Byzance et son h6ritage

ALEXANDRU MADCEARU

The relations between penphery and the cenre wcre oftcn defined by confronts

and centrifugal trends. ln the Balkans, thcse trends can be traced in several moments of

the late an;ent and medieval history and mostly during the llth-l2th centuries

However, the early Byzantine period had its own mutinies against the centre ln this

study wc intend to analyze two revolts aroused in Scythia

TWO MUTINIES AGAINST THE CENTERIN THE PROVINCE OF SCYTHIA

I

The so-called chronicle of Chersonesos insened in Delu;'tc't(

Administranda

Imperio2 contirns a relation about a war between the Roman army led by l(dnltaj(Constantius Chlorus) and the Bosporan kingdom, during the reign of Diocletianus(53,2-123). The city of Chersonesos took part at this war. The fragme-nt ends with

ihe proclamation of Constantius ". * ".pl.o. at a shon dme (rnet'N*6*tin i-€t4€+) after this conflict. A recent epigraphical researchl dates the war in the

/ interval of 286-293 and confirms the Roman military presence at Chersonesos rn/ that oeriod. This certifies the tradition written down in the lfth century chronicle

/ 'Rf,".

the episode of the coronation of Constantius' the chronicle follows in

/ this wav: "On the death of Constans' his son Constantine became emperor at

I Ro.", and when he came to Byzantium, and certain of those in Scythia revolted

I asuinst hiru he called (o mind what had been said by his father Constans

I .inc.-ing the affection of the Chersonites and their alliance, and he sent envoys to

\ the .ountr-v of the Chersonites, with instructions that they should go to the country"'--g ca) bl,y"r -, t't 4p "J o,t

u t T'lr" tirst part resumes my study O rcvoltd impotri')a lui Constontin cel Mare in prol)incia

Scytlria, "Peuce", 12, 1996, pp. 137-148; thc second is based on the study Annata dit prouucn

ia,ni,ii n opa-uo orto4oxi"i. Revolto generulului Vitalianus, "Revista de Istorie Militari", 2(66).

2001, p-. 37-41.2 About this chronicle see Constantine Porphyrogedtus, De Administrando Impeio' ll'

Commentary, ed. by R.J.H. Jenkins, London,1962,p 205.r T.'iarnowski, Das riimische Heer im Norden det Schwarzen Meeres"'Atcheologia" '

Warszaw, 38, 1988 (1989), pp. 96-97; Idem, Die Anfiin|e der spiit imischen Militdrorganltation des

unteren Donauraumes, in Aiien des 14. internationalen Limes'kongresses 1986 in CamL"rno ' Wie\

1990, p. 858. The bali.trarii troops recorded in the chronicle are mentioned by an inscription from 488- see A. A. Vasiliev, Itrz Goths in the Cimau, Cambridge (Mass ), 1936,pp' 434+

Rev. 6tudes Sud-Est Europ., XXXIX, 1-4, p 5-17, Bucarest

Alexandru Madgearu 2

ofthe Scythians and fight those who had revolted against him. The chief magistrateand primate ofthe Chersonites was at th&t time Diogenes, son of Diogenes, and theChersonites gladly obeyed the imp€rial mandate and with all zeal constructed th€military waggons and the arbalests and arrived at the Ister river and, having crossedit, arrayed themselyes against the rebels and routed them. The emperor, learning ofthe victory won by them, bade them go back to th€ir country..." (53, 124-131). Thetext continues with the meeting ofthe rulers of Chersonesos with the emperor (53,13 E-161) and then with the relation of another war b€tween Chersonesos and theBosporan kingdom (53, 162-178), occuned by the middle ofthe 4th centuryo.

In his review of the first edition of De Administando.lzrperio, P.$. Nisturelhas remarked that these events should be placed during the reign of Constantine IV(663-685), albeit at a first glance they se€m to concem Constantine the Greats.This idea was developed by Ion Barneao. The most recent monograph on thehistory ofthe Roman Dobrudja accepts this point of view?. 11-gc./t., o g

The first argument put forward by I. B i5fhe name given to the father of

It,,.1.r rrrl rc;""t"ntine',.ffii'ilt":rr#rtiuj:He identifies him with Constans II (641-same with the hero of the first war remembered bv the

chronicle, who is certainly Constantius Chlorus. I. Barnea also axgued that nothingis known about relations between Chersonesos and Constantius Chlorus. whilesuch relations of Constans II were recorded by Theophanes Confessor. In fact, wehave seen that the epigraphical bstimonies confirm the war in which ConstantiusChlorus was involved. I. Bamea has explained the presence at Rome of bothemperors ("Constas" and Constantine) by the transitory presence of Constans II inItaly (in fact, in Siciln not in Romel). We should observe that Constantine [Vreigned only at Constantinople.

We consider that the real significance ofthe text is more simple: after the deathof Constantius Chlorus, Constantine the Great b€c€me emperor at Rome and then hemoved to Byzantium. The interpretation proposed by P.$. Nlsturel and I. Bameaseems to be wrong. The text and its context suggest the dating of the events in theperiod ofConstantine the Great as nobody doubte.d before the review ofN6sorel.

