of stability, growing prosperity and reinforcement at all levels, usually interpreted as a preparatory period for the great achievements of the next century.
When it comes to fortifications, the early 9th century saw a series of robust public works aiming mainly to consolidate the power bases of the empire, the largest of these programmes being the one initiated or completed by Michael III in Asia Minor. These works were not a response to an enemy assault (as was the case with the 7th- and 8th-century walls), but were put into place as a visual proof of the state’s renewed vitality, a vitality that was expressed by the great territorial expansion that followed in the next two centuries. Yet the 9th-century state remained to a large extent confined to the restricted borders it had had from the early 7th century onwards, with some additions (in the Balkans) and even losses (such as Crete). We will therefore include the 9th-century fortifications as part of this Transitional Period since the works corresponded to a consistent defensive strategy.
The Middle Byzantine Period should be divided into two parts: the first covers from the 10th until the 3rd quarter of the 11th century. It is usually known as the Macedonian Renaissance, named after the dynasty that held on to power for an extended period during a time of expansion and prosperity in all sectors of life. At the end of it, however, the state practically collapsed under the weight of the civil wars and the establishment of the Seljuk states in Asia Minor. Even though the notorious Battle of Mantzikert (1071) seems to have had less strategic importance than is usually attributed to it, the annihilation of Byzantine control in Asia Minor was a fact. The second part, from the end of the 11th century until 1204, is usually known under the name of the ruling Komnenos dynasty.
The Byzantine Empire of this period was a notoriously changed state, which saw the building of walls as the basic factor of its defence. The amount of money and effort spent on castle building during this period is virtually without precedent, considering the restricted resources available. This also reveals the general insecurity prevailing in all the territories of the Empire. This was coupled with a radical change in its social organization – power was bestowed on large aristocratic families which controlled large estates and private armies. The Komnenos system survived for as long as the central authority had the means to control centrifugal forces, to demonstrate a will to defend territory, and to put into the field a military force equal to that of its adversaries. The collapse of this system from the end of the 12th century was marked by separatist moves aiming to create independent states.
The final blow was given by the Fourth Crusade (1204), the Latin conquest of Constantinople and the dismantlement of the remaining territories which were distributed among the Franks and Venetians.
Late Byzantine history is an intriguing and complex system of parallel stories of states, each acclaiming itself as an heir to the Empire. The Empire of Thessaloniki, the Empire of Nicaea (later in Constantinople), the Empire of Trebizond, the Despotate of Epirus, the Despotate of Morea and the Duchy of Neopatras were all political entities ruled by members related to the former Byzantine dynasties, which arose at some point as continuators of the Byzantine Empire. Next to them were several other states, like the Latin Empire of Constantinople, the Second Bulgarian Kingdom and the Serbian Empire, whose rulers also claimed to be Emperors of the Romans. Problems of political ideology, changing boundaries, constant wars for survival, and rising and falling dynasties were all bound in an extricable web for a period of almost three centuries; a web that was eventually to be dissolved by the Ottoman conquest.
These socioeconomic conditions led to the building of literally thousands of fortifications, in every form and every part of the Balkans, the Aegean and Asia Minor (that is, along its western and northern littoral). The difficulty in this case is what to consider as a proper Byzantine fortification, since almost all territories passed at some point under the rule of people who claimed to be Byzantine emperors. The constructions we see, built by conflicting parties, are indistinguishable, following Late Medieval war technology. We have to wait until the 15th century in order to see fortifications in the Aegean world that would have distinctive features pointing to the identity of their builders, such as Venetians, Ottomans, and Hospitallers. For our case, therefore, we will restrict ourselves to those fortifications which can be ascribed with some certainty to Byzantine rulers and their followers, either in the Balkans or in Asia Minor. By that time, however, the last remnants of the Byzantine Empire are usually considered as a lost cause, deprived of economic and military momentum, and simply trying to delay the inevitable.
Yet, until their very last days, the Byzantines were repairing and reinforcing their walls. These final fortifications tell a somewhat different story; rather than showing resignation, they demonstrate a degree of sophistication and reveal a knowledge of the latest improvements carried out in Western Europe. When one encounters the history of the Byzantine Empire, one sees how the state in every period evolved, transformed, and adjusted its institutions and its ideology, along with its size, internal organization, external policies, and enemies. However, at the same time it preserved its own identity and notion of continuity, hence we are correct in speaking of the same political entity, the Eastern Roman State acting as a continuation of the Roman tradition. The fortifications were a state symbol of strength and survival against its adversaries, an earthen boundary protected by the heavenly forces that preserved the Empire from the barbarians. This book is a modest effort to study and interpret the physical remains of these monuments.
However fascinating the history of Byzantine fortifications may be, it also involves a number of difficulties owing to the fact that more than a dozen states presently occupy the territories of the Empire, often inimical to one another; this means in practical terms that scholars of one region usually ignore all that has been done in another, with their accounts addressed merely to their local audience. Hence the necessity to take a general look at the subject, to try to combine data from various areas, and finally establish a concrete image of the defensive state of Byzantium at any given moment. Nevertheless, there has been an increasing volume of studies focusing on individual sites, in older or more recent times, of generic or more detailed form, reaching either general chronological conclusions (‘the castle was Byzantine’) or, more rarely, solid documentation of different construction periods. Indeed, this book will only deal with published material, and the aim is to bring together all the available material for a given period of time.
It will therefore deal also primarily with those examples where scientific work reached conclusions as to their date of construction, and their periods of use, and sites where these publications contain details as to architectural and defence features, such as masonry style, battlement shapes, arrow loop types and measurements, etc. Unfortunately, despite the huge number of preserved sites, only a small percentage fulfill these criteria, but there is still enough information to make the compilation of this book possible.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been a single predecessor, a first attempt to produce a general overview of Byzantine fortifications: the wellknown, though usually inaccessible, composite account by Clive Foss and David Winfield, entitled Byzantine Fortifications: An Introduction. This is one of the most peculiar and intriguing books, including in reality two separate accounts. The first is by David Winfield, who gave a general overview and a sketchy reference to the Asia Minor castles he considered to be Byzantine, based on his remarkable personal research. The second part, written by Clive Foss, dealt first explicitly with the walls of Constantinople and Nicaea, and then went on to give a general examination of some Asia Minor fortifications (mainly in its western part). Despite the shortcomings, this is the most widely referenced source for Byzantine fortifications. It was admirably seconded by Foss’s extensive record of publications on Byzantine fortifications of western Asia Minor, as well as by the concise article by A.W. Lawrence, ‘A Skeletal History of Byzantine Fortification’.
Among many other scholars dealing with particular aspects or periods of the Byzantine military record, one cannot avoid mentioning some of the great mentors of our times, on whose efforts this handbook heavily relies: the likes of James Crow, Denys Pringle, and John Haldon, along with the representatives of an older generation, such as Donald Nicol and Antony Bryer. I have particularly profited from the unwavering support of Michael Heslop and his first-hand knowledge of medieval fortifications. The late Slobodan C´ urcˇic´ completed his
opus magnus, Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Suleyman the Magnificent, alas shortly before his demise. With this invaluable resource for any student of the Middle Ages in the eastern Mediterranean, fortifications attained at last their proper significance, and were superbly examined within their socioeconomic context. Having started the compilation of the book back in 2009, I profited greatly over the years from, and would like to recognize, the help I received from friends and colleagues; although names are too many to mention, their support is humbly acknowledged, with the shortcomings of the final result remaining the sole responsibility of the author.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق