Emperor Heraclius and his legacy

His victories on the Sassanids were impressive but his did not fare as well against the Arabs. He did save the empire, but he also lost its southern half.

I prefer Justinian but Heraclius is also good I suppose

Thessalonian said:

Heraclius - YouTube

He enlarged the Empire and his reorganization of the government and military were great successes. His attempts at religious harmony failed, but he succeeded in returning the True Cross, one of the holiest Christian relics, to Jerusalem. He also introduced Greek for official use by the State, which replaced Latin.

Is he anyone else's favourite Byzantine Emperor?

Click to expand...

I consider his era the most interesting of all the Emperors. IMO the "Roman Empire" was lost under his reign - but it wasn't his fault.

The war with Parthia had been handed to him by the 700 year long history of Rome's counterproductive and unnecessary wars with the Persians (in general) and by wacko general/Emperor Phocas' inept rule (in particular.)
It's hard to say if Heraclius ever had any other alternatives than to war with Khosrau II, but that war was one war too many for the Romans.

When Muhammad came marching north, the Persian Empire was completely broken and the Byzantine Empire was only in marginally better shape.

At the time, Heraclius was attempting to regain control of territory which had been under Persian rule for a decade and a half. There were many problems in the Levant and Egypt, meanwhile he still had the Turks threatening Constantinople from the north. At the same time, all the loans to fight the Persians were being called in by the Church, while also at the same time, he was obligated to pay his army off and allow much of it to retire - as far as they were concerned the campaign was over.

It was touch and go anyway, but the straw which probably broke the camel's back was his failed religious policies. He had clamped down on the Ghassanids because of their orientation towards Arianism and had sent their King into exile - his payback came at Yarmuk when the Ghassanids switched sides on the day of the battle and the Muslims prevailed.

The accord he had made with Miaphysitism was far too little and far too late. The Nestorians in the Middle east were much more comfortable under Persian rule and many of them jumped to the side of the Muslims at the first opportunity. But again, this can't all be laid at Heraclius's feet, the Chalcedonian persecution of Nestorians had been going on for hundreds of years at that time.

So, as good a general as Heraclius was, he was carrying too much baggage from the past to face the challenges that faced him.

Too bad so sad.

Niki86 said:

I prefer Justinian but Heraclius is also good I suppose

Click to expand...

Justinian began the processes that destroyed the empire under Heraclius: the religious persecutions and the war with the Sassanids.

Thessalonian said:

True that. His name is really Herculian though! Heracleios is the adjective that derives from Heracles (Hercules).

Click to expand...

To be fair, at the end of his life, he was ill and aging so he did not directly command his men. Still, this remains a stain on his legacy. I prefer Basil II or John II Komnenos personally. I've some difficulties to evaluate Justinian.

Eratosthenes said:

The war with Parthia had been handed to him by the 700 year long history of Rome's counterproductive and unnecessary wars with the Persians (in general) and by wacko general/Emperor Phocas' inept rule (in particular.)

Click to expand...

Was he really that bad, or did he just get the short end of the PR stick?

Kirialax said:

Was he really that bad, or did he just get the short end of the PR stick?

Click to expand...

If you were asking about Phocas; yes he was that bad.

If you were asking about Heraclius; had he been a better politician he might not have overseen the ruin of the Roman Empire. Did Heraclius get bad press? I haven't seen that.

Eratosthenes said:

If you were asking about Phocas; yes he was that bad.

Click to expand...

But what sources that do not have the clear taint of Herakleian propaganda (Chronicon Paschale, Theophanes, Nikephoros, George of Pisidia, maybe John of Nikiu, maybe Sebeos) actually suggest that he was a bad emperor?

Justinian and Theodosius I

Kirialax said:

But what sources that do not have the clear taint of Herakleian propaganda (Chronicon Paschale, Theophanes, Nikephoros, George of Pisidia, maybe John of Nikiu, maybe Sebeos) actually suggest that he was a bad emperor?

Click to expand...

You might have a point; but I doubt it. I am a connoisseur of acts of historical deceit, yet I see no reason to doubt the account of Phocas that has been handed down to us.

Do you know of any contrary opinion?

Eratosthenes said:

You might have a point; but I doubt it. I am a connoisseur of acts of historical deceit, yet I see no reason to doubt the account of Phocas that has been handed down to us.

Do you know of any contrary opinion?

Click to expand...

I see every reason to doubt that Phokas was as bad as the sources make him out to be simply because they are so poor, and so many of them date from the reign of Herakleios or his immediate successors and have numerous other influences that one can demonstrate to be from the propaganda of the Herakleian regime. The Chronicon Paschale, the Historia of Theophylact Simocatta, and the works of Theophanes and Nikephoros (who both used a source that drew upon officially-produced documents) all have very little to say about Phokas other than criticizing his usurpation and a few of his "crimes". More specifically, some of these "crimes" seem to have been little more than an attempt to eliminate the family of Maurikios and put his own people in positions of power. Now I wouldn't say that this was the nicest thing he could have done, but the fact is that Herakleios did the same too (and so have countless rulers, throughout history). However, it works to Herakleios' benefit if he eulogizes Maurikios and plays up the "crimes" of Phokas' regime, because he was every bit the usurper that Phokas was, and no doubt the people in Cosntantinople recognized that. Herakleios' regime also took religious propaganda much farther than most previous Roman emperors, and the accounts clearly set Herakleios in a role akin to that of David, as a God-appointed holy king. See the David plates and the "single combats" at the Saros River and the Battle of Nineveh for that. Religious imagery also played a major role in the siege of Constantinople in 626, which the regime eagerly embraced. Constantinople had always had to justify its patriarchal status against the sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as they actually had a connection to the early church. The "divine intervention" in 626 helped to secure the reputation of Constantinople as a God-secured city, and the Herakleios' regime was eager to exploit that in its rhetoric.

Kirialax said:

I see every reason to doubt that Phokas was as bad as the sources make him out to be

Click to expand...

I am already so saturated with cynicism and disgust towards the Roman Empire that I almost felt obligated to treat Herakleios' reign kindly, as it seemed to be absent some of the more blatant insanity seen in so many other emperor's reigns.

However, you raise what may be some valid issues. I may have been too generous to Herakleios.

For the sake of argument:

so many of them (tales of Phoca's evil/incompetence) date from the reign of Herakleios or his immediate successors ......... that one can demonstrate to be from the propaganda of the Herakleian regime.

Click to expand...

That isn't a very convincing argument. When else could the history of the The Herakleian regime have been compiled?

..................... have very little to say about Phokas other than criticizing his usurpation and a few of his "crimes". More specifically, some of these "crimes" seem to have been little more than an attempt to eliminate the family of Maurikios and put his own people in positions of power.

Click to expand...

I don't want to spend the time on researching this point, but I have read quite a bit about Phokas's incompetence and shortsightedness. I believe there are more allegations about him than you concede.

the fact is that Herakleios did the same too (was every bit the usurper that Phokas was)

Click to expand...

Not exactly, Maurice was a legitimate ruler, there hadn't been any (valid) claims of usurpation for over a hundred years at the time Phokas seized the crown. It appears that Herakleios could justifiably make the claim that he (or his dad) was throwing out an incompetent who had no valid claim to the throne.

it works to Herakleios' benefit if he eulogizes Maurikios and plays up the "crimes" of Phokas' regime, because he , and no doubt the people in Cosntantinople recognized that.

Click to expand...

True, but if that's the only evidence, that's not much evidence.

Herakleios' regime also took religious propaganda much farther than most previous Roman emperors, and the accounts clearly set Herakleios in a role akin to that of David, as a God-appointed holy king. See the David plates and the "single combats" at the Saros River and the Battle of Nineveh for that. Religious imagery also played a major role in the siege of Constantinople in 626, which the regime eagerly embraced. Constantinople had always had to justify its patriarchal status against the sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as they actually had a connection to the early church. The "divine intervention" in 626 helped to secure the reputation of Constantinople as a God-secured city, and the Herakleios' regime was eager to exploit that in its rhetoric.

Click to expand...

I agree with this in detail. However, it does nothing to rehabilitate Phokas' memory.

I appreciate your writing that last paragraph; it pulls me out of my self imposed denial about the extent of Herakleios persecution of any and all non-Chalcedonian religion. IMO this persecution was the salient issue which brought the end of the Roman Empire (Herakleios' intolerance.)

Herakleios' place in history should be right along side of Theodosius and Justinian; he was one of the three emperors who destroyed the empire with religious zealotry.

Eratosthenes said:

For the sake of argument:
That isn't a very convincing argument. When else could the history of the The Herakleian regime have been compiled?

Click to expand...

At any point givent he vast imperial archives in Constantinople and the evidence that we have (in the form of lead seals) that tens of thousands of documents circulated. However, after the Herakleian regime was extinguished, there was less to be gained in terms of imperial patronage and career advancement in writing praise of Herakleios.

Eratosthenes said:

I don't want to spend the time on researching this point, but I have read quite a bit about Phokas's incompetence and shortsightedness. I believe there are more allegations about him than you concede.

Click to expand...

Most of the secondary sources simply repeat what the primary ones say about Phokas with little or no interpretation or analysis. That is not the way that history should be studied, but the problem stems from the lack of other sources on Phokas. The more distant ones, such as John of Nikiu and Sebeos, have even less to say on him.

Eratosthenes said:

Not exactly, Maurice was a legitimate ruler, there hadn't been any (valid) claims of usurpation for over a hundred years at the time Phokas seized the crown. It appears that Herakleios could justifiably make the claim that he (or his dad) was throwing out an incompetent who had no valid claim to the throne.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what Herakleios' regime claimed, but the fact remains that he sailed from Africa (while his cousin Niketas sailed to Egypt to cut off the grain supply, should Constantinople not easily come over to his cause) to Constantinople with an army and executed the current ruler. It was largely bloodless, and he claimed it was for the good of the state, but it was still a coup.