The most important reason for our point of view is the impossibility of amutiny in Scythia Minor against Constantine IV. In his period, the early Byzantinearmy already withdrew from this province. Dobrudja was abandoned in the firstyears of Heraklios. Only a kind of control over the Danube can be admitted for theperiod 61,f6E0. The province was lost together with all its administrative and

a Constantine Porphltogenitus, qp. ctt, I, cd. G. Moravcsih R.J.H. Jenkins, Dumbarton Oaks,1967 , p. 264265 (we ue giving here thc original Jcnkins' translation).

'P.g. Nlsturel, in "Daci4 N.S.", l,1957,p.372.o L Bame4 Cu privire la rclasiile dintre bobrogea Si Chersotes in secolele IV-X, in Omagiu

lui P. Cottstqntinescu-1a.pr', Bucuregti, 1 5, pp. 162-163; R. Vulpe, I. Bunc8. Din istoria Dobrogei,II, Bucurc$ti, 196E, pp. 3E9, 441.

' A. Suc€v€anu, A. Bamea. La Dobroudja rom4,rE, Bucarcsl 1991, p. 24'1.

Muiinies Agrinst Centq in Sc)'thia 7

military structures. A mutiny would have no target altlough the region was stillpeopled by a Roman populationt.

In conclusion, the events relafed in the so-called chronicle of Cherconesosconcem the period of Constantine the Great.

R.J.H. Jenkins remarked thal the events could not be dated before 326.because the text says they happened when the emperor came to Byzantiume. But itis known that Constantine tJre Great was also pr€sent at Byzantium after the battleof Chrysopolis (lEth September 324). The foundation of the new city b€gan inNovember 324 and the local coins were minted here since 32410. The sameR.J.H. Jenkins suggested that the events can be linked with the war of 323 betweenConstantine the Gr€at and the Sarmatian chief Rausimodus. a war occurred nearSclhia Minor. E.H. Minns has had in view an inroad of the Sqthae (ie. theGoths) south of the Danubelr, albeit the text clearly speaks about an intemal revolt.The single source which can contain a reference to a mutiny causod by an invasionis the edict of 2Eth April 323 against the citizens who helped the invadcrs (CodTheod. Yll. l. 1;r2. The Gothic and Samatian inroads werc succ€ssfully rejectedby the army led by Constantine the Great. The events do not match with thesituation recorded in the chronicle of Chersonesos, because the mutiny was notsuppressed by the imperial army, but by the troops celled ftom Chersonesos. It isindeed strange this calling (ldloucij) of tie Chersonites for an intervention into aprovince of the Roman Empire. We can suppose that the local patriotism hasexaggerated the facts and that the toops b€longed in fact to the vexillations ofthe IItalica and II Herculia lcgions, located at Chersonesos sinc€ the end of the 3rdcenturyrr, Even so, is difficult to understand why Constantine the Great calledtroops from a place far from the province. X-i\2"c, r

If we admit the relation from DAI, we can think that no available troops werein the region. A similar situation was recorded by Excerpta Yalesiana (V. 2l) inrelation with the Gothic invasion of 323: this one was possible beoause the limes

8 For the 7th ccnhrry Dobrudja and for the far€ of th€ provincc, sec: I. Bsmc|, Dobrogea insecolele YII-X, "Peuce",

e 1971, pp. 2O5-219i A. P&q Bwnce et Whie Minerrc au llf stbcle.RESEE, 19, l9tl, 3, pp. 555-56t; P. Diacoau, La Dobtoudja et Blzance d l'dpque de la genise dupcuple rcumain (vIt-X sidcles),'Po ica", 14, lgtl, pp. 217-220: E. Obdltnder-Ttmoveanu,Mot rwies btzartirres der VIr-X ,tieclet dccwver,et A Silittq dans la collection de l'rcaddnicienPeicle Papahagi, con:etude ou Cabirg des Midailles Aa MusCe Nstior.1,''l d'Histoirc de Roumsnie,"Cercettui numismatie", T, 196, W.97-127:, lL MaAgaru, Contituitate $i discorti\titate cul wqldla Dundrea de Jot h wcolelc VIIVIII, Bvcwcgli, 1997 , pp. 2317, | 04-l 14, l3Fl49.

' R.J.H. Jenkins, in Constutine Portyrogcnitus, q. cit., ll, p- 2O7 .f0 G. Dagron, fionsance d'une cap,rqle. Constantinople et Ecs iFtitutiois de i30 d 45l,Pafis,

19t4, pp. lGl7, 32-33." E.H. Minns, Sclthia t atd GreeLt. A Survey oI Arcienl History and Arclwologt on the

Notth Coost of ttE Et/tine from tle Danbe to tle Caucasw, Ctnfrdge ! 913, p. 526.'2 Scc R, Vulpq l. Brnrcr, ry. crt, p. 388; A. Sucsvcsnl A. Brt c{, op cit, p. 160.'' T. Samowski, Dss romische Heet..., pp.9d97.

