« PrethodnaNastavi »
traitor must be crushed immediately, for it would be a serious disadvantage to have an enemy in his rear. Accordingly, he marched against him with a band of chosen soldiers ; his army being so large that he could easily divert a portion without raising the blockade. The followers of Gregory were defeated, we know not where nor how; and Gregory himself, a fugitive from the field, was pursued and slain. There is a certain propriety in the part which this soldier plays in the last act of the drama, in which Leo, Michael, and Thomas were the chief performers. Leo had passed away before that last act; but his nephew, as it were, takes his place, and oscillates between his rivals, is banished by Michael and slain by Thomas.
3. Summer and autumn A.D. 829.-The false Constantine, if he still sustained that pretence, made the most of his easy victory over the renegude. lle proclaimed that he had conquered by land and sent, iind sent letters to Greece and the islands of the Auzoan, bearing this false news.' Wils to reinforce his navy, which hitherto had accomplished nothing worthy of its size, by fresh ships from these regions. Nor was he disitppointe:d. It was clearly thought in Greeco, where the population was devoted to image-worship, that the pretener was carrying all before him, that the capture or surrender of the city was merely a matter of days, or at inost months, and that Michael's days were numbered. A largo tleet was sent, with all gooil-will, to husten the success of one who professed to be an image-worshipper." No less than three hundred and fifty ships (it is alleged) arrived in the Propontis. Under given topographical conditions, when the siline object is in view, history is apt to repeat itself, and wo tind Thomas mooring these reinforcements in the harbour of Hebdomon and on the adjacent beach, exactly as the Saracens
1 γράμμασι πιπλασμένοις, (ien. 41. Jarbolir of Hebilomon was cast of tho * llop (126) seen here “tlu old Polar
palace (and just to the cast of the har. opposition of the oppressed provinces
bour was tho klyklobion). It is clear, against the despotic centralisation in
therefore, that B. Munu = tho hurbour the capital."
of Hollomon ; but it could not havo
hold all the ships, and so some of them 3 τη των καλουμένων Βορίδων ακτή, were moored to the east along the ilidl. τω των Β. λιμένι, Cout. Τh. 64. shore. Hopf (119) curiously says that From a passage in John of Antioch it Thomas took “Berida" by storm. is clear that Byrides was a place on On the rivag of the Hell. Syllogos the coast between Bleblomon (Makri. (see Bibliography) Byrides is marked koui) and the Collen Catr. Tho near Selyubria.
had disposed their fleet on the two occasions on which they had attempted to capture the city.'
He had formed the project of a twofold attack by sea.” On the northern side the city was to be assailed by his original fleet, which lay in the Golden Horn; while the new forces were to operate against the southern walls and harbours, on the side of the Propontis. But Michael foiled this plan by prompt action. Sending his fire-propelling vessels against the squadron at Hebdomon, he destroyed it, before it had effected anything. Some of the ships were entirely burnt, others scattered, but most were captured, and towed into the city harbours, which the Imperial navy held. Such was the fate
” of the navy which the Themes of Hellas and Peloponnesus had sent so glaully to the discomfiture of the Phrygian Emperor.
On the seaside the danger was diminished; but by land the siege was protracted with varying success until the end of the year. Frequent excursions were made from the city, and sometimes prospered, whether under the leadership of the elder Emperor or of his son Theophilus, with the General Olbianos or the Count Katakylas." But on the whole the besieged were no match in the field for their foes, who far outnumbered them. Both parties must have been weary enough as the blockade wore on through the winter. at length bruken by the intervention of a foreign power.
Theoph. 353 (004 A.1).) and tas rogenuetes seems to liave been too προς δύσιν ακρότητος του Εβδόμου . much for Finlay here, but the story is μέχρι πάλιν του προς ανατολήν ακρωτηρίου toll simply enough by Gonesios. του λεγομένου Κυκλοβίου (a description + Here, ngain, cont. Th. 64 dins indeed which does not maturully information not vonelisited by Gene: suggest a harbour), and 395 (717 2.1).) sios : νυν μεν του Μιχαήλ, νιν δε του an equivalent description.
νίου αυτού θεοφίλου αυτούς επεξιόντος :: Cien. ib.
