No More Learning

It was further an all-advised
step when Maurice in his later years (598 or 599) reverted, as Justin had
done before him, to a policy of religious persecution. By endeavouring
to force Chalcedonian orthodoxy on Mesopotamia he effected little save
the alienation of his subjects. It was left to Heraclius to follow Tiberius
in choosing the better part and endeavouring by conciliation to introduce
union amongst the warring parties. But the great blot on the reign of
Maurice is his favouritism towards incapable officials; the ability of men
like Narses and Priscus had to give place to the incompetency of Peter
and the treachery of Comentiolus. Time and again their blunders were
overlooked and new distinctions forced upon them. The fear that a
victorious general of to-day might be the successful rival of to-morrow
gave but a show of justification to this ruinous partiality.
But despite all criticisms Maurice remains a high-minded, conscien-
tious, independent, hard-working ruler, and if other proof of his
worth were lacking it is to be found in the universal hatred of his
murderer.
Other executions followed those of Maurice and his sons: Comentiolus
and Peter were slain, while Alexander dragged Theodosius from the
sanctuary of Autonomus and killed both him and the praefect Constantine.
Constantina and her three daughters were confined in a private house.
Phocas was master of the capital. But elsewhere throughout the Empire
men refused to ratify the army's choice: through Anatolia and Cilicia,
through the Roman province of Asia and in Palestine, through Illyricum
and in Thessalonica civil war was raging1: on every side the citizens
rose in rebellion against the assassin whom Pope Gregory and the
older Rome delighted to honour; even in Constantinople itself a plot
hatched by Germanus was only suppressed after a great part of the city
had been destroyed by fire. The ex-empress as a result of these disorders
was now immured with her daughters in a convent, while Philippicus and
Germanus were forced to become priests.
A persistent rumour affirmed that Theodosius was still alive; for a
time Phocas himself must have believed the report, for he put to death
his agent Alexander; furthermore Chosroes was thus furnished with a
fair-sounding pretext for an invasion of the Empire: he came as avenger
of Maurice to whom he owed his throne, and as restorer of Maurice's heir.
When in the spring of 603 Phocas despatched Lilius to the Persian court
to announce his accession, the ambassador was thrown into chains, and in
an arrogant letter Chosroes declared war on Rome. About this time1
1 Cf. H. Gelzer, Die Genesis, etc. , pp. 36 ff.


## p. 285 (#317) ############################################

603-609] Victories of Persia 285
also (603) Narses revolted, seized Edessa and appealed to Persia for
support. Germanus, now in command of the eastern army1, marched
to Edessa with orders to recover the city. In the spring of 604
Chosroes led his forces against the Empire, and while part encamped
round Dara, he himself made for Edessa to attack the Romans who
were themselves besieging Narses. As day broke the Persians fell
upon Germanus, who was defeated and eleven days later died of his
wounds in Constantina; his men fled in confusion. Chosroes, it would
appear, entered Edessa, and (according to the Armenian historian
Sebeos) Narses introduced to the Persian king a young man whom he
represented to be Theodosius; the pretender was gladly welcomed by
Chosroes, who then retired to Dara, where the Romans still resisted the
besiegers. On the news of the death of Germanus Phocas realised that
all the forces which he could raise were needed for the war in Asia. He
increased the annual payments to the Avars, and withdrew the regiments
from Thrace (605? ). Some of the troops under the command of the
eunuch Leontius were ordered to invest Edessa, though Narses soon
escaped from this city and reached Hierapolis; the rest of the army
marched against Persia, but at Arxamon, between Edessa and Nisibis,
Chosroes won a great victory and took numerous captives; about this
time, after a year and a half s siege, the walls of Dara were undermined,
the fortress captured and the inhabitants massacred. Laden with booty
the Persian monarch returned to Ctesiphon, leaving Zongoes in command
in Asia. Leontius was disgraced, and Phocas appointed his cousin Domen-
tiolus curopalates and general-in-chief. Narses was induced to surrender
on condition that no harm should be done to him; Phocas disregarded
the oath and Rome's best general was burned alive in the capital.
Meanwhile Armenia was devastated by civil war and Persian invasion:
Karin opened its gates to the pretended son of Maurice, and Chosroes
established a marzpan in Dovin. In the year after the siege of Dara (606)
Sahrbaraz and Kardarigan entered Mesopotamia and the country border-
ing on the frontier of Syria; among the towns which surrendered were
Amida and Resaina. In 607 Syria, Palestine and Phoenicia were over-
run; in 608 Kardarigan in conjunction, it seems, with Sahin marched
north-west and, while the latter occupied Cappadocia, spending a year
(608-609) in Caesarea which was evacuated by the Christians, the former
made forays into Paphlagonia and Galatia, penetrating even as far west
as Chalcedon. In fact the Roman world at this time fell into a state of
anarchy, and passions which had long smouldered burst into flame. Blues
and Greens fought out their feuds in the streets of Antioch, Jerusalem
and Alexandria, while on every side men easily persuaded themselves
that Theodosius yet lived. Even in Constantinople Germanus thought
1 Appointed to supersede Narses shortly before Maurice's death, the Emperor
being anxious to meet the objections of Persia.