Eratosthenes said:

True, but if that's the only evidence, that's not much evidence.I agree with this in detail. However, it does nothing to rehabilitate Phokas' memory.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, there is no evidence that Phokas was a good ruler, although Gregory the Great's letters are full of praise. However, there is good reason to be extremely skeptical of the account presented in the sources, since they have a clear agenda in denigrating him.

I appreciate your writing that last paragraph; it pulls me out of my self imposed denial about the extent of Herakleios persecution of any and all non-Chalcedonian religion. IMO this persecution was the salient issue which brought the end of the Roman Empire (Herakleios' intolerance.)

Eratosthenes said:

Herakleios' place in history should be right along side of Theodosius and Justinian; he was one of the three emperors who destroyed the empire with religious zealotry.

Click to expand...

I can't really agree with that. That same "religious zealotry" is what solidified the state and enabled it to create an ideology that would allow it to survive the early Arab conquests. I also see no evidence whatsoever for the idea that is commonly put forth that the "persecuted" Monophysite populations of Syria, Egypt, and the three Palestinae provinces were eager to go over the Muslims because they offered religious toleration. This idea was thoroughly put to rest by 1995 by Walter Kaegi who argued extremely convincingly that Syria and the Palestinae provinces were utterly indefensible and abandoned for later reconquest. The cities could not resist: they had no weapons (which were illegal for private citizens in the Roman Empire), and they did not have the defensive networks that the Mesopotamian cities had.

Kirialax said:

That same "religious zealotry" is what solidified the state and enabled it to create an ideology that would allow it to survive the early Arab conquests.

Click to expand...

"Rome" had survived for 800 years before Constantine adopted what amounted to a state religion. The state religion brought "Rome" nothing but war and divisiveness thereafter. Before 200 years had expired under Christianity, Rome had been sacked twice (by Arian Christians) and the western half of the empire had ceased to exist.

Re: "survive the early Arab conquests"; there most likely would have been no Arab conquest had Chalcedonian Christianity not balkanized the empire.

I also see no evidence whatsoever for the idea that is commonly put forth that the "persecuted" Monophysite populations of Syria, Egypt, and the three Palestinae provinces were eager to go over the Muslims because they offered religious toleration.

Click to expand...

I can't see how you could attribute the Gassanid defection to anything other than Chalcedonian persecution. I can't see any reason to reject the premise that the Nestorian population would have been friendly to any nation or religion which offered to protect them from Chalcedonian zealotry. I do agree that the Levant was militarily insignificant at the time.

This idea was thoroughly put to rest by 1995 by Walter Kaegi who argued extremely convincingly that Syria and the Palestinae provinces were utterly indefensible and abandoned for later reconquest. The cities could not resist: they had no weapons (which were illegal for private citizens in the Roman Empire), and they did not have the defensive networks that the Mesopotamian cities had.

Click to expand...

I have ordered Walter Kaegi's book "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests" as the subject of events leading up to Yarmouk are of central interest to me.

I find it interesting that Kaegi is from the University of Chicago - the center of the Leo Strauss Paul Wolfowitz school of philosophy. I have to wonder if there is any philosophical connection there. I am aware that there are people who would spin ancient history in order to justify current political practices.

I apologize for taking so long to respond. The amount of schoolwork I have this term is rather absurd.

Eratosthenes said:

"Rome" had survived for 800 years before Constantine adopted what amounted to a state religion. The state religion brought "Rome" nothing but war and divisiveness thereafter. Before 200 years had expired under Christianity, Rome had been sacked twice (by Arian Christians) and the western half of the empire had ceased to exist.

Click to expand...

Then what about the third century? And is there any specific evidence of decentralizing trends that led to the breakup of the Roman world as specifically caused by Christianity?

Eratosthenes said:

Re: "survive the early Arab conquests"; there most likely would have been no Arab conquest had Chalcedonian Christianity not balkanized the empire.
I can't see how you could attribute the Gassanid defection to anything other than Chalcedonian persecution. I can't see any reason to reject the premise that the Nestorian population would have been friendly to any nation or religion which offered to protect them from Chalcedonian zealotry. I do agree that the Levant was militarily insignificant at the time.I have ordered Walter Kaegi's book "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests" as the subject of events leading up to Yarmouk are of central interest to me.

Click to expand...

Mostly impossible speculation. The evidence for the persecution of Chalcedonians is also quite limited, whereas the case that the Levant had not even been fully re-occupied by Roman troops has been made quite well. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the peoples of Palestinai and Syria flung open their gates because they hated Constantinople.

Eratosthenes said:

I find it interesting that Kaegi is from the University of Chicago - the center of the Leo Strauss Paul Wolfowitz school of philosophy. I have to wonder if there is any philosophical connection there. I am aware that there are people who would spin ancient history in order to justify current political practices.

Click to expand...

Kaegi's work is quite dry and without reference to modern events.