μετά 'Ολβιανού και Κατακύλα. This 3 10. τάς πλείους δε αυτών ... το suggests that Olbianos and katakylas Baoilei tpoo ayovoiv. George Mon. (795) were in the city during the siege. montions the destruction of the fleet Finlay knows that the iroopis of the
a critical event in the winge. Armeniac and Opsikinn Themes inter: Finlay, whoso account of this robellion rupted the communications of Thomas is not very satisfactory, makes a with tho centre of Asia Minor : “These strango mistike liero (ii. 131): "The troops maintained in constant com. pirtisans of Michael collected a fleet munication with the garrison of of 350 ships in the islands of tho Constantinople from the coast of Archipelago and Greece, and this lect, Bithynin" (loc. cit.). There is no having gained a complete victory over authority for this, though it is what the fleet of Thomas, cut off the com: we should expect. We only know munications of the besiegers with that before the blockade began in Asia." lle has thus reversed the spring Michael inaported many troops facts. The Greek of the historical into the city, doubtless regiments of Commission of Constantine l'urphy: these Themes.
4. Intervention of the Bulgarians, Spring, A.D. 823.--It was from the kingdom beyond Mount Haemus that Michael received an opportune aid which proved the turning-point in the civil war. The Bulgarians had been at peace with the Empire, since Leo and king Omurtay, not long after the death of Krum, had concluded a treaty for thirty years.' Communi- . cations now passed between Constiintinople and Pliska, but it is uncertain who took the first step, and what was the nature of the negotiations. The simplest and earliest chronicle of the siege represents Michael as requesting Omurtag to take the field against Thomas, aind Oinurtay readily responding to the request. But an entirely different version is adopted in records which are otherwise unfavourable to Michael.3 Accoriling to this account, the proposal of alliance came from the Bulgarian king, and the Emperor declined the offer because he was reluctant to permit Christian blood to be shed ly the swords of the heathen. He tendered his sincero thanks to Omurtay, but alleged that the presence of a
, Bulgarian army in Thrace, even though acting in his own cause, woulıl be il virtual violation of the Thirty Years' Peace. Omurtay, however, took the matter into his own hands, and, unable to resist the opportunity of plunder and pillase, assisted Michael in Michael's own despite. obviously to the interest of the Emperor that this version should obtain credit, as it relieved him from the odium of inviting pagins to destroy Christians and exposing Roman territory to the devastation of barbarians. We must leave it imdecided whether it was Michael who requested, or Oinurtag who offered help, but we cannot seriously doubt that the help Was icecoried with the full knowledye and at the desire of the besiegel Emperor. It may well be that he declined to conclude any formal alliance with the Bulgarians,“ but merely gave them issurances that, if they marched against Thomas and paid themselves by booty, he would hold them innocent of violating the peace. The negotiations must have been | Seo below p..360.
Gen. ιδ. απολογείται μη George Mon. . 796 wallwv ús ó
χρύνον βασιλειος Μιχαήλ τους Βουλγάρους εις
ώμολογηκότας Χριστιανικών αιμάτων συμμαχίαν κατ' αυτού προσεκαλέσατο.
αφέξεσθαι επί της των στασιωτών πολέμω This is accepted by Hirsch, 131.
τα καλώς δόξαντα καταλύειν.
5 (Gen. 41 διαπρεσβεύεται προς βασιλέα 3 Gen. 41-42 ; Cont. Th. 65.
και συμμαχείν αιτείται αυτό.
conducted with great secrecy, and the account which represented Michael as unreservedly rejecting the proffered succour gained wide credence, though his enemies assigned to his refusal a less honourable motive than the desire of sparing Christian blood, and suggested that his avarice withheld him from paying the Bulgarians the money which they demanded for their services.?