## p. 286 (#318) ############################################

286 Plot and Counterplot [605-608
that he could turn to his own profit the popular belief. Our authorities
are unsatisfactory but it would seem that two distinct plots with different
aims were set on foot. There was a conspiracy among the highest court
officials headed by the praetorian praefect of the East, Theodoras:
Elpidius, governor of the imperial arsenal, was willing to supply arms,
and Phocas was to be slain in the Hippodrome. Theodoras himself
would then be proclaimed emperor. Of this plan Germanus obtained
warning, and for his part determined to anticipate the scheme by play-
ing upon the public sympathy for the house of Maurice. While nominally
championing the cause of Theodosius, he doubtless intended to secure for
himself the supreme power. Through a certain Petronia he entered into
communication with Constantina, but Petronia betrayed the secret to
Phocas. Under torture Constantina accused Germanus of complicity and
he in turn implicated others. The rival plot met with no better success.
Anastasius, who had been present at the breakfast council where the
project was discussed, repented of his treason and informed the Emperor.
On 7 June 605 Phocas wreaked his vengeance on the court officials, and
about the same time Germanus, Constantina and her three daughters met
their deaths.
Alarms and suspicions haunted the Emperor and terror goaded him
to fresh excesses. In 607, it would seem, his daughter Domentzia
was married to Priscus, the former general of Maurice, and when
the demesmen raised statues to bride and bridegroom, Phocas saw
in the act new treason and yet another attempt upon his throne. It
was in vain that the authorities pleaded that they were but following
long-established custom; it was only popular clamour that saved the
demarchs Theophanes and Pamphilus from immediate execution. Even
loyalty was proved dangerous, and anxiety for his personal safety made
of a son-in-law a secret foe. The capital was full of plague and scarcity
and executions: Comentiolus and all the remaining kindred of Maurice fell
victims to the panic fear of Phocas. The Greens themselves turned against
the Emperor, taunting him in the circus with his debauchery, and setting
on fire the public buildings. Phocas retorted by depriving them of all
political rights. He looked around for allies: at least he would win the
sympathies of the orthodox in the East, as he had from the first enjoyed
the support of Rome. Anastasius, Jacobite patriarch of Alexandria, was
expelled: Syria and Egypt, he decreed, should choose no ecclesiastical
dignitary without his authorisation. Before the common attack, Mono-
physite Antioch and Alexandria determined to sink their differences. In
608 the patriarchs met in the Syrian capital. The local authorities
interfered, but the Jacobite populace was joined by the Jews in their
resistance to the imperial troops. The orthodox patriarch was slain and
the rioters gained the day. Phocas despatched Cotton and Bonosus,
count of the East, to Antioch; with hideous cruelty their mission was
accomplished, and the Emperor's authority with difficulty re-established.


## p. 287 (#319) ############################################

608] Africa revolts under Heraclius 287
Thence Bonosus departed for Jerusalem, where the faction fights of Blues
and Greens had spread confusion throughout the city.
The tyrant was still master within the capital, but Africa was
preparing the expedition which was to cause his overthrow. In 607,
or at latest 608, Heraclius, formerly general of Maurice and now exarch,
with his viroo-Tpdrriyos Gregory, was planning rebellion. The news
reached the ears of Priscus, who had learned to fear his father-in-
law's animosity, and negotiations were opened between the Senate and
the Pentapolis: the aristocracy was ready to give its aid should a
liberator reach the capital. Obviously such a promise was of small
value, and Heraclius was forced to rely upon his own resources. But
he was at this time advanced in life, and to his son Heraclius and to
Gregory's son Nicetas was entrusted the execution of the plot. It is only
of recent years, through the discovery of the chronicle of John of Nikiou,
that we have been able to construct the history of the operations. First
Nicetas was to invade Egypt and secure Alexandria, then Heraclius
would take ship for Thessalonica, and from this harbour as his base he
would direct his attack upon Constantinople.
During the year 608, 3000 men were raised in the Pentapolis, and
these, together with Berber troops, were placed under the command
of Bonakis (a spelling which doubtless hides a Roman name) who
defeated without difficulty the imperial generals. Leontius, the
praefect of Mareotis, was on the side of Heraclius, and the governor
of Tripolis arrived with reinforcements. High officials were con-
spiring to support the rebels in Alexandria itself, when the plot was
revealed to Theodore, the imperialist patriarch. When the news reached
Phocas he forthwith ordered the praefect of Byzantium to convey fresh
troops with all speed to Alexandria and the Delta fortresses, while
Bonosus, who was contemplating a seizure of the patriarch of Jerusalem,
was summoned to leave the Holy City and to march against Nicetas.
On the latter's advance, Alexandria refused to surrender, but resist-
ance was short-lived, and the patriarch and general met their deaths.
Treasure, shipping, the island and fortress of Pharos, all fell into the
hands of Nicetas1, while Bonakis received the submission of many of the
Delta towns. At Caesarea, where Bonosus took ship, he heard of the
capture of Alexandria, and while his cavalry pursued the land route,
his fleet in two divisions sailed up the Nile by the Pelusiac channel and
by the main eastern arm of the river. At first Bonosus carried all before
him and inflicted a crushing defeat near Maniif on the generals of
Heraclius, thereby reconquering the Delta for Phocas, but he was repulsed
from Alexandria with heavy loss and suffered so severely in a fresh
advance from his base at Nikiou that he was forced to abandon Egypt
1 According to Theophanes the corn-ships of Alexandria were prevented from
reaching the capital from 608 onwards.