was neglected $ter neglectos limites erttpernt)' most - probable because many

trooDs were detached for the war between ionstantine and Liciniusra'"""t w" t"p-p.*-thtt " mutiny against Constantine ttre lre-at could happen in the

monttrs ioffowing the battle of Clhrysopolis, when the defence of the Danubian

/irr" ** *"*.-Inthis qase, the rebels'were the people who remained faithful to

Licinius, military and civilians.After his defeat, Licinius tried to get help fiom the Gothsrs. This can suSgest

that Licinius hopcd to find support in the Lower Danubian area'_-- - Tl" main supPort for iicinius could come fiom dre peasants They benefited

from the financial po'licy of Licinius. The reign of Licinius remained for many years as

;;;il;itt"'rp".ii'r6. The abrogation of dre entire legislation previouslv issued

6ia"#; at'l6tl' denbet 3241cod. TtEd r.v' 14' l):an be seen as the

i*.rdirr" o""r"ion for a revolt of the supporters of Licinius' The Christian ryrnpathies

of Constantine were too a possible reason for a mutiny ofthe pagan pfasants'

The participants at the revolt could be civilians (peasants)' but also militars

who remained faithful to Licinius. In this case, Constantine was forced to call for

h;i; troo; from other province, from instance fiom Cher-soresos A state of

dissent against Constantine can be infened from the well-known inscription

""ir*."tia by the soldiers of Salsovia to the Sun god, dae'd 322-323 ' Ttrc

i"Ji*"v *-#Utrs only Licinius and his son, not also Constantiner?'

Li such conditions a mutiny could arise, for instance in the spring of 325 A

state of danger in Dobrudja is suggested by the hiding of the big coin hoard. ftom

Micin, cloJd with pieces issued ai the beginning of325rr' A barbarian invasion or

an intemal turmoil could cause the hiding, bue - of course - we can not be

absolutely sure about thisOn the other hand, we are not surprised that the contemporary literary sources

do not attest a rehltion in Scfhia. Most part of them are favorable to Constantine'

t'M. zahariade, Moesia Secunda, Scythil $i Notitia Dignitatum' Bucucati' 1988' p t3;

A. Sucevcanu, A. Bame4 op. cil., p. l6l.ln the same context catt be rcmembered the unclear data

givcn by loaucs Lyd os (D; Mogistrotibus, Il. 10, Ill 3l' 33,40), conceming the withdrawal oithe

ioops tom Scyttria and Moesiaio esia' "ior fcar of a tyranny". Howewr' Zahariad€ ' op cit ' p '16

orcfirs to datc ihis cvent into a later moment ofthe reign ofconslantine thc Great'-'-'-';"o.

;;:i;;i-, in ng xnr, cor. z30; H ivolftsrl ltirr ory olthe Goth's'Be*etev' t988'

p. 60. The so-calicd refirie of Licinius in thc region of-Moates Setoru was explsined by a

ionfirsion with Seres. Sci B. Bleckmann, Die Cttonik der Johonnes Zorwros und eine Pogane

griti t* citat"n* Korsrantr'rr, 'Historia-', 40, l9l, 3, p 350, footrrotc 32 For the ptoblem of-Montes

Serrorum, sce A. Madgearu, Thrce Problemt of Hkto cat Geography: Whne' Montes

Serrorum and CaucolaLrl, 'Etudes Balkaniques"' 36, 2001, 3, pp l4G-143't6 E. Steir', Histoire dt Bas-Enpie,l,l, Paris' 1959' p. %tt E. Popescq Inscripfiile gecefti $i laline din secolele IY-XIII descoperite in Rozlania'

Bucure$i, 19?6, pp. 2t3-2t4 (nr. 271).ii n. Oti"'l."ou, Tezaun/l dc nun ii cottstanlinieni de lo Arrubium (1908)' coqtibuli lo

cunoosterea cireuiosiei'monetare tn Sclthio i,Iinor intre anii 318-324, "Peuce", 10, l9l, pp 4l7-

455 (espccislly p. 422).

Mutini€s Against Center in Scythia 9

Generally speaking, the sources could ignore the event because it happened into aperipheral area about which few data were transmitted during the Roman period.However, the event was of great importance for the citizens of Chersonesos, and bythis reason it was preserved by the local tradition.

Chersonesos had a particular interest in the suppression of the anti-constantinian mutiny. The principal enemy of this town, the Bosporan kingdom'was led between 30t/309 and 3221323 by the Sarmatian king Rhadamsadios''. Onthe other hand, from Zosimos, II. 2l results that the Sarmatian king Rausimoduswas killed during the north-Danubian offensive led by Constantine the Great in32320. We suppose that Rausimodus and Rhadamsadios were the same person.Rausimodus was allied with the Goths who in their turn supporGd Licinius.

Of course, we can not reach firm conclusions on the basis of such a latersource like the work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. However, the suppositionthat the rebellion hapenned in the period of Constantine the Great seems morereliable than the idea proposed by Ntrsturel and Bamea.

II

The support given by Anastasius to the Monophysitic heresy was able toincite revolts against him in the provinces were Orthodoxy was the mainconfession. The same emperor adopted a very severe financial policy that washarmful especially for the p€asants. He decided to take the taxes each year inpieces, not in nature, in order to replace the incomes frorn lhe fotrner clrysarg,T on.Because the Tlracian diocesis was into a certain extent depopulated, the burdenwas very great for its people. In other provinces the new coemptio was not apermanent levy. It seems obvious that the inhabitants of the Thracian diocese hadmajor reasons to revolt against Anastasius2l.

