User:Cplakidas/Sandbox/Byzantine1

Painting of Emperor Basil II in triumphal garb, exemplifying the Imperial Crown handed down by Angels.

The Byzantine Empire had a complex system of aristocracy and bureaucracy, which was inherited from the Roman Empire. At the apex of the pyramid stood the Emperor, sole ruler (autokrator) and divinely ordained, but beneath him a multitude of officials and court functionaries operated the administrative machinery of the Byzantine state. In addition, a large number of honorific titles existed, which the emperor awarded to his subjects or to friendly foreign rulers.

Over the more than 1000 years of the empire's existence, different titles were adopted and discarded, and many lost or gained prestige. At first the various titles of the empire were the same as those in the late Roman Empire, as the Byzantine Empire was not yet distinguished from Rome. The massive crisis of the 7th century, resulting from the Muslim conquests, saw a drastic reform in the state's administrative structure. Nevertheless, the Roman tradition of a professional bureaucracy would be maintained, with minor alterations, until the second great period of crisis in the late 11th century. The imperial government and court were then reformed by Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081-1118), becoming centered around the ruling dynasty and the noble families of the Empire, which monopolized the higher offices of the state. It was this system that survived until the fall of the Empire in 1453.

Historical overview

early period The late Roman political structure recognized a role for the senate, army, people, and to a lesser degree the church, as is reflected, for example, in imperial ACCLAMATION and coronation. Within certain bounds, such as allegiance to the reigning emperor, some diversity of opinion might be tol- erated, but it was risky. Diffuse power persisted in the great cities' masses and, once the govern- ment had settled in Constantinople, emperors paid nervous attention to the FACTIONS and the crowds' acclamations. Nonetheless, even the serious NIKA REvoLT threatened the throne only when sena- torial malcontents attempted to graft a usuRPA- TION onto the disturbances. At this time power was securely anchored in the army, which pro- duced a majority of new emperors. The church became mired in doctrinal dis- putes with political overtones, like MoNOTHELE- TISM and IcoNOCLASM, and proved unable to thwart the imperial will. The last great revolt of the themes failed with THOMAS THE SLAV (820-23).

Middle period

From the late 5th century, with Anastasius I (r. 491–518), a series of civilian emperors, chosen by or from the palace bureaucracy, dominated the imperial office. This came to an end with the (usurpation of Phocas) multiple military crises of the 7th century, and generals provided most emperors, with the powerful strategoi themes launching rebellions to seize it. The 9th and 10th centuries were a period of reorganization and consolidation, in which the bureaucratic oligarchy and central military command competed for political center stage in Constantinople, reflected in con- troversy and codification of precedence and CERE- MONY. The church had increased its prestige andambition after Iconoclasm, but patriarchs who overestimated their political weight were deposed. By the 11th C., Constantinople's nonsenatorial population was flourishing again and began to claim a political role (S. Vryonis, DOP 17 [1963] 289-3 14; Lemerle, Cinq etudes 287-93)

Late period

The rise of the Komnenian dynasty (1081–1185) marks a watershed in the history of the Byzantine state. Whereas until then "institutions supplied the key criterion in each social element's relations to the emperor" and "even the lowest-born individuals could play a decisive role if they occupied an essential institutional position within the political structure", under the Komnenoi the state was transformed on a patrimonial basis, run by and for the benefit of the imperial family and its related clans. The burgeoning power of the urban middle classes and the church were severely curtailed, and kinship to the imperial family became the prerequisite for political power.

The fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Fourth Crusade (1203–04) ... The creation of a large number of more or less autonomous Latin principalities, where Greek and Frankish lines often intermarried and lasted well beyond the fall of the Latin Empire in 1261, left a legacy of centrifugal tendencies. Furthermore, "Direct intervention by foreign powers in Byz. internal politics becamea permanent component of the political structure."

The reconstituted Byzantine Empire of the Palaiologan period (1261–1453), although constantly shrinking, nevertheless, experienced the greatest decentralization of power in Byzantine history: autonomous appanages were created for imperial princes, while the grant of tax immunities, municipal franchises and inheritable domains (pronoiai) further diminished the central government's power.

As the emperors' power base and prestige contracted, that of the church expanded since patriarchal spiritual authority ran much further than the emperor's writ, allowing patriarchs and dissident factions to paralyze and even alter imperial policy, such as Union of the Churches.

In the 11th and 12th century for instance, some 80 civil and 64 military noble families have been identified, a very small number for so large a state.

The Emperor and the imperial family

Throughout the Empire's history, the emperor was the chief element in the Byzantine political system. Although an absolute ruler with authority over all areas of state affairs in both theory and practice, a Byzantine emperor's power was curtailed by custom and expectations of good and just governance; although personally above the law, he was expected to abide by it, as well as behave in a manner befitting a Christian ruler.

In traditional Roman political theory, as carried over into Byzantium—albeit never codified in law—an emperor was selected by three groups: the army, the Senate and the people, the latter usually represented by the populace of the capital, Constantinople. From 457, the Church became a fourth factor as the Patriarch of Constantinople acquired a role by being the one who crowned the emperor. The imperial office could be conferred by acclamation by one or all of the three groups, most notably in the case of rebels and usurpers, but had to be confirmed by the coronation ceremony, which in earlier times could be held at the Hippodrome of Constantinople or the Great Palace, but which was most frequently carried out in the Hagia Sophia.