## p. 288 (#320) ############################################

288 Fall of Phocas [609-610
and to flee through Asia to Constantinople1. The imperialist resistance
was at an end and the new rule was established in Egypt (apparently
end of 609).
We have no certain information as to what the younger Heraclius
was doing during the year 609, but it seems not unlikely that it was at
this time that he occupied Thessalonica, for here he could draw rein-
forcements from the European malcontents. It is at least clear that,
when he finally started in 610 on his voyage to Constantinople, he
gathered supporters from the sea-side towns and from the islands on
his route. At the beginning of September, it would seem, he cast
anchor at Abydus in Mysia, where he was joined by those whom Phocas
had driven into exile. Crossing the Propontis he touched at Heraclea
and Selimbria, and at the small island of Calonymus the Church, through
the bishop of Cyzicus, blessed his enterprise. On Saturday, 3 Oct. , the
fleet, with images of the Virgin at the ships' mastheads, sailed under the
sea-walls of the capital. But in face of the secret treachery of Priscus
and the open desertion of the demesmen of the Green party the cause
of Phocas was foredoomed; Heraclius waited upon his ship until the
tyrant's own ministers dragged his enemy before him on the morning of
5 Oct. "Is it thus, wretch, that you have governed the State? " asked
Heraclius. "Will you govern it any better? '" retorted the fallen
Emperor. He was forthwith struck down, and his body dismembered
and carried through the city. Domentiolus and Leontius, the Syrian
minister of finance, shared his fate and their bodies, together with that
of Bonosus, were burned in the Ox Forum. In the afternoon of the
same day Heraclius was crowned emperor by Sergius the patriarch:
people and senate refused to listen to his plea that Priscus should be
their monarch: they would not see in their liberator merely the avenger
of Maurice, nor suffer him to return whence he came. On the same day
Heraclius married Eudocia (as his betrothed, Fabia, daughter of Rogatus
of Africa, was re-named) who became at once bride and empress. Three
days later, in the Hippodrome, the statue of Phocas was burned and with
it the standard of the Blues.
During 610 the Persians had been advancing westwards in the
direction of Syria: Callinicum and Circesium had fallen and the
Euphrates had been crossed. After his accession Heraclius sent an
embassy to Persia: Maurice was now avenged, and peace could be re-
stored between the two empires. Chosroes made no reply to the
embassy: he had proved all too conclusively Rome's weakness and
was not willing to surrender his advantage. Meanwhile Priscus was
appointed general and sent to Cappadocia to undertake the siege of
Caesarea, which was at this time in the occupation of the Persians. For
1 For further details see John of Nikiou, and for a map of the Delta cf. Butler,
The Conquest of Egypt, etc.


## p. 289 (#321) ############################################

611-613] The Struggle against Persia 289
a year the enemy resisted, but at last, in the late summer of 611, famine
drove «them to evacuate the city. They cut their way through the
Roman troops, inflicting serious loss, and retired to Armenia where they
took up winter quarters. In the same year Emesa was lost to the
Empire. In 612, on the news that the Persians were once more about
to invade Roman territory in force, Heraclius left the capital to confer
with Priscus in Caesarea. The general pleaded illness and treated the
Emperor with marked coolness and disrespect. His ambitions were
thwarted: he had gained nothing by the revolution and objected that
the Emperor's place was in Constantinople: it was no duty of his to
intermeddle personally with the conduct of the war. For the moment
Heraclius had no forces with which to oppose Priscus; he was condemned
to inaction and compelled to await his opportunity. In the summer
Sahin led his army to Karin, and reduced Melitene to submission,
afterwards joining Sahrbaraz in the district of Dovin. The Persians
were masters of Armenia. In 611 Eudocia had given birth to a daughter
and in May 612 a son was born, but on 13 Aug. the Empress died.
In 618 the Emperor, despite the protests of the Church, married his
niece Martina. In the autumn of 612 Nicetas came to Constantinople,
doubtless to confer with Heraclius as to the methods which were to be
adopted in the government of Egypt. Priscus also made his way to
the capital to honour the arrival of the Emperor's cousin, and was
invited by Heraclius to act as sponsor at his son's christening which
took place, it would seem, on 5 Dec. 612. Here the Emperor charged
his general with treason, and forced him to enter a monastery. In
Constantinople Priscus could no longer rely on the support of an army
and resistance was impossible. Heraclius appealed to the troops then
in the capital, and was enthusiastically greeted as their future captain.
Nicetas succeeded Priscus as comes excubitorum, while the Emperor
appointed his brother Theodore curopulates; he also induced Philippicus
to leave the shelter of a religious house and once more to undertake
a military command.
In the following year (613)1 Heraclius was free to carry out his own
plan of campaign: he determined to oppose the enemy on both their
lines of attack. Philippicus was to invade Armenia, while he himself
and his brother Theodore would check the Persian advance on Syria.
The aim of Chosroes was clearly to occupy the Mediterranean coast line.
A battle took place under the walls of Antioch, and there, after their
army had been strengthened by reinforcements, the Persians succeeded
in routing the Greeks: the road was now open for the southward march,
and in this year Damascus fell. Further to the north the Roman troops
held the defiles which gave access to Cilicia: though at first victorious,
1 This chronology, which is not that adopted by recent authorities, the present
writer hopes to justify in a detailed account of the campaigns of Heraclius which
will shortly appear in the United Service Magazine.
C MED. n. VOL. II. CH. IX. 19