This was the background ofthe mutiny that inflamed the Balkan part of theEmpire in the last years of Anastasius. The leader was Vitalianus, cozes

foederqtorum in the Thracian diocesis. He rebelled in 513 against Anastasius andhis chief Hypathi us, magister milinm per Tlraciam, because lhe payment for the

foederati was ceased at the request of Hypathius, in order to punish some disorders.

re E.H. Minns, op. cit., pp. 52'1, 6C9; Y.F. Gajdukevid Das Bosporanische Reiclr, Bcrlin-Amsterdan, l9'l l, p. 57 4.

20 O. Secclc, Rausimdus, in RE, Zwcite Rcihe, l, col 296; E.A. Thompson' Constantine,Constontius II and thz Lower Danube Fronlier, "Hermes", 84, 1956' 3, p.378; F. Paschoud' inlZosimos, Hirroire 1votwlle, t, Paris, l9'll, pp.92-93,213; A.H M. Joncs, J.R Manindale, J. Monis,The Prosopograptry of the Later Rornon Ernpirc, I, A.D. 26O-395, Cambridgc, 19'11' p- '162;

H. Wolfram, or. ct,, p. 50.t' R. Vulpe. t. name4 qp. cit., p.412413; I. Miculcscu, Reeoha lui yitalian in contealul

politicii religioase ;i economice a lui Anastasius I (491-518), "Glasvl Bisericii", 43, 1984, 3' p 578

l0 Alcxsndru Madrearu

Unlike the rebellion against Constantinc, the events started in 513 wererecorded in many sources, but with some contradictions and biases causedespecially by the religious beliefs of the authors. For the Monophysitic writers,Vitalianus was a barbarian and a tyrant who only wanted the power, while theOrthodox authors emphasized the rightness of his fight against the heretic emperor.Even the origin of Vitalianus was confusingly presente.d in tle sources. Forinstance, Zacharias Rhetor believed he was a Goth22. but it was shown23 tlat thisauthor has made a confusion between patriciolus (tle father of Vitalianus) andanother Patriciolus, the son ofAspar (as a matt€r of fact, an Alan, not a Goth).

The truth is that Vitalianus was a Roman of Thracian origin - as oan be foundout fiom Evagrios and Malalas - and as are showing the names of his sons: Cutzisand Buzes". The name "Scyhian', given by Marcellinus Comes25 concerns theprovince of Scythia where he was bom (at Zaldapa = 6btaat, today in Bulgaria).

Vitalianus was not dar Moesiae, as said the same Zacharias Rhetor. orcommander of the Thracian troops (as wrote John of Nikiou). His real function wascomes foederatorum, as we can find from two of the rnost credible sources,Theodoros Anagnostes and Victor of Tunun (the same said Theophanes)26.Vitalianus gathered an army composed by Bulgarians, Huns and Goths juit becausehe had this function. These barbarians were colonized as foederdi in severalmoments during the 4th-Sth centuries. Their relics were found by archaeologicalresearches in scveral sites in Moesia Secunda and Scythia2T. As we have alreadyseen, the revolt started because the payments for thefoederati were interrupted.

The financial cause of the revolt was clearly mentioned by one of the mosttrutifirl sourccq Theodoros Anagnoster htr fie same also said tl'at vitalianus raisedthe Orthodox people against the faifiless Anestasius2s. Vialianus claimed that the

, . . 22

.Die^sogenwnte-KirclEngerchichv det fuchartu Rhetor (hng, von K. Ahrens, C. Iftilger),Lipsiac,.lE9, pp. l3Gl37, l4l (VII. l3, VIII.2).

^ " I.1.. Russu, Elementele Eacugetice in Imperiul Roman 5i in Brzan ium (eeacu le III_WI).

LontftDulte ta tstoria si romonizarea Eqcilor, Bucurcgti, 19j6, p. gS.

_ . " The Thracian origin was cmphasizcd by Ioannes Malalas (Chronogrqhia, XVl, p. 402),

Evagrios (t6loda ecclesiattica, IlI. 43) and t€o Grsmmaticus '(Chroigraphiq,

p. llb). S€eLL Russ!, qp. crr, p. tH5.

" Marcallinus Comes, Chronicon, Sl4.l.

. . ..']ft$:t"f Aragnostes, Kichengeschichte, hng. c.C. Hansen (Die griechischenchristlich€n Schriftseller dcr crstcn tahrhundcrre, 60), B;lin, l9?1, p. 143; Victoi of Tunun,Chronica,sl0iThcophmes, Cfuonographia, ed. Dc Boor, p. l5?-. - - -

'' H, Nlbal Ein gotisch-alanbches Grob in His;iq,,,D.u;id', NS, 15, 1971, pp. 335_347:M. MInucu-Adsncttcsnu" I)n mormdn gemwnic din necropola cerdsii ,ltganun, SCli L lt, g$,2, pp-. 3.11120; A Hanlambicva, Gote4 Hune4 und Avaren in'Nudistbulgorien (Suddobrudjo