The imperial office was never strictly hereditary, although the dynastic principle was adhered to and gradually gained greater currency, especially from the Macedonian dynasty (867–1057) on. Children born to a reigning emperor were, from the early 8th century on, given the title of porphyrogennetos ("born in the purple") to reinforce their legitimacy, and an emperor's sons were granted the highest titles, those of Caesar and nobelissimos. Gradually, it became established that a reigning emperor would nominate one or more of his sons as co-emperors, who would then be acclaimed by the Senate, army and people and crowned by the senior emperor himself. Power however continued to reside in the senior emperor.

Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos with his family: empress Helena Dragaš (right), and three of their sons, John, Andronikos and Theodore. John, as his father's heir and co-emperor, wears an exact replica of his imperial costume.

The shift into the middle Byzantine period becomes evident with the adoption of the form basileus in official titelature from 629 on, to the gradual exclusion of the older Latin titles. The title autokratōr was added from the 8th century to denote the senior of several co-emperors, i.e. the one who held actual power, while from the 9th century on the senior emperor is often designated megas basileus (megas meaning "great").

The empress was usually designated by the Latin title augousta rather than the Greek basilissa.

Court and palace

The emperor's main seat in the early and middle periods was the Great Palace of Constantinople, a vast complex of buildings on Constantinople's south-eastern tip. This was the seat of the legitimate imperial power, and the scene for most ceremonies surrounding the emperor. The old Great Palace complex was mostly abandoned as a living space in the middle Byzantine period, when the day-to-day life of the court relocated to the Boukoleon Palace to the south and eventually, under the Komnenian and Palaiologan emperors, to the Blachernae Palace on the other side of the city, but it was still maintained and used for imperial ceremonies until the sack of 1204 by the Crusaders.

Ceremonial was central to palace life: in the Byzantines' view, as expressed most famously in the 10th-century De Ceremoniis, a book on imperial ceremonies compiled by Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (r. 913–959), the order expressed in the imperial ceremonial was meant to mirror on earth the divine order of Heaven, to encourage loyalty in the population, and inspire awe and admiration in foreigners. Most of the information on the palace and its workings comes from a series of manuals on ceremonies, from the 6th-century works of Peter the Patrician to the Kletorologion of 899 and the aforementioned De Ceremoniis.

The most important element in the Great Palace were the eunuchs, who were regarded as reliable because their deformity not only made them safe to deal with the women of the imperial family, but most importantly because it debarred them from holding the imperial office themselves. Their importance was such that they were often tasked with senior government or military posts, except for those of the Eparch of Constantinople, the koiaistōr and the Domestic of the Schools.

The palatine establishment was headed by the praepositus sacri cubiculi ("foreman of the sacred bedchamber") and the castrensis sacri palatii. The former controlled the servants of the imperial quarters (mostly eunuchs), including the servants of the imperial bedchamber (the cubicularii, under the primicerius sacri cubiculi) and the imperial wardrobe (the vestiarium, under the comes sacrae vestis), while the latter supervised the scribes, clerks, cooks, et. of the palace.

In the middle Byzantine period, the duty of personal attendance to the emperor passed from the praepositus and his cubicularii—which became honourary dignities—to the koitōnitai, i.e. the servants of the koitōn, the imperial bedchamber, under the parakoimōmenos. The prōtovestiarios handled the imperial wardrobe and private purse, the epi tes trapezes was responsible for the imperial table, the pinkernēs was the emperor's cup-holder, while the papias handled security and maintenance in the imperial palaces. The palace's security was guaranteed by two army units, the Vigla and the Hetaireia, while smaller security corps included the manglabitai and, in the early 11th century, the pantheōtai. The spatharioi and kandidatoi, formerly imperial bodyguards, gradually became honourary dignities over the same period. The imperial stables and grooms (stratores) were headed by the prōtostratōr. The palace staff also included the imperial chancery, headed by the prōtasēkrētis. Special positions were the epi tēs katastaseōs, who was responsible for supervising the palace ceremonies, and the epi tou kanikleiou, the keeper of the imperial inkpot, who collaborated with the prōtasēkrētis in finalizing imperial documents. These high officials were joined by hundreds of simple servants and attendants, including slaves, as well as the staff of the Hippodrome and the demoi, who were closely involved in the imperial ceremonial. In total, the palace personnel in the middle Byzantine period has been estimated to between one and two thousand.

Mystikos???

Basileopatōr (βασιλεοπάτωρ)– "Father of the Emperor": an exceptional title, granted only twice in Byzantine history. Although a basileopatōr was not the emperor's actual father, and not necessarily denoting any familial relationship at all, both awardees were father-in-laws to the emperor: Stylianos Zaoutzes under Leo VI the Wise and Romanos I Lekapenos briefly as regent for Constantine VII, before he raised himself to co-emperor. It ranked first among the "decreed" offices, and entailed wide-ranging administrative duties.

Administration of Constantinople

Constantinople was of singular importance to the Byzantines: as ancient Rome had been the "urbs", "the City", centre and heart of the Roman Empire, Constantinople or "New Rome" was the polis, "the City" par excellence. It was the seat of the imperial government, of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and, after the Muslim conquests, the largest city in the Empire; it was guarded by God, and its possession conferred the ultimate legitimacy to an emperor; it was also the "New Jerusalem", with its collection of shrines, the Hagia Sophia chief among them.

As the imperial capital and "New Rome", since 359 Constantinople had its own urban prefect, better known in English as the "Eparch of the City" (eparchos [tēs] poleōs). This official enjoyed wide-ranging powers, so much that Michael Psellos described it as "an imperial dignity, lacking only the purple": the Eparch was the governor and supreme judge for Constantinople and its surrounding area, as well as bearing the responsibility for the city's supply and the regulation of the city's guilds and commerce, as detailed in the early 10th-century Book of the Eparch.