## p. 290 (#322) ############################################

290 The Persians capture Jerusalem [614-615
in a second engagement they were put to flight; Cilicia and Tarsus
were occupied by the enemy. Meanwhile in Armenia Philippicus had
encamped at Valarsapat, but was compelled to beat a hurried retreat
before the Persian forces. The Romans were repulsed on every side.
But the worst was not yet: with the year 614 came the overwhelming
calamity of the fall of the Holy City. Advancing from Caesarea along
the coast the Persians under Sahrbaraz arrived before Jerusalem in the
month of April. Negotiations were put an end to by the violence of
the circus factions, and the Roman relief force from Jericho, which was
summoned by Modestus, was put to flight. The Persians pressed forward
the siege, bringing up towers and rams, and finally breaching the walls on
the twenty-first day from the investment of the city (? 3 or 5 May 614).
For three days the massacre lasted, and the Jews joined the victors in
venting their spite on their hated oppressors. We hear of 57,000 killed
and 85,000 taken captive. Churches went up in flames, the patriarch
Zacharias was carried into Persia and with him, to crown the disaster,
went the Holy Cross. At the news Nicetas seems to have hastened to
Palestine with all speed, but he could do no more than rescue the holy
sponge and the holy lance, and these were despatched for safe custody
to the capital. It was true that, when once Jerusalem was in his power,
Chosroes was prepared to pursue a policy of conciliation: he deserted his
former allies and the Jews were banished from the city, while leave was
accorded to rebuild the ruined churches; but this did little to assuage
the bitterness of the fact that a Christian empire had not been able to
protect its most sacred sanctuary from the violence of the barbarian
fire-worshipper.
In 615 the Persians began afresh that occupation of Asia Minor
which had been interrupted by the evacuation of Caesarea in 611.
When Sahin marched towards Chalcedon, Philippicus invaded Persia,
but the effort to draw off the enemy's forces proved unsuccessful. Asia
Minor however was not Syria, and Sahin realised that his position
was insecure. He professed himself ready to consider terms of peace.
Heraclius sailed over to the enemy's camp and from his ship carried on
negotiations with the Persian general. Olympius, praetorian praefect,
Leontius, praefect of the city, and Anastasius, the treasurer of St Sophia,
were chosen as ambassadors, while the Senate wrote a letter to the Persian
monarch in support of the Emperors action. But as soon as Sahin had
crossed the frontier, the Roman envoys became prisoners and Chosroes
would hear no word of peace.
Thus while Syria was lost to the Empire and while Slavs were
ranging at will over the European provinces, Heraclius had to face the
overwhelming problem of raising the necessary funds to carry on the
war. Even from the scanty records which we possess of this period
we can trace the Emperor's efforts towards economy: he reduced the
number of the clergy who enjoyed office in the capital, and if any above


## p. 291 (#323) ############################################

609-eig] The Avar Surprise 291
this authorised number desired residence in Constantinople, they were to
buy the privilege from the State (612). Three years later the coins in
which the imperial largess was paid were reduced to half their value.
But in June 617 (? ) yet another disaster overtook Heraclius. The
Khagan of the Avars made overtures for peace, and Athanasius the
patrician and Kosmas the quaestor arranged a meeting between the
Emperor and the barbarian chief at Heraclea. Splendid religious rites
and a magnificent circus display were to mark the importance of the
occasion, and huge crowds had poured forth from the city gates to be
present at the festivities. But it was no longer increased money
payments that the Khagan sought: he aimed at nothing less than the
capture of Constantinople. At a sign from his whip the ambushed
troops burst forth from their hiding-places about the Long Walls.
Heraclius saw his peril: throwing off his purple, with his crown under
his arm, he fled at a gallop to the city and warned its inhabitants.
Over the plain of the Hebdomon and up to the Golden Gate surged
the Avar host: they raided the suburbs, they pillaged the church of
Saints Cosmas and Damian in the Hebdomon, they crossed the Golden
Horn and broke in pieces the holy table in the church of the Archangel.
Fugitives who escaped reported that 270,000 prisoners, men and women,
had been swept away to be settled beyond the Danube, and there was
none to stay the Khagan's march. In 618 those who were entitled at
the expense of the State to share in the public distribution of loaves
of bread were forced to make a contribution at the rate of three nomismata
to the loaf, and a few months later (Aug. 618) the public distribution
was entirely suspended. Even such a deprivation as this was felt to
be inevitable: the chronicle of events in the capital does not record
any popular outbreak.
It was probably in the spring of 619 that the next step was
taken in the Persian plan of conquest, when Sahrbaraz invaded Egypt.
He advanced by the coast road, capturing Pelusium and spreading
havoc amongst its numerous churches and monasteries. Babylon, near
Memphis, fell, and thence the Persians, supported by a strong flotilla,
followed the main western branch of the Nile past Nikiou to Alexandria
and began the siege of the Egyptian capital. All the Emperor's
measures were indeed of little avail when Armenia, Rome's recruiting
ground, was occupied by Persia, and when Sahrbaraz, encamped round
Alexandria, had cut off the supply of Egyptian grain so that the capital
suffered alike from pestilence and scarcity of food. The sole province
which appeared to offer any hope to the exhausted treasury was Africa,
and here only, it seemed, could an effective army be raised. It was with
African troops that Nicetas had won Egypt in 609: even now, with
Carthage as a base of operations, the Persians might surely be re-
pelled and Egypt regained. Thus reasoning, Heraclius prepared to set
sail from Europe (619 ? ). When his determination became known,
ch. ra. 19—2


## p. 292 (#324) ############################################

292 Peace with the Avars [619-622
Constantinople was in despair; the inhabitants refused to see themselves
deserted and the patriarch extracted an oath from the Emperor that he
would not leave his capital. The turbulence of New Rome itself seems
to have been silenced in this dark hour.
In Egypt Nicetas, despairing of the defence of Alexandria, had fled
from the city, and Persians, disguised as fisher-folk,had entered the harbour
at dawn with the other fishing-boats, cutting down any who resisted them,
and had thrown open the gates to the army of Sahrbaraz (June 619).
It did indeed seem that Chosroes was to be the master of the Roman
world. About this time too (we do not know the precise year) the
Persians, having collected a fleet1, attacked Constantinople by water: it
may well have been that this assault was timed to follow close upon the
raid of the Avar horde. But upon the sea at least the Empire asserted
its supremacy. The Persians fled, four thousand men perished with their
ships, and the enemy did not dare to renew the attempt
Heraclius realised that in order to carry war into Asia there must at
all costs be peace in Europe. He sacrificed his pride and concluded a
treaty with the Khagan (619). He raised 200,000 nomismata and sent*
as hostages to the Avars his own bastard son John or Athalarich, his
cousin Stephanus, and John the bastard son of Bonus the magister.
Sergius had forced Heraclius to swear that he would not abandon
Constantinople, and the Church now supplied the funds for the new
campaign. It agreed to lend at interest its vast wealth in plate that
the gold and silver might be minted into money; for this was no ordinary
struggle: it was a crusade to rescue from the infidel the Holy City and
the Holy Cross. Christian State and Christian Church must join hands
against a common foe. While Persian troops overran Asia, penetrating
even to Bithynia and the Black Sea, Heraclius made his preparations
and studied his plan of campaign. From Africa he had been borne to
empire under the protection of the Mother of God, and now it was
with a conviction of the religious solemnity of his mission that he
withdrew into privacy during the winter of 621 before he challenged
the might of the unbeliever. He himself, despite the criticism of his
subjects, would lead his forces in the field: in the strength of the God
of Battles he would conquer or die.
On 4 April 622 Heraclius held a public communion; on the
following day he summoned Sergius the patriarch and Bonus the magister
together with the senate, the principal officials and the entire populace
of the capital. Turning to Sergius, he said: "Into the hands of God
and of His Mother and into thine I commend this city and my son. "
After solemn prayer in the cathedral, the Emperor took the sacred image
of the Saviour and bore it from the church in his arms. The troops
1 These may have been Roman ships captured at Tarsus and other harbours
at this time occupied by Persia.
2 So modern historians: but perhaps these hostages were given in 623.


