1. Historical background
The campaign of emperor Theophilos against the Arabs in Asia Minor in March - April of 8371 is inscribed in the framework of the Arab-Byzantine warfare which begun in the 7th century. The perpetual target of the operations, whose frequency was intensified during the 9th century, was the weakening of the adversary and the securing of the control of as many regions of the East (Asia Minor) and the West as possible. A temporary ceasefire between the Arabs and the Byzantines had occured in 834, mainly because the Arab al-Mut ‘asim (833-842) was occupied with the suppression of the Persian rebel Bābak inside his state.2 Theophilos decided to attack the Arabs first, probably encouraged by the presence of the Persian Nasr/Theophobos and his troops,3 supporters of Bābak, who, after his master’s defeat by the Arabs (25th December 833),4 had sought refuge in Byzantium. The victory of the Byzantines at Castrogiovanni in Sicily against the Arabs in the same year probably also strengthened the courage of the Byzantines. Nevertheless, the most decisive role must have been played by the contacts Theophilos had during the Spring of 837 with Bābak, who, during that period, was in a difficult position since all the Arab army was sent against him. In an effort to improve his situation, Bābak sent a letter to Theophilos, urging him to immediately attack the caliphate,5 having no fear of any important resistance and without also endangering the defence of the Empire with the participation of most of the themata of Asia Minor to the campaign.
2. Beginning and outcome of the campaign
In March of 837 Theophilos placed a powerful military force under his command,6 which comprised the troops of the themes of Asia Minor, the under the command of the Manuel, the Persians of Nasr/Theophobos, as well as regiments of Slavs and Bulgarians, in order to make another campaign against the Arabs. Having notified the Armenians for his arrival to the area and demanding them to pay him a tax, he invaded the Arab territory, most probably through the passage of Melitene.7 Initially he headed towards Sozopetra (Zapetra),8 which he conquered, releasing every Byzantine prisoner he found there. Then he ordered the whole male population who had fallen into the hands of the Byzantines to be put to death and, after pillaging and destroying the city, he moved on, taking the women and the children with him as prisoners. Then Theophilos attacked Arsamosata, which he also conquered and burned, and then he moved more to the north pillaging the suburbs of Melitene. The inhabitants of Melitene, having been informed of the fate of the two previous cities, came to an agreement with Theophilos, released every Byzantine prisoner they had taken during the two previous years9 and thus managed to save their city from destruction.10 Escorted by a large number of prisoners and having victoriously concluded his campaign, the emperor returned to Constantinople, where he organized a great triumph, during which he also participated in horse races. Furthermore, Theophilos ordered the construction of a palace at Bryas, on the Asian side of Propontis, to commemorate his victorious campaign.
3. Consequences
The successful campaign of Theophilos against the Arabs in 837 definitely strengthened the prestige of the Byzantines on the eastern front and uplifted the moral of the imperial troops. In the same time, it strengthened the economy of the Empire thanks to the prisoners and the loot the emperor brought back, as well as thanks to the amount of money the Armenians contributed, whereas the Armenian ruler of the area of Syspiritis, which neighboured the Byzantine lands of Chaldia, agreed to become a vassal of the emperor.11 The military victories of the Byzantines had an immediate impact on the Arab side, enraging the caliph al-Mut ‘asim, who wanted to take revenge immediately, mainly for the destruction of Sozopetra and the brutalities made against the population. Through this intensely loaded sentimental atmosphere he prepared his campaign against Byzantium, which he materialized during the next year (838), aiming basically in capturing Amorion, birthplace of the dynasty of Theophilos.12 As for Bābak, the victory of the Byzantines against the Arabs did not improve his situation, since shortly after (September 837), he was captured by the troops of the caliph and in January of 838 he was put to death. |