In his judicial capacity, he headed the kritai tōn regeōnōn or neighbourhood judges; in his gubernatorial duties, his chief aides were the logothetēs tou praitōriou, who functioned as a sort of head of police, and the twelve geitoniarchai or "neighbourhood heads" of the city; in his relations with the guilds, he was assisted by the symponos; and the parathalassitēs supervised the seaborne commerce in the city's harbours. Aside from the Eparch and his staff, there were also the four "circus factions" or "demes" (dēmoi) of the Blues (Venetoi), Greens (Prasinoi), Reds (Rousioi) and Whites (Leukoi). Originally chariot racing factions, by the 9th century they were imperially-sponsored clubs who participated in the ceremonies held at the Hippodrome of Constantinople. Each was headed by a dēmarchos and a geitoniarchēs.

In the Palaiologan period, the office of the Eparch was replaced by several kephalatikeuontes (sing. kephalatikeuōn, κεφαλατικεύων, "headsman"), who each oversaw a district in the now much less populous capital.

Central government

The emperor was his own head of government, but throughout Byzantine history, a number of influential and trusted individuals could rise to occupy a position analogous to that of a chief minister, a post described in the middle and later periods as paradynasteuōn or mesazōn. The comparison of these men with a modern prime minister should not be taken too far: their position was informal and ad hoc, as their powers were never codified by law and were entirely subject to the whim of the emperor, who entrusted them with diverse areas of responsibility—and dismissed them—as he saw fit.

In keeping with Roman law and tradition, the senior government posts were the preserve of the emperor, who appointed their holders for specific tenures. Lower posts in both the civil service and the army, on the other hand, could be purchased and were for life. An individual could purchase his entry into the lists of a service (strateia, Latin militia). Their pay varied: some officials received a regular salary from the state (roga), while others were reimbursed by allocating to them taxation from the province they served in, or through fees paid by the citizens for regulating their affairs.

By a combination of design and historical accident, however, the extreme fragmentation of functions and power (9th- 10th-C. finances alone an asset indispensable for revolution were divided among nine separate officials and subordinate services, each of which reported directly to the emperor) as well as overlapping jurisdictions, the combination of disparate competences, and the fact that offices were held at imperial pleasure made it difficult for the bureaucracy to unite in opposing the emperor

In administrative terms, the change involved the gradual transition from the late Roman system of a few large, multi-tiered ministries with far-reaching and often overlapping responsibilities, as well as a strict separation of military and civil offices, to the creation of several higher departments with a narrower scope, directly subordinate to the emperor, and the mixture of civil and military responsibilities in the provinces, whose governors were also made directly answerable to the emperor. It is characteristic that while the Eastern Roman Empire in the late 4th century counted 22 high-level officials, the far smaller state of the 9th century had around sixty.

Fiscal departments

The quintessential image of early Byzantine imperial power: Emperor Justinian and his entourage, from the basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna. To the emperor's right are ecclesiastical dignitaries, while to his left stand two courtiers with the rank of patrician, and a number of scholares guards.

The imperial government essentially consisted of a small number of large ministries, and the palatine departments. The senior functionaries of the Empire formed the consistorium, which corresponds to the cabinet of the Empire.

• The praefectus praetorio ("praetorian prefect"; Greek: ἔπαρχος/ὕπαρχος τῶν πραιτωρίων), actually the prefect of the East, who was headquartered in Constantinople and controlled the largest of the Eastern Empire's praetorian prefectures. His duties were those of an interior minister, and quite extensive, embracing administrative, financial, judicial, and even legislative spheres. The provincial governors were appointed at his recommendation, and with him rested their dismissal, subject to the Emperor's approval. He received regular reports of the administration from the governors of the provinces. He had treasuries of his own, and the payment and the food supplies of the army devolved upon him. He was also a supreme judge of appeal; in cases which were brought before his court from a lower tribunal there was no further appeal to the Emperor. He could issue, on his own authority, praetorian edicts, but they concerned only matters of detail.
• The comes sacrarum largitionum ("count of the sacred largesses"), of illustris rank, essentially the Empire's finance minister. His office included ten subordinate departments (scrinia), and an office in each diocese, controlling taxation, the mines, customs, and some state factories.
• The comes rerum privatarum ("count of the private estates"), of illustris rank, in charge of the imperial estates. His office included five subordinate departments and officials at diocesan and provincial levels, as well as individual administrators supervising a group of estates.
• The magister officiorum ("master of offices"), perhaps the most important official after the praetorian prefect, was in charge of the palatine administration, as well as the nominal superior of the palace guard, the scholae palatinae. His power was strengthened by his control over the Public Post (cursus publicus), and the dreaded agentes in rebus. Gradually, his authority was also extended over the border garrisons (limitanei) and the imperial arms factories (fabricae).

Emperor Theophilos flanked by courtiers. From the Skylitzes Chronicle.