## p. 293 (#325) ############################################

622-623] Heraclius invades Persian territory 293
then embarked and in the evening of the same day, 5 April, the fleet set
sail. Despite a violent storm on 6 April the Emperor arrived in safety
at the small town of Pylae in the Bay of Nicomedia. Thence Heraclius
marched "into the region of the themes," i. e. in all probability Galatia
and perhaps Cappadocia. Here the work of concentration was carried
out: the Emperor collected the garrisons and added to their number his
new army. In his first campaign the object of Heraclius was to force
the Persian troops to withdraw from Asia Minor: he sought to pass the
enemy on the flank, to threaten his communications and to appear to
be striking at the very heart of his native country. The Persians had
occupied the mountains, hoping thus to confine the imperial troops
within the Pontic provinces during the winter, but by clever strategy
Heraclius turned their position and marched towards Armenia. Sahr-
baraz endeavoured to draw the Roman army after him by a raid on
Cilicia; but, realising that Heraclius could thus advance unopposed
through Armenia into the interior of Persia, he abandoned the project
and followed the Emperor. Heraclius at length forced a general
engagement and won a signal victory. The Persian camp was captured
and Sahrbaraz's army almost entirely destroyed. Rumours of impending
trouble with the western barbarians in Europe recalled Heraclius to the
capital, and his army went into winter quarters. The Emperor had
freed Asia Minor from the invader.
Chosroes now addressed a haughty letter to Heraclius which the
Emperor caused to be read before his ministers and the patriarch: the
despatch itself was laid before the high altar and all with tears implored
the succours of Heaven. In reply to Chosroes Heraclius offered the
Persian monarch an alternative: either let him accept conditions of
peace, or, should he refuse, the Roman army would forthwith invade his
kingdom. On 25 March 623 the Emperor left the capital, and celebrated
Easter in Nicomedia on 15 April, awaiting, it would seem, the enemy's
answer. Here, in all probability, he learned that Chosroes refused to
consider terms and treated with contempt the threat of invasion. Thus
(20 April) Heraclius set out on his invasion of Persia, marching into
Armenia with all speed by way of Caesarea, where he had ordered his
army to assemble1. Chosroes had commanded Sahrbaraz to make a raid
upon the territory of the Empire, but on the news of the sudden advance
of Heraclius he was immediately recalled, and was bidden to join his
forces to the newly raised troops under Sahin. From Caesarea Heraclius
proceeded through Karin to Dovin: the Christian capital of the province
of Ararat was stormed, and after the capture of Nachcavan he made for
Ganzaca (Takhti-Soleiman), since he heard that Chosroes was here in
person at the head of 40,000 men. On the defeat of his guards,
1 The reader is warned that this paragraph rests upon an interpretation of the
authorities which is peculiar to the present writer. This he hopes to justify in his
special study (to appear in B. Z. June 1912) on the date of the Avar surprise.
CR. IX.


## p. 294 (#326) ############################################

294 Heraclius returns to the West [623-625
however, the Persian king fled before the invaders; the city fell, while
the great temple which sheltered the fire of Usnasp was reduced to
ruins. Heraclius followed after Chosroes, and sacked many cities on his
march, but did not venture to press the pursuit: before him lay the
enemy's country and the Persian army, while his rear might at any
moment be threatened by the united advance of Sahrbaraz and Sahin.
Despite opposition, extreme cold, and scarcity of provisions he crossed
the Araxes in safety, carrying some 50,000 prisoners in his train. It
was shrewd policy which dictated their subsequent release; it created
a good impression and, as a result, there were fewer mouths to feed.
It was doubtless primarily as a recruiting ground that Heraclius sought
these Caucasian districts—the home of hardy and warlike mountaineers—
for the sorely harried provinces of Asia Minor were probably in no
condition to supply him with large contingents of troops. This is not
however the place to recount in detail the complicated story of the
operations of the winter of 623 and of the year 624. Sahin was utterly
discomfited at Tigranokert, but Heraclius was himself forced to retire
into Armenia before the army of Sahrbaraz (winter, 623). With the
spring of 624 we find Lazes, Abasges and Iberians as Roman allies,
though they subsequently deserted the Emperor when disappointed in
their expectations of spoil and plunder. Heraclius was once more unable
to penetrate into Persia, but was occupied in Armenia, marching and
countermarching between forces commanded by Sarablangas, Sahrbaraz
and Sahin. Sarablangas was slain, and late in the year Van was captured,
and Sarbar surprised in his winter quarters at Arces or Arsissa (at the
N. E. end of Lake Van). The Persian general was all but taken prisoner,
and very few of the garrison, 6000 strong, escaped destruction.
With the new year (625) Heraclius determined to return to the
West, before he once more attempted a direct attack upon Persia. We
can only conjecture the reasons which led him to take this step, but it
would seem probable that the principal inducement was a desire to assert
Roman influence in the south of Asia Minor and in the islands. The
Persians had occupied Cilicia before the capture of Jerusalem; in 623
it would appear that they had made a raid upon Rhodes, had seized the
Roman general and led off the inhabitants as prisoners, while in the
same year we are told that the Slavs had entered Crete. There is some
evidence which points to the conclusion that the Emperor was at this
time very anxious to recover the ground thus lost. There was con-
siderable doubt however as to which route should be pursued—that
through Taranda or that by way of the Taurus chain. The latter was
chosen despite its difficulty, as it was thought that provisions would be
thus more plentiful. From Van the army advanced through Martyropolis
and Amida, where the troops rested. But meanwhile Sahrbaraz, in hot
pursuit, had arrived first at the Euphrates and removed the bridge of
boats. The Emperor however crossed by a ford and reached Samosata