:y L:d?q*P, in.Von der Sclthia at Dobrudia (.MisceltotrctBulganca", I | ), Wien, lDZ, pp. li_

zJ; L vagafrnskf, s&rrdnisct, utd v'lkant anderungszeitltctu Drchsctziben-Keramrk miteangegldtteter Venieruig stidlich der untercn Donat (Bttlgarten), in G. Gornolta-Fuchs (cd.), D,eStnena de MureyCernjaehov-Kultur. Aben des Interrariivlen'ko quiam in Cqtuth voa 20 bk24 Oho.ber 1995,Boffi, t999, pp. tjs-t?t." Theodoros Anagnojqs, op. cir.,p. 143.

patriarch Macedonius and the other persecuted bishops must be restored in their seats"'Vitulianus had some personal reasons to rebel, because he was the godson of

Flavianus, the Orthodox patiarch of Antiochia, who was replaced by the MonophysiteSeverus3o. An information pres€rved into a larer source (based on lost sources) tells tharthe mother of Vitalianus was the sister of the patriarch Macedoniusl. According to

another source, H;'pathius has raped the wife of Vitalianus".The retigious claims became more and more weighty and furally Vitalianus

asked the emperor to convoke an ecclesiastical council in order to restore the

Orthodoxy. This shows that the mutiny became a religious movement. The bishopVictor of Tunun was convinced that Vitalianus rebelled because the Orthodoxywas threatened by the heresy'3. The relations established between Vitalianus andthe "scythian monks" incited the mutiny. It seems that one of them,'Leontios, was

a relative of Vitalianusra. The general will later support an action of these monkswho tried to modifi the Creed with the purpose- to rggonciliate the Monophysitswith the Orthodoxsi5. ft1'g " . Ro'l 7l n I E' t)

From the very beginning, in the army entered many civilians, especiallypeasants (-groih:€a=dG6n apud Ioames Antiochenus). They were dissatisfiedby the financial policy of Anastasius. According to Marcellinus Comes, Iordanesand loannes Antiochenus, the force led by Vitalianus was composed by circa 50-

60.000 infantrymen and horsemen. Theodoros Anagnostes emphasized that

Vitalianus rised the Orthodox people fiom Scyhia, Moesia and the nearby zones in

order to fight against the faithless emperor. This great amount of troops can beexplained only by the participation of the civilians, because the total number ofthesoldiers in the Thracian diocesis was 20.000 at the most, during the 6th century 16.

Vitalianus began by killing Maxentius (who was perhaps the dzr of Moesia

Secunda) and the deputies of the commander Hypatius. The rebelled armyadvanced in 5 l3 up to the surroundings of Constantinople, but Vitalianus accept€d

2e Marcelfinus Comes, op. cit., 514.1: Yictor of Tunun, qp ct , 514; Theophanes ' op cit ' lg'l:

E. Stein, Histoire du Bo$ Empire,ll, Patis, 1949, p. l'19.r0 Zacharias Rhctor, op. cit.,Vlll.2. See W. EDsslin, Vi,olianus (6\, RE, 9 A, 1961, col' 375;

C. C^pizzi, L'imperotole Arasto.tio I (491-518). Sndio sulla sua vita, la sua opera e la suapersoialitd, Orie;talia Christiana Anal€ct4 184, Rom4 1969, p. t23; P. Charanis' Chtch akd Statein he Later Roman Enpire. The Retigious Polic! of Anastastus the First (491 J'16), Thessaloniki,1974, pp. 80-8 I .-t'

Michael Sy )s, Chrcnique, ed. I. B. Chabo! vol. II, Patis, 1905' p. 164 (D(. 9). Se€ E Steir\op. ct , p. | 7t, foomote 2; W. Ensslin, op. cit., col. 374; A'. Sthvar;". Die Erhebuag des Vilaliarus dieProtobulgarcn und dds Koruil von Heraclea 5 /5, "Bulgariar Historical R€view", 20, 1992' 4'p 5.

" Zacharias Rietor, op. cit.,yll.13; E. Stcin, op. cit.,P. 178, foomote 2; C-C^pizzi, op cit.'o. 123.

rr Vicor ofTunun, op. cr7., 510.11P. Charanis, qp. cir, p.8t; I. l . Russu, qp. crr, p. 89.1r E. stein, op. clt., pp.228-229; W. Ensslin, op. cit.,cx�l.377;A. Schwarcz' op crt. p 916 W. Treadgold, Spantium dnd its Army. 284 1081, Sl{[l.fotd,1995' p 63

to retreat because he trusted h the promises made by the magister militumpraesentalis Patricius in the name ofthe emperor.

Anastasius gainod time, but the war continued in the south of the province ofScythia in 514, where Vitalianus defeated the army commanded by Cyrillus (thenew nagister milinm per Tbaciam, who was s€nt against Vitalianus). Animportant battle took place at Odessos (Vama). The fortress was easily conqueredbecaus€ the guards betrayed and Clrillus was killed. Another major victory wasobtrined at Acrcs (Ikliakra). With this occssion w8s captured the generalHypathius, who has reoeivcd the mission to fight against Vitalianus. The secondcommander of this corps of srmy was the Hun Alathar, appointed magister militumper Thrrciam aftcr Cyrillus. It was supposed that the appointnent of a Hun in thisfunction had the purpose to athact the Huns from the army of Vitalianus. Thestratageme failed_and Hypathius was killed just by the Hunic allies of Vitalianus,ruled by Tanach''.