The middle period is characterized by a number of smaller departments (σέκρετα, sekreta, or λογοθέσια, logothesia), which had resulted from the breakup of the early Byzantine ministries, chiefly the praetorian prefecture and the bureaux of the magister officiorum. The logothesia were overseen by the sakellarios (σακελλάριος), who functioned as the general comptroller of finances with agents in each department. After the sakellarios, the main department heads were:

• the logothetēs tou genikou, head of the genikon [logothesion] ("General [Fisc]"), manly responsible for the land tax and commerce duties
• the logothetēs tou dromou, head of the dromos ("Course"), responsible for communications and the reception of embassies
• the logothetēs tou stratiōtikou, head of the stratiōtikon [logothesion] ("Military [Fisc]"), responsible for the payment of the army and the maintenance of the army lists and lands allocated to soldiers
• the logothetēs tōn agelōn, responsible for the army's stud farms and herds
• the chartoularios tou sakelliou, head of the sakellion (State Treasury) proper
• the chartoularios tou vestiariou, head of the vestiarion ("[Public] Wardrobe"), in charge of supplies for the imperial fleet
• the epi tou eidikou, head of the eidikon ("Special [Purse]") supervising the imperial treasury, factories, storehouses and monopolies

In addition, there were a number of high officials administering imperial property and foundations: the megas kouratōr administered the imperial estates in the provinces and the imperial palaces in the suburbs of Constantinople, the kouratōr of the Mangana administered the imperial properties located there, while the orphanotrophos was responsible for the orphanage of Saint Paul in Constantinople. In the early 11th century, the "steward of the pious houses" (oikonomos tōn euagōn oikōn) was created to oversee the numerous imperial foundations in and around Constantinople, such as hospices for the poor and elderly, attached to imperially-sponsored monasteries.

Justice and law

• The quaestor sacri palatii ("quaestor of the sacred palace"), the Empire's chief legal authority, advised the emperor on legal matters and helped in the drafting of laws, and functioned as one of the supreme judges in his stead.

Provincial government

Local power was controlled as tightly as possible from Constantinople, whence came the gover- nors, tax registrars, and inspectors; the emperor saw to it that judicial appeals were made from the provinces and the general effect was administra- tion from above. At the same time, however, eth- nic colonies within the empire might enjoy autonomy (e.g., SKLAVINIAI). Provincial cities possessed a relatively extensive self-administration, although an imperial governor from Constantinople was often present. The significance of cities in the political structure was greatest from the 4th to the 6th C. and esp. in late Byz., when some were able to extract privileges from the emperor."

The administrative structure of the Roman Empire at the time of the Notitia Dignitatum, ca. 400 AD

• The vicarius ("vicar [of the praetorian prefect]") was the governor of a diocese
• The proconsul was a rank bestowed on the governors of a few provinces of particular importance. These were not subordinated to the vicarii of the adjacent dioceses, but directly to the praetorian prefects.
• The provincial governors held various ranks: consularis, corrector, praeses. Justinian I also revived the rank of praetor for the governor of Paphlagonia, and instituted that of moderator for Helenopontus.
• The exarch (ἔξαρχος, exarchos) was a new office, instituted by Maurice, and given to governors of remote parts of the empire such as Italy or Africa, which were under constant military threat and where civil authority had already de facto devolved into the hands of the local military commander or magister militum. The establishment of the exarchates marked the first systematic breach of the long-established division of civil and military authority. They enjoyed a greater degree of independence than other provincial governors, combining both civil and military authority, practically acting as viceroys.

Thematic administration

Main article: Thema

The thematic structure of the Byzantine Empire at the death of Basil II, 1025 AD.

The themata ("themes") were military-civilian provinces, originally established as army settlement and provisioning areas over the old provincial system. Traces of the old system survived until the early 9th century: in the Taktikon Uspensky (ca. 842), thematic anthypatoi kai eparchoi or praitores are still listed, functioning as civil governors. They were still under the authority of the praetorian prefect in Constantinople, whose once extensive authority had now dwindled to the supervision of parts of the administration of the provinces and the supply of the troops based there. By the time of the Klētorologion however, these provincial officials had been replaced by prōtonotarioi seconded from the central fiscal departments and overseen by them, while the prefect has vanished entirely. The praitores however would continue to exist as provincial judges, and by the late 10th century, they would again assume the civil administration of the themes.

Each theme was governed by a Strategos ("general"), who also commanded the theme's military forces. An exception were the theme of Opsikion, headed by a komēs ("count"), and the peculiar theme of the Optimatoi, headed by a droungarios. Throughout the 8th to 11th centuries, the original large themes were gradually broken up, while new ones were established, either by conquest or by raising older kleisourai (frontier districts). Especially the large conquests in the East produced an array of smaller themes, the so-called "Armenian" themes, along the Empire's eastern frontier. The governors of the Eastern themes enjoyed precedence in rank and pay over those of the Western (European) themes, the crucial difference being that the former were paid their salaries directly from the imperial treasury, while the latter had to raise their pay locally. Some exceptions were however made: thus the theme of Macedonia was counted among the Eastern ones, while the three naval themes (Cibyrrhaeots, Samos and Aegean, alhough wholly or partly in Asia, were regarded as Western but their stratēgoi paid as Eastern ones.

In the late 10th and 11th centuries, several of the smaller or more exposed themes were grouped together under the authority of a doux ("duke") or katepanō.

• Tourmarchēs – the commander of a tourma, a military unit.
• Topotērētēs – meaning "place-holder", "lieutenant". Found at various levels of the hierarchy, as deputies to commanders of the imperial tagmata, deputy to a drungarios.