## p. 295 (#327) ############################################

623-626] The Siege of Constantinople 295
before March was out. As to the precise route which he followed on his
march to the Sarus there is considerable dispute1, but there is no doubt
that after a hotly contested engagement on that river Heraclius forced
the Persian general to beat a hasty retreat under cover of night. It
seems probable that the Emperor remained for a considerable time in
this district, but our sources fail us here, and we know only that he
ultimately marched to Sebastia, and crossing the Halys spent the winter
in that Pontic district where he had left his army at the end of the first
campaign.
The following year (626) is memorable for the great siege of the
capital by the united hordes of Avars, Bulgars, Slavs and Gepids, acting
in concert with a Persian force, which endeavoured to co-operate with
them from the Asiatic side of the strait. Sarbar's ill success on the
Sarus led Chosroes, we are told, to withdraw from his command 50,000
men and to place them, together with a new army raised indiscriminately
from foreigners, citizens and slaves, under the leadership of Sahin. Sahr-
baraz, with the remainder of his army, took up his position at Chalcedon
with orders to support the Khagan in his attack on Constantinople.
Heraclius in turn divided his forces: part were sent to garrison the
capital, part he entrusted to his brother Theodore who was to meet the
"Golden Lances " of Sahin, and the rest the Emperor himself retained.
Of Theodore's campaign we know nothing save the result: with the
assistance of a timely hail-storm and by the aid of the Virgin he so signally
defeated Sahin that the latter died of mortification. Of the operations
in Europe we are better informed. From the moment that Heraclius
had left the capital on his crusade against Persia the Khagan had been
making vast preparations, in the hope of capturing Constantinople. It
was the menace from the Danubian provinces which had recalled Heraclius
in the winter of 623, and now at last the Avar host was ready. On
Sunday, 29 June, on the festival of St Peter and St Paul, the advance
guard, 30,000 strong, reached the suburb of Melanthias and announced
that their leader had passed within the circuit of the Long Walls. Early
in the year, it seems, Bonus and Sergius had sent the patrician Athanasius
as an ambassador to the Avar chief, virtually offering to buy him off at
his own terms. But since the spring the walls had been strengthened,
reinforcements had arrived from Heraclius and his stirring letters had
awakened in the citizens a new spirit of confidence and enthusiasm.
Athanasius, who had been kept a prisoner by the Khagan, was now sent
from Hadrianople to learn the price at which the capital was prepared to
purchase safety. He was amazed at the change in public feeling, but
volunteered to carry back the city's proud reply. On 29 July 626 the
Avars and the countless forces of their subject tribesmen encamped
1 There are difficulties in accepting the emendations of the text of Theophanes
proposed by J. G. C. Anderson, "The Road-System of Eastern Asia Minor,"
/. H. S. xvii. (1897), pp. 33-34.


## p. 296 (#328) ############################################

296 The Slavs [595-626
before New Rome. The full story of the heroic defence cannot be related
in this place, but one consideration is too important to be omitted.
Had the Romans not been masters of the sea, the issue might well have
been less favourable; but the small Slav boats were all sunk or over-
turned in the waters of the Golden Horn, while Sahrbaraz at Chalcedon
was doomed to remain inactive, for Persia possessed no transports and
the Roman fleet made it impossible for the besiegers to carry their allies
across the straits. Thus at the very time that the barbarian attack by
sea collapsed in hopeless failure, the citizens had repulsed with heavy
loss the assault on the land walls which was directed mainly against that
section where the depression of the Lycus valley rendered the defences
most vulnerable. At length, on the eleventh day after his appearance
before Constantinople, the Khagan destroyed by fire his engines of war and
withdrew, vowing a speedy return with forces even more overwhelming.
As the suburbs of the city and the churches of Saints Cosmas and Damian
and St Nicholas went up in flames, men marked that the shrine of the
Mother of God in Blachernae remained inviolate: it was but one more
token of her power—her power with God, with her Son, and in the
general ordering of the world. The preservation of the city was the
Virgin's triumph, it was her answer to the prayers of her servants, and
with an annual festival the Church celebrated the memory of the great
deliverance. Bonus and Sergius had loyally responded to their Emperor's
trust1.
This was indeed the furthest advance of the Avars. They had
appeared in the Eastern Alps as early as 595-596, and had formally
invested Thessalonica in 597; it would seem that the city was
only saved through an outbreak of pestilence amongst the besiegers'.
After 604 there was no Roman army in the Danube provinces, and
in the reign of Phocas and the early years of Heraclius must be
placed the ravaging of Dalmatia by Avars and Slavs and the fall of
Salonae and other towns. At this time fugitives from Salonae founded
the city of Spalato, and those from Epidaurus the settlement which
afterwards became Ragusa. A contemporary tells how the Slavs in
those dark days of confusion and ravage plundered the greater part of
Illyricum, all Thessaly, Epirus, Achaia, the Cyclades and a part of
Asia. In another passage the same author relates how Avars and Slavs
destroyed the towns in the provinces of Pannonia, Moesia Superior, the
two Dacias, Rhodope, Dardania and Praevalis, carrying off" the inhabitants
into slavery. Fallmerayer's famous contention that the Greek people was
virtually exterminated is certainly an exaggeration, though throughout
Hellas there must have been Slav forays, and many a barbarian band
1 The date of the composition of the Hymnug Acathigtus would appear, despite
an enormous literature on the subject, to remain still undetermined.
2 Pestilence had also served the city well when besieged by the Goths. For the
siege, cf. W. Wroth, op. cit. t. p. xxi.