After the campaigns of 5 l3-5 14, Vitalianus became the master of a large partofthe Thracian diocesis (the provinces of Scyhia and Moesia Secunda). The armyof Vitalianus marched toward Constantinople, in tle same tim€ with a fleetdeparted fiom the harbor of Sclthia and Moesia Secunda. The army camped nearthe capital, in front ofthe Great Wall of Theodosius, at Sosthenium. The situationwas indeed critical, because the Consantinopolitan plebs was very hostile againstthe emperor and a new uprising was at any time possible. On the other hand, anintervention of the Ostrogoth king of Itely Theodcrich the Great was also possible.The siege was stopp€d after eight days, when Anastasius promised that he wouldsatisry the religious claims ofthe reb€ls: the recall of the exiled bishops includingthe patriarch Macedonius and the participation of the Roman church at a futurecouncil. The emperor also accepted to pay the ransom of 5000 solidi for Hypathius.Vitalianus was appo tnted magister militum per Thraciamlt .

Vitalianus started a third campaign because Rufinus replaced him in his newfunction of magister militum per Thraciam. Moreover, the emperor did notorganize the council in 515 (as he promised), and he refused to condemn thepatriarch Acacius. The army of Vitalianus arrived near the capital, at Sycai, in tbe

" Marcellinus Comes, op. ctt, 514; Victor of T\nv\ op. cit.,5l l; Iordanes, Romsna, 3581'Iheodoros Anagnostes, op. cit., p. 143; Ioannes Antiochenus, Chronicon,2l4;' Malalas, op. ctr., XVl,

pp. 402-403; E. Stein, op c,r., pp. I8G-l8l; W. Ensslin, op. cit., cal.375; V. Bcsevliev, D,?Nachrichten des Molalas iber die Bulgaren bei Theophanes, "Byzantina", 10, 1980, p. 343;P. Char_aris, op. ctr, pp. t2-84; A Schertcz op. cit.,p.6.

'" Marcellinus Comcs , op. cit., 514,515. 2; Evagrios, op, cit., l ,43; Theodoros Anagnostes,op. cit., p. 145: Victor of Tunun, op. cit.,5l4; Malalas, op. crr, XVI, pp. 402+03; Ioanncs Nikiou,Chronique, ed. H. Zotcnb€rg, h "Noticcs et extraits des manuscrits de la BibliothCque Nationale etautrcs bibliothequcs", Paris, 24, 1tE3, l, p. 498; Thcophancs, op. cit., p. 160; E. Steirl op. c , p. l8l ;W. Ensslin, op. cit., col.376; C. Capizzi, op. cit., p. 125; P. Charuis, op. cit., pp.84-85iA. Schwarcz, op. cit., p. 6-7 .

Mutinies Against Center in Sc,'thia l l

auomn of 515, but Anastasius took full advantage from the new weapon inventedbv the engineer Proclos, the "Greek fire". The sources are telling that the naly ofVitalianus was entirely burdened at the mouth of Golden Hom. The psychologicaleffect was decisive (this is the first record of this terrible Byzantine weapon). Thevictory belonged to Marinus, the praefectus urbi. The rest ofthe rebels withdrew tonorth. Vitalianus found refuge at Anchialos3e.

It se€ms tlat Vitalianus planned a new war in the autumn of 516, but thedeath of Anastasius in 5l E made this uselessao.

In order to strenghten the fidelity of the soldiers, Anastasius increased verymuch the payments for the comilatens€J troops in 516 (from 4 to 20 solidi). Itseems that this decision was influenced by the rebellion of Vitalianusar.

The naval battle near Constantinople has decided the result of a civilian warwith very grave effects. ln the same time with the offensive of 515 an attack of theCaucasian Kutrigurs took place. It was supposed that these barbarians weresummoned by their brothers from the army of Vitalianus in order to make adiversion in the eastem provinces. ln 517 is attested an invasion of the so-called"Getae", who were Slavs or other north-Danubian barbariansa2. These facts aresuggesting that the empire was confronted with a crisis provoked by the inner andouter barbarians. The events are strinkingly similar with those of 1072-1091, whenthe population of the Byzantine province Paradunavon rebelled against the centreand also with the anti-Byzantine fights of the Vlachs and the Bulgars in 1l8Gl 197(when the Cumans played a decisive role). Of course, we have no informationabout a cooperation between Vitalianus and the north-Danubian barbarians, but thissupposition should not be excluded.

The llth-l2th centuries mutinies determined the secession of the Paristriantenitory. Can we find similar centrifugal airns in the case of the rebellion ofVitalianus ? We think so. Several sources are telling that the general owned Sclthiaand Moesia (or all the Thracian diocesis), even after the death of Anastasiusar,Iordanes sustained that lustinus concluded a foedus with Vitalianus when heoffered him the function of magister militum praesentalisoo. This means that

'Evagrios, op. cit.,\ .43; Malalas, op. cit., XvL40A06; toannes Nikiou, op. cit.,p.499;E Srcio, qp.- ct., pp. 182-185; W. Ensslin, op. cit., col.376; C. Capizzi', op- cit., pp. 126-12'1;P Charuis, op. cit.,pp.E1-94, A. Schwucz, o4 cit.,pp.1-9.