Military

• Stratopedarchēs (Master of the Camp) – This official was in charge of making sure the army was stocked with food and arms.
• Hoplitarchēs or archēgētēs - commander of all infantry in a large army, the title first appears in the mid-10th century, when the infantry is reorganized and gains in importance.
• Prōtokentarchos and kentarchos - commanders of a smaller division of the army in the field. The name was derived from the Latin centurion.
• Merarchēs - commander of a division (meros) of the army. Usually, each army was divided into two to three such commands.
• Taxiarchēs or chiliarchēs - commander of an infantry regiment (taxiarchia or chiliarchia) in the army.

Tagmata

Further information: Tagmata

The tagmata were elite professional units stationed in and around Constantinople in Thrace and Bithynia. They were established by emperor Constantine V ca. 750, and were designed to act as a counterbalance to the power of the larger thematic armies. As elite formations, whose officers were in close proximity to the emperor and members of his court, they also served as a first stepping stone in the promotion ladder for young officers, drawn mostly either from the Constantinopolitan or the thematic aristocracy.

• Domestikos – the domestikoi were originally imperial guards, who later functioned as senior staff officers in the Late Roman army. In the Byzantine period, they were among the highest military offices, and included:
  • Megas domestikos (Grand Domestic) - the overall commander of the army.
  • Domestikos tōn scholōn (Domestic of the Schools) – the commander of the Scholai, originally a number of guards units, later a Tagma. This was a very prestigious title, and by the late 9th century, its holder functioned as commander in chief of the army. In ca. 959, the post was divided, with one domestic for the East and one for the West.

The military enjoyed a privileged place in the political structure and was always a factor to be reckoned with. Yet it, too, divided into separate vertical lines of organization answering directly to the emperor, such as the distinctions among the- mala with their dispersed geographic basis, tagmata, and palace units like the VIGLA or the Hetaireia, whose foreign mercenaries stood outside the social and cultural networks that might have fostered political cooperation with other units. The bureaucracy's role in financing and equipping the troops limited their freedom of action and provoked constant frictions in the provinces, thanks to the army's extensive and ill-defined role in local administration.

Navy

Further information: Organization of the Byzantine navy

• Megas droungarios - Initially the commander-in-chief of the Byzantine navy, after the creation of the megas doux his lieutenant, in charge of the naval officers.
• Droungarios - The title existed both in the army and the navy. In the navy of the 8th-11th centuries, a droungarios headed a fleet, either the central imperial fleet or one of the thematic fleets.
• Komēs or droungarokomēs - The commander of a squadron of dromons.
• Kentarchos or nauarchos - the captain of a ship.

Aristocracy

Historical evolution

http://asiaminor.ehw.gr/Forms/fLemmaBodyExtended.aspx?lemmaID=4141

The early Byzantine aristocracy was divided into two parts: the "traditional" landed aristocracy, which still formed the bulk of the Senate, and the service aristocracy of officials, generally commoners, who were raised to high office by the emperors. With the disastrous territorial losses of the 7th century, the old landed aristocracy all but lost its financial base, although a few old-established families survived in Constantinople and played an active political role in the 8th century, where they appear to have opposed the Isaurian emperors and their iconoclastic policies. With the gradual stabilization of the eastern front against the Arabs, a new military aristocracy began emerging in the same period in Asia Minor, which by the 10th century evolved into the great clans of the Phokades, Doukai, Melissenoi and others. These families, often of Armenian or Georgian noble origin, maintained close ties with a particular home province and the local population, and frequently managed to acquire a virtual monopoly over the posts of the strategoi there, passing them on to sons or nephews. The great clans were tied to each other by intermarriage, but were also riven by rivalries as often as not, and the practice of equal inheritance prevented their considerable fortune from becoming too much of a threat to the emperors. The appearance of this new aristocracy coincides with the increased use of family surnames and a consciousness of lineage. The failed rebellions by the Skleroi and the Phokades at the start of Basil II's reign led to a series of repressive measures against these families and their allies, but no general purge of the military aristocracy; indeed, new families continued to appear, especially in the Balkans after the conquest of Bulgaria, the Komnenoi chief among them.

The Constantinopolitan aristocracy served as a civilian counterbalance to these military provincial clans, comprising families—often equally long-lived as their military counterparts—centred on service at court, in the central government and the Church. It was this group that also bore the main responsibility for the intellectual revival of the "Macedonian Renaissance". Dissonance and friction between the military leaders and the civilian bureaucracy became apparent pronounced in the 10th century on, with soldiers complaining about the exactions of the civil fiscal agents from the soldiers, and incidents like Nikephoros II failed attempt to have the soldiers who fell against the Arabs recognized as martyrs. In the first half of the 11th century, the civilians briefly gained the upper hand: civilian governors replaced the strategoi in most themes, and the weak emperors who succeeded Basil II allied themselves with the Constantinopolitan elites, including the newly flourishing merchant classes. Many military families who settled in Constantinople established alliances with the civilian aristocracy, or chose to follow civilian careers themselves.

see Magdalino 1993 here

This system survived until the rise of Alexios I Komnenos to power in 1081, which marked the victory of the military aristocracy. The loss of most of Asia Minor deprived many of the old families of their property (although some managed to swap it for European assets in time), and the shrinking of the central government bureaucracy led to the reduction in size and prominence of the families tied to it. The new system that emerged under the Komnenoi was vastly different to what had come before, being centred almost exclusively on the imperial family and the clans or persons tied to it by kinship. In the words of Jean-Claude Cheynet, "the high military aristocracy and, to a lesser degree, the civil aristocracy as well, became the appanage of one single family. This monopoly resulted in a reform of the system of offices [which] implied connection with the family Komneno-Doukas. Henceforth one's place in society depended on the degree of one's relation to the emperor." A few capable men—even some Turks and Franks—gained entrance into this elite, but henceforth it became a relatively closed if numerous group, which was kept in check by the emperor's control over the pronoia estates, which provided their income.