## p. 297 (#329) ############################################

625-627] Heraclius and the Chazars 297
must have planted itself on Greek soil. But when all is said, the
remarkable fact remains that while in the Danube provinces Roman
influence was submerged, Hellenism within its native territory asserted
its supremacy over the Slav invader and maintained alike its natural
language and character. Thus towards the close of our period amongst
the chaos of peoples making good their independence of the Avar over-
lordship there gradually emerged certain settlements which formed the
nucleus of nations yet to be. Not that Heraclius invited into the
Empire Croats and Serbs from a mythical Servia and Croatia somewhere
in the North—Croats and Serbs had already won by force their own
ground within the Roman frontier—but rather he recognised and
legalised their position as vassals of the Empire, and thus took up the
proud task of educating the southern Slavs to receive civilisation and
Christianity.
In 626, while the capital played its part, the Emperor was making
provision for striking a conclusive blow at Persia. He needed allies and
reinforcements, and he once more sought them among the tribesmen of the
Caucasus. It is probable that as early as the autumn of 625 he had sent
a certain Andrew as envoy to the Chazars1, and in 626 a force of 1000
men invaded the valley of the Kur and pillaged Iberia and Eger, so that
Chosroes threatened punishment and talked of withdrawing Sahin from
the West. The Chazars even took ship and visited the Emperor, when
mutual vows of friendship were interchanged. In the early summer of
627 the nephew of Dzebukhan (Ziebel) ravaged Albania and parts of
Atrpatakan. Later in the year (after June 627), envious of the booty
thus won, the Chazar prince took the field in person with his son, and
captured the strongly fortified post of Derbend. Gashak, who had been
despatched by Persia to organise the defence of the north, was unable to
protect the city of Partav and fled ignominiously. After these successes
Dzebukhan joined the Emperor (who took ship from Trebizond*) in the
siege of Tiflis. The Chazar chieftain, irritated by a pumpkin caricature
of himself which the inhabitants had displayed upon the walls, was
eager for revenge and refused to abandon the investment of the city,
though he agreed to give the Emperor a large force raised from his
subjects when the Roman army started on the last great campaign in
the autumn of 627'.
1 The chronology of this paragraph rests in part upon the view that Moses
of Kagankaitukh Kal has effected some transpositions in the apparently contemporary
source which was used by him in this part of his work.
2 Our sources are agreed that Heraclius went to the Chazar country by ship.
The departure from Trebizond is on conjecture based on Eutychius, ed. Pococke, n.
p. 231. For a discussion of the authorities, cf. Gerlaud, B. Z. in. pp. 341 ff.
3 Tiflis subsequently fell: on the peace of 628 Iberia became once more Roman,
and Heraclius set Adarnase I upon the throne; cf. J. Marquart, Osteuropaitche und
oslasiatixche Strei/suge, pp. 400 ff.


## p. 298 (#330) ############################################

298 HeracUus marches to Ctesiphon [627-628
Heraclius advanced through Sirak to the Araxes, and, crossing the
river, entered the province of Ararat. He now found himself opposed by
Rahzadh, a Persian general who was probably advancing to the relief of
Tiflis. But though the Chazar auxiliaries, dismayed by the approach
of winter and by the attacks of the Persians, returned to their homes,
the Emperor continued his march southward through Her and Zarewand
west of the Lake of Urmijah and reached the province of Atrpatakan.
Pressing forward, he crossed the mountain chain which divides Media
from Assyria, arriving at Chnaitha 9 Oct. , where he gave his men a
week's rest. Rahzadh had meanwhile reached Ganzaca and thence
followed the Emperor across the mountains, suffering severely on his
march from scarcity of supplies. By 1 Dec. the Emperor reached the
greater Zab and, crossing the river (i. e. marching north-west), took up his
position at Nineveh. Here (12 Dec. ) he won a decisive victory over
Rahzadh. The Persian general himself fell, and his troops, though not
completely demoralised, were in no condition to renew the struggle. On
21 Dec. the Emperor learned that the defeated Persians had effected
a junction with the reinforcements, 3000 strong, sent from the capital;
he continued his southern march, however, crossing the lesser Zab
(28 Dec. ) and spending Christmas on the estates of the wealthy super-
intendent of provincial taxation, Iesdem. During the festival, acting
on urgent despatches from Chosroes, the Persian army crossed the Zab
higher up its course, and thus interposed a barrier between Heraclius
and Ctesiphon. The Emperor on his advance found the stream of the
Torna (probably the N. arm of the Nahr Wan canal) undefended, while
the Persians had retreated so hurriedly that they had not even destroyed
the bridge. After the passage of the Torna he reached (1 Jan. 628) Beklal
(? Beit-Germa), and there learnt that Chosroes had given up his position
on the Beraznid canal, had deserted Dastagerd and fled to Ctesiphon.
Dastagerd was thus occupied without a struggle and three hundred
Roman standards were recovered, while the troops were greeted by
numbers of those who had been carried prisoners from Edassa, Alexandria
and other cities of the Empire. On 7 Jan. Heraclius advanced from
Dastagerd towards Ctesiphon, and on 10 Jan. he was only twelve
miles from the Nahr Wan; but the Armenians, who had been sent
forward to reconnoitre, brought back word that in face of the Persian
troops it was impossible to force the passage of the canal. Heraclius
after the battle of Nineveh had been, it would seem, ready to make
terms, but Chosroes had rejected his overtures. In an enemy's country,
with Persian troops in a strong defensive position blocking his path, with
his forces in all probability much reduced and with no present opportunity
of raising others, knowing that Sahrbaraz was still in command of a
Persian army in the West with which he could attack his rear, while
the severity of winter, though delayed, was now threatening, Heraclius
was compelled to retreat. Chosroes had at least been driven to inglorious


