Читайте также:
|
|
The reduced and impoverished East Roman or Byzantine empire now had to
contend not only with an aggressive and extremely successful new foe in the east.
It had far fewer resources at its disposal, it had lost effective control in the Balkans,
and had no real power in Italy, where the exarch, based at Ravenna, struggled
against increasingly difficult odds to maintain the imperial position. The insistence
of the imperial government during the reign of Constans II on enforcing the official
Monothelete policy reflected the government's need to maintain imperial authority
and the views of those in power that the Romans were being punished for their failure
to deal with the divisions within the Church. But it also brought the empire into
conflict with the papacy and the western Church, as well as provoking opposition
within the empire, bringing a further degree of political and ideological isolation
with it. Through the reigns of Constans II (641-68), Constantine IV (668-85), and
Justinian II (685-95), Asia Minor was raided and substantial tracts of territory
devastated annually from the early 640s well into the first half of the eighth century,
with catastrophic effects on population, on the economy of the regions affected,
especially the border zones, and on urban life, which was reduced effectively to
fortified garrison towns. A series of sieges and attempts to break Constantinopolitan
resistance between 674 and 678 finally failed, and a major siege in 717-18 was
defeated with great loss on the Arab side. The situation appeared desperate enough
for Constans II to move the imperial court to Sicily in 662. His assassination in
668 brought the experiment to an end, but illustrates contemporary perceptions.
Justinian II was deposed in 695; a series of short-lived usurpers followed until
Justinian II himself recovered his throne in 705. Deposed again and killed in 711,
internal political and military confusion lasted until the seizure of power by the
general Leo, who became Leo III (717-41) and, having defeated the Arab besiegers
in 717-18, finally re-established some political order (Haldon 1997: 41-91).
Arab strategy can be followed through several phases. Until the defeat of the
siege of 717-18 Byzantine resistance seems to have been almost entirely passive,
limited to holding on to fortified centres and avoiding any open contact. During
the Arab civil wars of the late 680s and early 690s the emperor Justinian II was
able to stabilize the situation for a short while; but it was only during the 720s
that the empire was able effectively to begin meeting Arab armies in the field and
reasserting imperial military control. In the meantime, the Byzantine resistance,
focused on fortified key points and a strategy of harassment and avoidance, had
at least prevented a permanent Arab presence in Asia Minor, aided of course
also by the geography of the region. The Taurus and Anti-Taurus ranges were an
effective physical barrier, with only a few well-marked passes allowing access and
egress.
The Balkan front was also a concern for Constantinople. Technically, the Danube
remained the border even in the 660s and 670s. In practice, only the presence of
an imperial army could bring the local Slav chieftains, briefly, to heel. In 679 the
situation was transformed by the arrival of the Turkic Bulgars, a nomadic people
who had been forced out of their homelands and pastures around the Volga by
the encroachments of the Khazars from the east. They were refused permission
by Constantine IV to cross the Danube for protection on 'Roman' territory (the
Danube river itself remained in fact largely under Byzantine control because it was
navigable, and the imperial fleet could patrol it); they crossed over, where they met
an army under Constantine himself. Poor discipline and mistaken signals led to a
serious defeat of the imperial forces, and over the next twenty years the Bulgars
consolidated their hold over the region, establishing a loose hegemony over the
indigenous Slav and other peoples in the region. By 700, the Bulgar khanate was
an important political and military power threatening Byzantine Thrace (Haldon
1997; Whittow 1996).
Дата добавления: 2015-11-16; просмотров: 58 | Нарушение авторских прав
<== предыдущая страница | | | следующая страница ==> |
J U S T I N I AND J U S T I N I A N I ( 5 1 8 - 6 5) | | | THE EIGHTH CENTURY AND ICONOCLASM |