While the imperial family monopolized military appointments and senior governorships, the central civil bureaucracy retained a degree of social mobility for provincials, as the need for highly educated and capable administrators remained. As before, the Constantinopolitan civil aristocracy also comprised the senior Church hierarchy, which is why as a group it became the main exponent of anti-Latin feeling at court. At the same time, the provincial aristocracy emerged as a distinct group, controlling the countryside. The Komnenian system had two major disadvantages: its efficiency was dependent on the presence of an able and energetic ruler, and it alienated the provincial elites from Constantinople to a degree that they became increasingly indifferent to the capital's affairs.

Under the Palaiologoi, the Komnenian system was replicated: the imperial dynasty and the dozen or so families tied to them monopolized the imperial government and controlled extensive estates, whether as pronoiai or as outright appanages, while more junio aristocratic families retained local power bases in the countryside or in towns. The reign of Andronikos II Palaiologos (r. 1282–1328) marks the beginning of the central government's loss of control over the aristocracy. The transformation of the pronoiai into hereditary possessions removed the emperors' major tool of control, the cities became increasingly autonomous, while civil wars and Serbian and Turkish invasions diminished the Empire's remaining strength and territory. It is in this climate that for the first time, the great aristocratic families engaged in commerce to sustain themselves.

Titles and court dignities

The history of court dignities in the Byzantine Empire is divided into four periods: the early period, where the late Roman system of senatorial ranks continued in use; the middle Byzantine system, where dignities and office were separate; the Komnenian system, where the dignity signalled the bearer's proximity—in most cases denoting familial relationship—to the emperor; and the Palaiologan system, where the distinction between dignity and office disappeared. As Alexander Kazhdan explains, "the development of each system involved an inflation of old titles and their replacement by new ones".

The late Roman/early Byzantine system was essentially tied to the Senate and the titelature already established within it. The senior titles, from lowest to highest, were vir clarissimus, vir spectabilis, vir illustris, and, from the 6th century, vir gloriosus or gloriosissimus

The title of patricius (in Greek, patrikios) also changed meaning; as the distinction between the old patrician class and the rest of the population had become meaningless by the late 3rd century, Constantine I revived it as the highest honorific dignity in the Empire.

In addition, there were holders of titular appointments to offices, typically those who had already held the actual office before: for example, the ex praefectis or apo eparchon (ἀπὸ ἐπάρχων) was a former praetorian prefect. However, titular appointments to the three highest offices, those of consul, praetorian prefect and magister militum, could be also conferred as honors on non-officials. The active holders of an office, designated in actu positi or empraktoi (ἔμπρακτοι), were consequently set apart from the titular officials (apraktoi, ἄπρακτοι), who in turn were divided in two categories: the vacantes and the honorarii. The former held not only the title, but were also entitled to wear the cingulum ("belt") which denoted their office, while the latter were not.

Middle Byzantine titles

Emperor Nikephoros III flanked by personifications of Truth and Justice, and by his senior court dignitaries, from an illuminated manuscript dating to the 1070s. From left: the proedros and epi tou kanikleiou, the prōtoproedros and prōtovestiarios (a eunuch, since he is beardless), the emperor, the proedros and dekanos, and the proedros and megas primikērios.

In the middle period, the "Senate" became a generic term for the senior officialdom

The middle Byzantine period in particular is characterized by its system of court dignities, ranked according to the proximity of their bearers to the emperor's person. These ranks were called "awarded dignities" (ἀξίαι δια βραβείων, axiai dia brabeion) as they were conferred through the presentation of the awardee with a specific insigne. Almost all were former offices or titles of the early Byzantine period, which were now reduced to honourary titles; sometimes, however, during imperial ceremonies, they are still recorded as carrying out their dignity's original duties. The court dignities were for life and not inheritable, but could be purchased against a rather steep price, which depended on the rank. In exchange, the dignitary received an annual salary, again depending on the rank. In this way, the titles functioned as a state-guaranteed investment for the awardee, and as a form of internal loan for the imperial government. In addition, the holders of court dignities (entimoi) enjoyed privileged treatment in their dealings with the bureaucracy, had certain immunities, and, from the rank of protospatharios on, became members of the Senate. Perhaps most importantly, they gave the holder access to the palace and the emperor, and hence the opportunity for a lucrative appointment in the civil service. In practice, until the mid-11th century, the award of these dignities was highly restricted, and the senior among them were reserved for the land-holding aristocracy. It was only in the reign of Constantine IX Monomachos that members of the emerging middle class, i.e. merchants and artisans, were allowed to hold court dignities. Indeed, Constantine IX granted dignities in such numbers that new ones had to be created—often with the prefix proto- ("first"), to denote the senior class in a specific rank category—to compensate for their concomitant devaluation. This lasted until the advent of the Komnenoi—and the traditional land-holding aristocracy with them—to power, after which the middle Byzantine rank system was practically abolished.

The highest dignities, as listed in the Kletorologion of Philotheos in 899, were the imperial dignities of kaisar (καῖσαρ, "Caesar"), nōbelissimos (νωβελίσσιμος) and kouropalatēs (κουροπαλάτης). These were restricted until the end of the 10th century to the imperial family, with the exception of the kouropalatēs, which was habitually awarded to the Iberian princes from the early 10th century on.