€ C)Tillus of Sclthopolis, Vito Sabae,58; E. Stein, op. cit., p. 192; C. Capizzi, op. cit., p. 126,:ofrrc l5l.

'r w. Trcsdgold, op. ctr, p. 153.€ As srpposed N. Blncscq tiJericd tn pri ele veacuri ole Bizshlului. Politica religioasd a

trcttastus I H9l-518), "Mitropolia Olt€niel', 13, 1961, l+, p. 35; P. Charanis, op. cit., p.93:,R irs! op ctr, p. tt.

" l lr ldq op. cit., XVl, p. 402; Evagios, op. cit., lV.3; Ioannes Nikiou, op. cit., p.498;Tl.,1Fbics. qp. cit, p. 160.

' Io.d-<s q ct., 360.

I I

14 Alcxandru Madeearu

Vitalianus was se€n as an independent ruler over a territory with the centre locatedat Anchialos (where he took refuge after the defeat of autumn 515). The controlover the Thracian provinces also results from the fact that Vitalianus couldorgantze a fleet, which was not usually commanded by the comes foederatorum.From the relation of Evagrios results that Vitalianus mastered the Thracian themewhen Justinus called him at Constantinopleas.

According to the most part of the sources, Vitalianus intelded to becomeemperor (Procopius, Ioannes Antiochenus, Evagrios, Theophanes)e. procopius,Zacharias Rhetor and loannes Malalas stated that Vitalianus became a tyrant(usurper) and that he wished to became emperoraT. Evagrios also used the word'tulr'lr1' +u+ea;ei{with the meaning of .mutiny')as. Ioannes Aniiochenus, who was veryhostile to Vitalianus, \ rote that all the people in Scythia and Moesia worshiped

' Vitalianus like an emperor. The orthodox Theophanes wrote that the crowd ofConstantinople acclaimed the rebel as an emperor. On the other hand, according toIordanes (who considered the events as a civilian war that lasted six years),Vitalianus was an enemy of Anastasius and not ofthe stateae. It could be thereforesupposed that Vitalianu$ wished to be arl emDerorso. His function of commander ofthe Thracian troops was a good departure p-int for this. However, it is surprisingthat he did not fructifu the siege of 514.

Vitalianus was supported by Pope Hormisdas, who considered htm as aflius,because he was a very devoted Orthodoxt'. ln their letter written in 519, thebishops Germanus and lohannes gave him the imperial title ofpi issimus princeps eldominus. He was then magister militums2. Thjs means that the bishops consideredVitalianus a kind of coemperor of Justin I. This was not true, but the expressionreveals the attitude ofthe Roman church toward Vitalianus, the general who foughtfor the Orthodoxy.

After 518, Vitalianus did not attempt to rebel against the new emperorJustin l, an Orthodox. Being appointed in 519 as magister militum praesentalisand next consul5r, Vitalianus had had the necessarv forces to deoose Justin l. buthe did not. John of Nikiou afiirmed5a that Vitalianus Dlanned a revolt after the

o' Evagrios, op. cir, IV. 3." Evagrios, op. cir, [V.3; procopius, De Bellk,L g,3; VL 5. I ; Ioannes Artiochenus, op. cil.,p. 35 5;-Iheophanes, op. cit.,p.159.

'' Zachaias Rhctor, op. cir., Vll.l3, Vnl. 2; Malalas" op. cit.,Xyl, p.402.o8 Evagrios, op. cit.,lll. 43." Iordanes, op. cit, j57.' P. Charants, op. cit, p. 8l; R. Vulpc, l. Barile4 op. ctr, p. 413; LL Russu, op. cit., p. g7.

'' L D. Mansi, Sdcrotum conciliorum nora et amplissima collectio, VIu, col. 454; l.l. Russu,op ctt.,.p.88.

" Epistuloe imperetorum ponti/icara... (Collectio Avcllana), ed. O. Guenther, Leipzig, lg9g,217.6 .

5r Ma.rccllinus Comes, op. cit., 519; Victor o f T\n\n, op. cit. , 522.1r loanncs Nikiou. oa cit.. o.502.

l 0

Mutinies AgaiNt Canrcr in Sclthia l 5

death of Anastasius, but it seems that the target was only to kill the patriarchScverus of Antiohia, his personal enemy. However, this information is notconfirmed by other sources. By the way, this chronioler believed that the veryreason of the wars of Vitalianus was the hate against Severus (an expression ofthe narrow-minded point of view of this Monophysite Eg5rptian priest). As wecan find out from the sources, it seems more reliable that Justinian (the nephewof Justin I and future emperor) killed Vitalianus in July 520 because heconsidered him a rival, not because the latter intended to rise against Justin Ir5. Itseems that the imperial ambitions of Vitalianus were directed only against theheretic Anastasius.

Aside the economic, military and political background, the mutiny ofVitalianus had clear religious reasons. The revolt started as a rnilitary sedition butacquired the support of the civilians because it was a good opportunity to achievethe economic and religious claims ofthe provincials.