1. Rékaya, M., “Mise au point sur Théophobe et l’alliance de Babek avec Théophile (833/834-839/840)”, Byzantion 44 (1974), p. 56-57 ; Cheynet, J.-Cl., “Théophile, Théophobe et les Perses”, in Λαμπάκης, Σ. (ed.), Η Βυζαντινή Μικρά Ασία (6ος-12ος αιώνας) (Διεθνή Συμπόσια 6, Αθήνα 1998), p. 40. In contrast, Treadgold, W. T., The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (Stanford 1988), p. 293, dates the campaign in the summer of 837. 2. This revolt mainly aimed in the promotion of social reformations in the Arabic caliphate. It lasted from 816 until September of 837, initially under the reign of al-Ma ‘mūn, 813-833) and was suppressed by his successor al-Mut ‘asim. 3. Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Αικατερίνη, Βυζαντινή Ιστορία 2/1: 610-8672 (Θεσσαλονίκη 1993), p. 204. Nasr took the name Theophobos after he was baptised and it is under this name that he is attested in the Byzantine sources. See more in Rékaya, M., “Mise au point sur Théophobe et l’alliance de Babek avec Théophile (833/834-839/840)”, Byzantion 44 (1974), p. 43-67. 4. Treadgold, W. T., The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (Stanford 1988), p. 282. Vasiliev, A. A., Byzance et les Arabes 1: La Dynastie d’Amorium (820-867) (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae 1, Bruxelles 1962), p. 138, and Cheynet, J.-Cl., “Théophile, Théophobe et les Perses”, in Λαμπάκης, Σ. (ed.), Η Βυζαντινή Μικρά Ασία (6ος-12ος αιώνας) (Διεθνή Συμπόσια 6, Αθήνα 1998), p. 40, in general date the event in 833, whereas Χριστοφιλοπούλου Αικατερίνη, Βυζαντινή Ιστορία 2/1: 610-8672 (Θεσσαλονίκη 1993), p. 204, places it in the year 834. 5. According to Rosser, J., “Theophilos’ Khurramite Policy and its Finale: The Revolt of Theophobus’ Persian Troops in 838”, Βυζαντινά 6 (1974), p. 265, there was a previous alliance between the emperor Theophilos and Bābak, according to which the Byzantine emperor had to help the Persian rebel. This possibility is rejected by Rékaya, M., “Mise au point sur Théophobe et l’alliance de Babek avec Théophile (833/834-839/840)”, Byzantion 44 (1974), p. 54-55. 6. Vasiliev, A. A., Byzance et les Arabes 1: La Dynastie d’Amorium (820-867) (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae 1, Bruxelles 1962), p. 138, estimates a number of 70,000 to 100,000 men, whereas Treadgold, W. T., The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (Stanford 1988), p. 293, approximately 70,000 soldiers and 30,000 auxiliaries. 7. Treadgold, W. T., The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (Stanford 1988), p. 293. 8. Byzantine sources mention that Sozopetra was the birthplace of the caliph and for this reason the former asked the Byzantine emperor to be merciful towards the city. Vasiliev, A. A., Byzance et les Arabes 1: La Dynastie d’Amorium (820-867) (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae 1, Bruxelles 1962), p. 140-141, and Treadgold, W. T., The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (Stanford 1988), p. 440, n. 401, consider this testimony as a later myth, which was created in order to parallelize the fall of Sozopetra in 837 to the fall of the birthplace of Theophilos, i.e. Amorion, in 838. Hild, F. – Restle, M., Kappadokien (Kappadokia,Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos) (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 2, Wien 1981), p. 287, also believe that this myth was invented by the Byzantine historians in order to weaken the importance of the defeat of the Byzantines in Amorion, since the previous conquest of the birthplace of the Arab caliph appears as a reason for it. In the contrary, Άμαντος, Κ., Ιστορία του βυζαντινού κράτους, τόμ. 13 (Αθήνα 1963), p. 414, and Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Αικατερίνη, Βυζαντινή Ιστορία 2/1: 610-8672 (Θεσσαλονίκη 1993), p. 204, accept the information of the Byzantine sources as credible. 9. Treadgold, W. T., The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (Stanford 1988), p. 294. 10. Vasiliev, A. A., Byzance et les Arabes 1: La Dynastie d’Amorium (820-867) (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae 1, Bruxelles 1962), p. 139, mentions that Theophilos stormed Melitene too, something which is questioned by Treadgold, W. T., The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (Stanford 1988), p. 440, n. 401. Hild, F. – Restle, M., Kappadokien (Kappadokia Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos) (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 2, Wien 1981), p. 234, share the same view with Treadgold. 11. Treadgold, W. T., The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (Stanford 1988), p. 293. 12. Rosser, J., “Theophilos’ Khurramite Policy and its Finale: The Revolt of Theophobus’ Persian Troops in 838” , Βυζαντινά 6 (1974), p. 265, believes that the policy of supporting the Persian rebels inside the Arabic caliphate, which was followed by Theophilos, is the only reason for the caliph’s wrath and his harsh attack against Amorion. |