Below the imperial dignities there were two different hierarchies, one for the eunuchs and one for non-eunuchs, the "Bearded Ones" (βαρβάτοι, barbatoi).

By descending order of precedence, the dignities for the eunuchs were: proedros (πρόεδρος, "president"), introduced in the 960s, and the superior variant prōtoproedros created in the late 11th century; vestarchēs (βεστάρχης), instituted ca. 970, with the superior variant of prōtovestarchēs; vestēs (βέστης), instituted ca. 970, with the superior variant of prōtovestēs; patrikios; praipositos (πραιπόσιτος); prōtospatharios; primikērios (πριμικήριος); ostiarios (ὁστιάριος); spatharokoubikoularios (σπαθαροκουβικουλάριος); koubikoularios (κουβικουλάριος).

The titles for the "Bearded Ones" were: proedros (πρόεδρος), much as for the eunuchs; magistros (μάγιστρος), with the variant prōtomagistros attested for the senior-most among this class already in the 10th century; vestarchēs, as with the eunuchs; vestēs, as with the eunuchs; anthypatos (ἀνθύπατος), with the superior variant of prōtanthypatos;; patrikios, as with the eunuchs; prōtospatharios (πρωτοσπαθάριος); dishypatos (δισύπατος); spatharokandidatos (σπαθαροκανδιδάτος); spatharios (σπαθάριος); hypatos (ὕπατος; stratōr (στράτωρ); kandidatos (κανδιδάτος); basilikos mandatōr (βασιλικός μανδάτωρ); vestētōr (βεστήτωρ);; silentiarios (σιλεντιάριος); stratēlatēs (στρατηλάτης), and apo eparchōn (ἀποεπάρχων or ἀπὸ ἐπάρχων).

There was also a single special title reserved for women, that of zostē patrikia (ζωστή πατρικία). This title was given to the empress' ladies of honour, and, according to Philotheos, ranked very high in hierarchy, above even the magistros and proedros and just below the kouropalatēs. Otherwise women bore the female forms of their husbands' titles.

Komnenian-era titles

to a lesser degree, the civil aristocracy as well, became the appanage of one single family. This monopoly resulted in a reform of the system of offices whereby the recently created title of sebastos, on the basis of which a whole new hierarchy was composed (sebastokrator, protosebastoi), implied connection with the family Komneno-Doukas. Henceforth one's place in society depended on the degree of one's relation to the emperor

• Despotēs (δεσπότης) – "Lord": This title was used by the emperors themselves since the time of Justinian I, and was an honorific address for the sons of reigning emperors. It was extensively featured in coins, in lieu of Basileus. In the 12th century, Manuel I Komnenos made it a separate title, the highest "awarded" title after the emperor. The first such despotēs was actually a foreigner, Bela III of Hungary, signifying that Hungary was considered a Byzantine tributary state. In later times, a despot could be the holder of a despotate; for example, the Despotate of Morea, centred at Mistra, was held by the heir to the Byzantine throne after 1261. The feminine form, despoina, referred to a female despot or the wife of a despot, but it was also used to address the Empress.

• Sebastokratōr (σεβαστοκράτωρ) – "Venerable Ruler": a title created by Alexios I Komnenos as a combination of autokratōr and sebastos (see below). The first sebastokratōr was Alexios' brother Isaakios. It was essentially a meaningless title, which signified only a close relationship with the emperor, but ranked immediately after the despotēs. The feminine form was sebastokratorissa. The first foreigner to be called sebastokratōr was Stefan Nemanja of Serbia, who was given the title in 1161. A Bulgarian aristocrat by the name Kaloyan also used the title.

• Sebastos (σεβαστός) – "August One" this title is the literal Greek translation of the Latin term Augustus or Augoustos, was sometimes used by the emperors. As a separate title it appeared in the latter half of the 11th century, and was extensively awarded by Alexios I Komnenos to his brothers and relations. The female version of the title was sebastē. The special title prōtosebastos ("First Venerable One") was created for Hadrianos, Alexios' second brother, and awarded also to the Doge of Venice and the Sultan of Iconium. During the 12th century. it remained in use for the Emperor's and the sebastokratōr's children, and senior foreign dignitaries. However, the parallel processes of proliferation and devaluation of titles during the 12th century resulted in the creation of a bewildering array of often ridiculously large variations, by using the prefixes pan ("all"), hyper ("above"), prōto ("first"): examples include pansebastos, panhypersebastos, or hyperprōtopansebastohypertatos. Few of them actually survived past the 12th century, and all of them rapidly declined in importance.

Early Byzantine period: 4th to early 7th centuries

The early Byzantine political system was essentially that of the late Roman Empire, known as the Dominate, as instituted after the reforms of emperors Diocletian and Constantine the Great. In essence, the chief task of Roman administration was the supervision of the state's finances and the supply and maintenance of its armies. The Crisis of the Third Century had left the Roman Empire weakened, and the reforms carried out by Diocletian were aimed at strengthening the control of the imperial government over its provinces and citizens; particularly, at the more efficient collection of taxes. The provinces were reorganized, being split into smaller units and these in turn grouped into progressively larger circumscriptions (the dioceses and the praetorian prefectures), while an extensive, highly complex, centrally supervised and partially militarized professional bureaucracy was developed and maintained. Another major change from the early Empire (the Principate) was the strict separation of civil and military offices, to forestall rebellions by ambitious provincial governors.

