How did the Byzantine reaction to the Arab conquest manifest and develop itself throughout the 7-8 centuries?

Thèmes abordés

Byzantine reaction - Heraclius - Arab forces - Egypt and North Africa

Résumé du document

The 7th and 8th centuries in the East have witnessed a complete change in the way the world was organised. Initially, the Roman and the Persian Empires were considered as the two main poles of civilization, while the rest of the population was seen as barbarians evolving around the Empires, and sometimes used as a weapon for these two to fight. As a result, warfare between Byzantium and Persia in the 7th century reached its apogee when Persia took the advantage over its rival and gained Byzantine lands such as Syria, Palestine and some territories in Asia Minor. This led to the Byzantine reconquest by Heraclius in 630, ended up by the return of the Cross in the Holy Land. However, the unity of the Byzantine Empire was not yet achieved – especially in a religious way – and while Heraclius tried to find a compromise with the reconquested dissident Eastern lands, a new actor emerged and ruined his efforts.

The Arab forces, even if fairly known, rose so quickly under the prophet Mohammed that their willing of conquest probably surprised Byzantium. In a decade, the Arabs put an end to the Persian strength by annexing Mesopotamia, the heartland of the Empire, and also conquered the Holy Lands, few years after the Byzantine reconquest itself. The Byzantine Empire had, after the fall of the Persian one, to fight for its own survival. Taking the Byzantines standpoint, this essay will aim to describe the Arab conquest from the death of the prophet in 632 and further explain how the Byzantine reactions were organised – and even at some point, were efficient – to the death of Constantine V in 775. The main issue at stakes throughout the 7th and 8th centuries was the control of some geographical areas, starting with the new Arab Empire (Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia), then Egypt and North Africa. The main battles occurred in Asia Minor, constantly raided by the Arabs, but also within the northern Syrian boundary, and Armenia, which was divided by princes' allegiance between Arabs and Byzantines. Constantinople remained the main target and catalyser of the Arab conquest, and thus occupied an important role in this warfare. The sea was another major factor to consider since the Arabs realised that the capture of the City would be possible only with a fleet. Having this historical, geographical and chronological context in mind, we can now fairly ask ourselves how the situation evolved for Byzantium, and how the new born Arab Empire influenced the Byzantine world, which had to survive, manage, and handle this new threat.

To properly quote the subject of this essay, how did the Byzantine reaction to the Arab conquest manifest and develop itself throughout the 7th-8th centuries?

Extraits

[...] Another explanation may be the dynastical crisis that made the Empire really vulnerable to strikes. It followed the death of Heraclius in 641 and finally ended up by the rule of Constans II. This internal crisis may have turned the attention of the authorities on what was happening in the east. And maybe the idea of reconquest was still in the mind of the Byzantines who may have thought that the Arab settlement in the East would not last. These Arab forces were not unknown by the Byzantines. [...]

[...] Ostrogorsky, Byzantine Empire in the World of the Seventh Century”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers (1959), www.oboolo.com converted, some were unrolled as soldiers, during the Byzantium-Persia warfare6. Indeed these two needed forces to fight each other and the Arab tribes were some kind of a glacis in the frontier. Furthermore, they encouraged them to hire other tribes: the more numerous the better. These tribes were rewarded in case of victories, and this wealth attracted other tribes, envious and seeking wealth as well7. At some point, and with the religious unity brought by Mohammad, the Arabs were now ready to cut an Empire for themselves. [...]

[...] Constantinople was more than ever The City, since the urbanism of the Empire was now really centred around it, with cities focused on them31. Leo III organised reforms to strengthen the Empire, and the priority was given to the army. The tegmatas were reorganised around Asia Minor to assure its defence: anatolikoi in the centre, armeniakoi in the north, thrakesioi in the west coast, opsikion near Constantinople32. Same for the Kaegi, “Confronting Islam, Emperors vs Caliphs”, 365-394 Kaegi, “Confronting Islam, Emperors vs Caliphs”, 365- Kaegi, “Confronting Islam, Emperors vs Caliphs”, 365- Louth, “Byzantium transforming”, 221- C. [...]

[...] Louth, “Byzantium transforming”, 221-248 Jandora, “Developments in Islamic Warfare”, 101- G. Francesco, ‘Greeks and Arabs in the Central Mediterranean Area', Dumbarton Oaks Papers (1964) Louth, “Byzantium transforming”, 221- Kaegi, “Confronting Islam, Emperors vs Caliphs”, 365- Kaegi, “Confronting Islam, Emperors vs Caliphs”, 365- Louth, “Byzantium transforming”, 221- www.oboolo.com We have seen that the situation at the end of the 7th-beginning of the 8th century was more complicated than during the first Arab conquest. The Arab Empire was strengthened but though suffered of internal crisis, as much as the Byzantine one, which gave some respite to the latter. [...]

[...] The Isaurian because of this crisis have been depicted as bad Emperors, which was not true, since they have been the ones to restructure the Empire, militarily and politically, and to reverse the trend with the Arabs. The Byzantine reactions to the Arab conquest have been different throughout the 7th-8th century. First of all, there were almost no reactions when the first Arab conquest happened. Several explanations have been advanced to explain why but it remains not very well known. Heraclius death has weakened the Empire and made it more vulnerable. [...]