III

A comparison between the rebellions discussed in this study is not easy,because we have very scarce information about the frst one. However, it could besupposed that the events of 325 were determined by tlte new frnancial policyintoduced by Consantine the Great just after the victory against Licinius. As wehave already noted, Constantine removed the privilcges grented to the peasants bythe former emperor. This is a strong reason for a civilian unrest, but is not able toexplain the mutiny ofthe local army. In the casc of the soldicrs, the sympathy forLicinius should be taken into consideration.

The defeat suffered at Chrysopolis by the army of Licinius was of courseperceived as a defeat of the army ganisoned in Sqthia. The local patiotism andthe fidelity for the former suprcme commander could be a reason for a mutinyagainst Constantine. A well-known funeral inscription found at Ulmetum(Pantelimonul de Sus, Constanta County) contains an interesting instance. Thedead Valerius Victorinus was officer in the scholae palatinae (the guard ofLicinius) and he was killed at Chrysopolis. The inscription calls this bsttle proelrlRomanorum (...) contra aversariostu. This means that the family of the officerconsidered that only the army of Licinius was really Roman, maybe becauseLicinius defended the paganism. However, the army of Sc$hia was not €ntirely

t' Marccllinus Comes, op. cit., 520; lordEnes, ry. clt, 360; Procopius, ,4 reldota, Yl. 27-2E;vi(s of Tunun, qp. cit.,523; Evrglios, q. crr., fV. 3.

\ " E. Popcscu, lrgcripFilc gec.t i ti latine din secolcle IV-XIII de$coperite ih Ronta ia,

I hrc${ 1976, p. 214 (nr.2t}6).

l'

heathen. Some soldiers and olficers were Christianss?. lt is very interesting that

some of the Christians who were martirized during Galerius or Licinius were not

only soldiers, but also barbarians. The anthropological analysis of the relics

preserved in the martyion of Tropaeum Traiani (the basilica named'A') has shown

ihat all the five skeletons belonged to a racial t)?e that can be ascribed to the Alans

or to another nomad population. They were most probable barbarians enroled in the

Roman army ofthe Scythian province5t.Knowing that the rural areas were alnost pagan in the first part of the 4th

century all ovir the Roman Empire, the uprising of the peasants of Scyhia against

the Christian emperor who defeated their beloved pagan and generous emperor

seems noffnal.We therefore suppose a religious and financial background for the mutury

against Constantine. The same combination between economic, military and

,"ligiou, au*"t aoutd be find two centuries later. The mechanism of the uprising was

moJt probable tlre same and the pattem was identical: a mov€ment of the periphery

ugainit the centre. The increasing tax burden affected the peasants of Scythia who

became in this way the main force involved in the mutiny slarted by the soldiers

After two centuries, the inheritors of the pagan peasants became the most

ardent defenders ofthe Orthodoxy against the heresy. Of course, they did not know

what exactly was this heresy, but they found out that the emperor is a faithless one

and they rebelled against him.Tiis mingling of religious and economic causes was able to inflame a mutiny

against the centre. The events expressed the tensions between the conservative

periphery (first pagan and next Orthodox) and the innovative cenfe (first Christian

and next heretic). This kind of reaction of the conservative periphery presents

analogies with other movements directed against the centre, based too on religious

and not religious reasons. A good example was-the state of unrest provoked by the

Donatist schism in Africa along the 4th centuryse.Another common feature of the mutinies studied in this paper was the

cooDeration with the extemal barbarians. The Goths helped Licinius, while the

t? For lhe rcligious situation in the army h the lirst decades of the 4th century' see

J. Helgeland, Christiai and the Roman Arny from Morcus Aurelius to Cotlttanline, ir Aufstieg und

Niede"rgang der Ra)mischen Welt,ll,z3n, Beilin-t'lew yort, lg1g, pp 'n7 83.4; A Ba'Ite4 inceputul

epociiboiinanlui la Dun\rca de Jos inffe pAgAnisd li crc$tinism, in lliscellanea in honorem Radu

Monole"cu emeriro. Universitalea Bucure$ti, 1996,71-84; A. Madgearu' A note on the Christians'

presence in the sacer conitatw before 3)3 A.D., "Aevum", 75, 2001, l, pp ll l-117.- t8 N. Miritoiu, D. Nicoleescu-Ploppr, Analiza antropologicd a osetfiintelor descoperile i4

cnuu bazilicii simple' U) de Ia Tropaeum Traioni,"Pontica", I l, 1978, pp l89-20?' " W. H. C. Frend, tire Donatist Church. A Movemenl of Protesl in Roma't North Africo,

Oxford. l97l. See the remarks of A. Murdouze, Le donatisme reprdsente-l'il lo rdsistance d Rome de

I'AJiique tatdi,)e ?, n Assi ilation et rasistonce d lo culture grico-romaiP dans le nonde ancien'

Trlvattt du l'f Congris lnternational d'Endes Classiquer, Bucarest-Paris, 1976, pp 357-366'

Mutinies Against C€nter in Sc),thia t 1

army of Vitalianus was mainly composed by barbarian waniors. In the same way,the l2th century rebellion of the Vlachs and Bulgarians obtained an importantsupport from the Cumans.

Both mutinies reveal a common pattem for the relations between peripheryand centre in times of crisis. The conflictual relations evolved from simole unrestto centrifusal trends.