With various modifications, its essential tenets lasted until the great crisis brought about by the Muslim conquests of the mid-7th century. During this period, the bureaucracy, closely tied to the land-holding senatorial elite, dominated the affairs of the East Roman Empire. Several emperors in the 5th and 6th centuries were chosen by the Senate, and until the usurpation of Phocas in 602, succession to the throne was bloodless and smooth. Alongside the Senate and the army, the people, represented by the people of Constantinople, continued to play a role in politics, as evidenced in the elaborate rituals of acclamations in the Hippodrome.

Sources

The main source for the late Roman administrative arrangements is the Notitia Dignitatum, a compilation of all civilian and military offices of both halves of the Roman Empire, compiled in the late 4th century, the ordinances of the Codex Theodosianus and the Codex Iustinianus, complemented by the Letters of Cassiodorus and the De Magistratibus of John the Lydian.

Military structure

Main articles: Late Roman army and East Roman army

The army was divided into two distinct categories, the mobile field armies (comitatenses) and the rather static frontier forces (limitanei). Each of the former was placed under a magister militum ("master of the soldiers", in Greek rendered as stratēgos or stratēlatēs), while the latter were under a dux (Gk. doux) or a comes (gk. komēs).

Middle Byzantine period: 7th century to 1080s

Aristocracy

In the middle Byzantine period, the notion of aristocracy was quite different from contemporary Western European practice. Although Byzantine society was quite rigidly stratified, it allowed for a large degree of social mobility. While noble descent carried prestige, and most high offices were monopolized by such men, it was usual and perfectly acceptable for a low-born man to gain entry into the aristocracy by virtue of holding a state office, up to and including that of emperor. Dynastic succession was recognized, but it was no guarantee for legitimacy and survival of a ruling family, as revolts and palace coups often led to the downfall of emperors. Only with the rise of the Macedonian dynasty did the dynastic principle begin to become entrenched in popular consciousness, allowing the family to survive usurpation attempts like that of the Lekapenoi. It is no accident that the same period saw the emergence of distinctive family surnames, and, at its later stages (10th and 11th centuries), a new-found interest in lineage and descent among the Empire's noble clans.

Two distinct "factions" emerged amongst the Byzantine hierarchy: the urban aristocracy of Constantinople, chiefly associated with the civil service, and the military aristocracy, drawn from the great land-holding clans of Asia Minor such as the Phokas and Maleinos families. The contest between the two over influence in the state became a permanent feature of the period. For a time, under the strong Macedonian emperors, the power of provincial magnates (the dynatoi) was curtailed, and the "civilian" faction came to dominate affairs after 1025. The same period also witnessed the rise of the urban middle classes, who gained entrance to the senatorial order. However, the crisis of the 1070s, the result of the Battle of Manzikert, saw the eventual ascent of the Komnenos family to the imperial throne and the transformation of the imperial system by its members towards a more feudal and strictly aristocratic pattern.

Bibliography

• Angold, Michael (1984). The Byzantine Aristocracy: IX to XIII Centuries. BAR International Series. ISBN 0-86054-283-1.
• Angold, Michael (1997). The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204: A Political History (Second ed.). Longman. ISBN 0-582-29468-1.
• Bartusis, Mark C. (1997). The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society 1204–1453. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812216202.
• Bréhier, Louis (2000) [1949]. Les institutions de l'empire byzantin (in French). Paris: Albin Michel. ISBN 978-2226047229.
• Bury, John B. (1911). The Imperial Administrative System of the Ninth Century. With a Revised Text of the Kletorologion of Philotheos. Oxford University Publishing.
• Cameron, Averil; Ward-Perkins, Bryan; Whitby, Michael, eds. (2000). The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume XIV: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425–600. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-32591-2.
• Cheynet, Jean-Claude (2008). "9.2 Bureaucracy and aristocracies". In Shepard, Jonathan (ed.). The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 518–526. ISBN 978-0-521-83231-1.
• Featherstone, Jeffrey (2008). "9.1 Emperor and court". In Shepard, Jonathan (ed.). The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 505–517. ISBN 978-0-521-83231-1.
• Haldon, John F. (1997). Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521319171.
• Haldon, John F. (1999). Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204. London: UCL Press. ISBN 1-85728-495-X.
• Haldon, John (2008a). "10.1 Structures and administration". In Shepard, Jonathan (ed.). The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 539–553. ISBN 978-0-521-83231-1.
• Haldon, John (2008b). "10.2 The army". In Shepard, Jonathan (ed.). The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 554–561. ISBN 978-0-521-83231-1.
• Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6.
• Kelly, Christopher (2004). Ruling the later Roman Empire. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-01564-7.
• Louth, Andrew (2008). "Byzantium transforming (600–700)". In Shepard, Jonathan (ed.). The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 221–248. ISBN 978-0-521-83231-1.
• Magdalino, Paul (1993). The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-52653-1.
• Maksimović, Ljubomir (1988). The Byzantine provincial administration under the Palaiologoi. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
• Oikonomides, Nicolas (1972). Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles (in French). Paris: Éditions CNRS.
• Oikonomides, Nikolaos (1979). "Το νέο κράτος της μέσης βυζαντινής περιόδου" [The new state of the middle Byzantine period]. Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους, Τόμος Η′: Βυζαντινός Ελληνισμός - Μεσοβυζαντινοί Χρόνοι από το 642 ως το 1071 [History of the Greek Nation, Vol. VIII: Byzantine Hellenism - Middle Byzantine Times from 642 until 1071] (in Greek). Athens: Εκδοτική Αθηνών. pp. 154–179.