Omurtag then descended from Mount Haemus and marched by the great high road, by Hadrianople and Arcadiopolis, to deliver Constantinople from the Roman leaguer, even as another Bulgarian monarch had come down, more than a hundred years before, in the days of Leo III., to deliver it from the Saracens.? When Thomas learned that the weight of Bulgaria was thrown into the balance and that a formidable liost was advancing against him, he decided to abandon the siege and confront the new foe.' joyful day for the siege-worn citizens and soldiers, when they saw the camp of the besiegers broken up and the great army marching away from their gates. Only the remnant of the rebel navy still lay in the Golden Horn, as Thomas did not require it for his immediate work. The Bulgarians had already passed Arcadiopolis and reached the plain of Kêduktos, near the coust between Heraclea and Selymbria. Here they
" awaited the approach of Thomas, and in the battle which ensued defeated him utterly. The victors soon retired, laden with booty; having thus worked much profit both to themselves
| Wo must suppose that Michael that he did onlist them in his forces Jeliberately circulated it. It is char. during the siege. acteristic that he does not mention 6 Cien. 42 κατα τον Κηδούκτου or even hint at the Bulgarian cpisodo καλούμενον χώρον. (For the date of in his letter to the Emperor Lewis. the battle of Kêduktus scu Appendix llo wishod the Franks to suppose that V.). For the location of keduktos the subjugation of Thomas was due to (A.quael uel us), the important passage his unaided efforts, and it would have is Nicephorus Bryenn. 135 (cil. Bonn) been humiliating to confess to the = Ama Comnena 1. 18.19 (eil. Reiller. riyal Emperor that the Bulgarians had scheid) describing the battle between invaded the Empire oven in his own Alexius Comnenus and Bryennios év Cillise.
τους κατά του Κηδούκτου πεδίοις, near ? Cont. Th. 652.
the fort of Kalavryo and the river 3 Tervel (A.1). 717).
Halmyros. The Halmyros seems to • Michael Syr. (37) says that Michael be the stream to the west of Erekli employed Saracen captives who were (Heraclex), and the name of Kalavrye in ihe city to fight for him, promising (l'alappla in Attaleiates, 289 ed. Bonn)
, them freedom (a promise which ho is preserved in Gelivrê near Selymbria diul not keep'), and with their hielp (Tomasclick, Zur K’unde ver II..h. ronited Thomas. It is quite possible 331). Cp. Jireček, Heerstrasse', 101.
and to their ally, for whom the way was now smoothed to the youl of final victory. They had destroyed the greater part of the rebel army on the field of Keduktos, and Michael was equal to dealing with the remnant himself.
5. Siege of Arrudiopolis and end of the Civil War, 823 A.D.— When the Bulgarians retreated, Thoinas, still hopeful, collected the scattered troops who had been routed on the day of Keduktos, and marching north-eastward pitched his camp in the marshy plain of Diabasis, watered by the streams of the Melay and Athyras which discharge into the lagoon of Buyak Chekmjè, about twenty miles west of Constantinople. This district was well provided with pasturage for horses, and well situated for obtaining supplies; morcover, it was within such distince from the capital thut Thomns could hurry the neighbouring villages.' The month of May, if it had not already begim, was near at hand, when Michael went forth to deciile the issue of the long struggle. He was accompanied by his faithful generals Katilkylas and Olbianos, each at the head of troopis of his own Theme. It is not recorded whether the younger Emperor marched with his father or was left behind to guard the city. But the city might justly feel secure now; for the marines whom Thomas had left in the Golden Horn espoused the cause of Michael, as soon as they learned the news of Keduktos."
Thomas, who felt confident of success, decided to entrap his foes by the stratagem of a feigned flight. But his followers did not share his spirit. They were cast down by the recent defeat; they were thoroughly weary of an enterprise which had lasted so much longer than they had dreamt
Gen. (12).indicates the character of the place. Its distance from Constiintinople is vaguely suggested in ('.it. Τh. 10 σταδίους απέχον της πόλεως ικανούς, μια Adkriller ras προνομές ποιών πάντα μεν προ της Tólews (neipe acopov, but Thomas dil not come within sight of the city. Diabusis has been silencilied ly Jireček lib. 63, 102) with the plains of Choiro. bakchoi, described by kimamos (73. 74 ed. Bonn) and Nicetas (85-86 cd. Bonn). The Molis (kara-511) and Athyras flow from the hill of Kush. knya near the Anastasian Wall; and near here Tomaschek (op. cit. 2301)
woule place the fortriss Abygol, which commanded the plaiu (according to Kinuamos), identifying it with Canincuzenu's ĭ Abyovs, i. 297 cd. Boun. (1. loghus in Hrisi's geography). North of the lagoon there is an ox• wensive marxli, through which there is a soliid stone dyko of Roman work ; this was dloubtless called the Crossing, Dinbiisis.
? That the naval armament joined Michael after the Bulgarian victory is stated in Cont. Th. Geniesios is less precise.
: The spirit of the army is described in Cunt, Th. 67.