## p. 299 (#331) ############################################

591-629] Restoration of the Holy Cross 299
flight: the disgrace might well weaken his subjects' loyalty, and any
such lessening of the royal prestige could only strengthen the position
of the Romans; the Emperor even by his enforced withdrawal might
not thereby lose the fruits of victory. By Shehrizur he returned to
Baneh, and thence over the Zagros chain to Ganzaca, where he arrived
11 March—only just in time, for snow began to fall 24 Feb. and made
the mountain roads impassable.
But with the spring no new campaign was necessary; on 3 April 628
an envoy from the Persian court reached Ganzaca announcing the violent
death of Chosroes and the accession of his son Siroes; the latter offered
to conclude peace, and this proposal Heraclius was willing to accept.
On 8 April the embassy left for Ctesiphon, while on the same day the
Emperor turned his face homeward and in a despatch to the capital,
announcing the end of the struggle, expressed the hope that he would
soon see his people again. It is uncertain what were the precise terms
of the peace of 628, but they included the restoration of the Cross and
the evacuation of the Empire's territory by the armies of Persia. It is
probable that the Roman frontier was to follow the line agreed upon in
the treaty of 591. These conditions were, it would seem, accepted
by Siroes (Feb. —Sept. 628), but Sahrbaraz had never moved from
Western Asia since 626 and it was doubtful whether he would comply
with such terms. Thus when the Cross was once more in Roman hands,
Heraclius was able to distribute portions of the Holy Wood amongst
the more influential Christians of Armenia—a politic prelude to his
schemes of church union—but felt it necessary to remain in the East
to secure the triumph which he had so hardly won. After a winter
spent at Amida, in the early spring the Emperor journeyed to Jerusalem
and (28 March 629) amidst a scene of unbounded religious enthusiasm
restored to the Holy City the instrument of the world's salvation.
On the feast of St Lazarus (7 April) the news reached Constantinople,
and Christendom celebrated a new resurrection from the power of its
oppressors; a fragment of the true Cross sent from Jerusalem served
but to deepen the city's exultation1.
Sahrbaraz however refused to withdraw his army from Roman soil,
and in June 629 Heraclius met him at Arabissus and purchased his
concurrence by a promise to support him with imperial troops in his
attempt to secure the Persian throne. Sahrbaraz marched to Ctesiphon,
only to perish after a month's reign, and thus the Empire was freed from
the invader. In September Heraclius returned to the capital and after
six years' campaigning enjoyed a well-earned sabbath of repose. It is an
important moment in Roman history: the King of kings, the Empire's
only rival, was humbled and Heraclius could now for the first time add
1 This chronology differs widely from that adopted by recent authors (e. g. Bolotov
and Marr).


## p. 300 (#332) ############################################

300 Character of Heraclius [629
to the imperial style the proud title of jSacriXew. The restoration of
the Cross suggested the sign which had been given to the great Constantine.
and Africa adopted (629) the first Greek inscription to be found on the
imperial coinage—the motto iv tovtu> vUa. This may stand for us as
a symbol of the decline of the Latin element within the Empire: from
the reign of Phocas the old Roman names disappear and those of Graeco-
Oriental origin take their place.
With these campaigns the period of the successors of Justinian has
reached its end and a new epoch begins. The great contest between
the Empires has weakened both combatants and has rendered possible
the advance of the invaders from the South. Spain has driven out her
last imperial garrisons, the Lombards are settled in Italy, the Slavs
have permanently occupied the Danubian provinces—Rome's dominions
take a new shape and the statesmen of Constantinople are faced with
fresh problems. Imperialist dreams are past, and for a time there is no
question of expansion: at moments it is a struggle for bare existence.
In his capital the old Emperor, broken in health and harassed by
domestic feuds, watches the peril from the desert spreading over the
lands which his sword had regained and views the ruin of his cherished
plans for a united Empire.
The character of Heraclius has fascinated the minds of historians
from the time of Gibbon to the present day, but surely much of the
riddle rests in our scanty knowledge of the early years of his reign: the
more we know, the more comprehensible does the Emperor become.
At the first Priscus commanded the troops and Priscus was disaffected:
Heraclius was powerless, for he had no army with which to oppose his
mutinous general. With the disappearance of Priscus the Emperor was
faced with the problem of raising men and money from a ruined and
depopulated empire. After the ill-success of his untrained army in 613,
by the loss of Syria and Egypt the richest provinces and even the few
recruiting grounds that remained fell into the enemy's hands. Heraclius
was powerless: the taunt of Phocas must have rung in his ears: "Will
you govern the Empire any better? " Africa appeared the sole way of
escape: among those who knew him and his family he might awake
sacrifice and enthusiasm and obtain the sinews of war. The project
worked wonders—but in other ways than he had schemed. Men were
impressed by the strength of his sincerity and the force of his personality
—more, the Church would lend her wealth.