In a world of empires and kingdoms, the Byzantine
Empire stood as a symbol of power and prestige, a perennial bastion of strength, and an enduring
stronghold that at times dominated the medieval age. However, beneath the veneer of splendour that
graced the Byzantine court lay a long history of intrigue and civil conflict. The empire spent more
time at war with itself rather than the enemies that circled its borders, as rival factions
and claimants tore at the empire’s very fabric, only able to unite under its greatest rulers.
So what were the causes that led to centuries of instability and unrest? And why did the
Byzantines find themselves embroiled in so many destructive and costly civil wars? In
this video, we will delve into the reasons why the Eastern Roman Empire of the Middle
Ages was as habitually unstable as it was. This video was kindly sponsored by our youtube
members and patrons. Right now, the patrons and youtube members are exclusively watching
our First Punic War and Pacific War series, while the series on the history of Prussia
and Italian Unification Wars - Risorgimento have been concluded, and the series on the
Russo-Japanese War and Albigensian Crusade and Xenophon’s anabasis will be released next.
You can join their ranks via the links in the description and pinned comment to get exclusive
videos, early access to all public videos, schedule, access to a special discord
server, where we are very active and much more. Thanks for supporting us, we
couldn’t be doing it without your help! The Byzantine Empire inherited a long-standing
tradition of civil wars that dated back to the collapse of the Roman Republic. In this tumultuous
period, commanders with enough loyal soldiers could seize the capital and impose their will upon
the state. This trend persisted in the later Roman Empire, where powerful generals could claim
the imperial title when the opportunity arose. One such example was the year of the four
emperors, which saw a large-scale civil war erupting in the aftermath of Nero's death,
with numerous contenders vying for the throne. The Byzantines would inherit this same
problem that would become deeply ingrained in the empire's political culture.
The early Byzantine Empire initially struggled with internal difficulties from the
new peoples who settled its lands. In 399 AD, Byzantium faced a rebellion from the Ostrogoths
in Phyria under Tribigild, joined by Gainas and his goths in 400. His rebellion would only
be quelled after the Greco-Roman citizenry of Constantinople rebelled against Gainas’s gothic
garrison, forcing him to flee to the Hellespont, where his force was crushed. This racial tension
between the numerous peoples of the empire sparked conflicts across the nation, such as the
Samaritan revolts and the Isaurian War, and was a key reason for some of its early instability.
The Eastern Roman state, like its unified predecessor, also faced internal strife due
to the meritocratic system of government it had developed. Unlike other monarchies of the
time, the Byzantine realm didn’t have any laws of succession, and though powerful emperors could
launch dynasties, in Byzantine political theory, the emperor was chosen by God based upon their
competence. This meant that the imperial purple could not be limited to those with ‘royal blood.’
Instead, it was extended to all others, so if a general or courtier were able to rebel against
the sitting Emperor successfully, it would have been through God's favour, and thus he would have
had some legitimacy. However, this legitimacy was contingent on the usurper's ability to maintain
support from key factions, including the military, clergy, and nobility, while also defending
against other usurpers inspired by their success. Despite all this, the early Byzantine state
remained relatively stable internally. The only reign that met instability was that of Zeno, who
ruled without the support of the many factions, resented by many as a barbarian due to his Isurian
background. But despite plots and rebellions by Marcian and Illus, his support base among the
Isurian soldiers allowed him to retain power. The reason for this early stability was the
administrative structure of the early empire. The initial Byzantine state apparatus was a
combination of the late Roman diocese system established by Diocletian and Constantine in the
late 3rd century AD and Justinian's innovations in the 6th century AD. However, in the years 535
and 536, Justinian's administrative reforms were formalized, essentially eliminating the antiquated
diocese system hierarchy established in previous centuries and the strict military and civic
divisions within the empire that had come with it. Instead, various provincial circumscriptions
were directly governed by deputies of the emperor, such as the Stratalates, Strategoi, and
Harmost, who were given extraordinary military and administrative powers.
These changes were accompanied by the appointment of prestigious new titleholders in
an attempt to lessen corruption and simplify the emperor's direct handling of its domains.
These reforms were endorsed by contemporary monarchical philosophy in the Greek-speaking
eastern Mediterranean, and this administrative restructuring was one of the reasons why the
early Byzantine state was relatively stable compared to later periods, as the emperor's
control was more centralized, while many of the early emperors were able to retain popularity
with the factions that could overthrow them. Despite all the measures implemented, it was
inevitable that a large-scale civil conflict would eventually erupt due to the meritocratic
system and lack of succession laws. The first spark of this unrest came with the rebellion
led by Phocas. Emperor Maurice's failure to maintain the army's support, resulting from
wage cuts and constant gruelling campaigns, led them to raise Phocas on their shields in
the traditional act of declaring a new emperor before swiftly seizing Constantinople. Phocas's
reign, however, was marked by his inability to control the army and the state, making him deeply
unpopular. Consequently, he faced rebellion first from General Narses and later from the exarch
of Carthage, which ultimately led to his ousting in favour of the more competent Heraclius the
Younger. Despite some lingering pockets of support for Phocas, Heraclius maintained his position
through his exceptional leadership skills. While Heraclius provided a temporary respite
for the empire, the sweeping conquests of the natal Rashidun caliphate posed a significant
challenge, shaking confidence in imperial rule. The subsequent death of Heraclius
further destabilized the climate, leading to significant opposition and the
eventual demise of his grandson, Constans II. During Constans II's reign, however, the
introduction of the new thematic system would become one of the main factors contributing to
the later instability of the Eastern Roman state. Though this system allowed for the raising of
large armies at a low cost, the large size and power of the themes made generals more prone to
revolt, decentralizing imperial authority and undoing the reforms of Justinian. The detrimental
consequences of this decentralization became fully apparent during a subsequent period
known as "the twenty years of anarchy." This tumultuous era was initiated by the despotic
rule of Justinian II, plunging the empire into a state of chaos as influential commanders from
powerful themes, such as Opsikion, Anatolikon, and Armeniakon, vied for the imperial throne. The
instability persisted until the reign of Leo III, governor of the Anatolic theme, who successfully
defended his title and implemented a series of reforms aimed at consolidating the administration,
including restructuring the thematic system. However, tranquillity proved fleeting as chaos
once again engulfed the realm following Leo's death. His successor, Constantine V, faced
a formidable challenge from Artabasdus, the leader of the Opsikion theme, who sought to
claim the imperial seat for himself. A brutal civil war ensued, with thematic governors aligning
themselves with either the usurper or the deposed Constantine. The Armeniac, Opsikionion, and
Thracian themes rallied behind Artabasdus, while the Anatolic and Thracesian themes lent
their support to Constantine. These conflicts clearly illustrated the shift of power away from
the emperors, with authority now divided among the thematic governors and strategoi. These leaders
held comprehensive civic and military powers within their respective regions. However, their
positions were precarious, lacking hereditary succession and subject to the whims of often
paranoid emperors. Any challenge or opportunity to seize the imperial seat was met in such an
environment with a ruthless and violent response. The 11th and 12th centuries marked a
high point of Byzantine civil wars. Though the causes of this civil unrest are
complex, with varying factors, at the heart of this turmoil was the emergence of influential
noble houses known as the Dynatoi. Although the exact definition of the term "Dynatio" has been
the subject of debate, it refers to the wealthy landowners who rose to prominence during this era.
These Dynatoi were typically members of military families who had acquired vast tracts of land
in Anatolia during the 7th to 8th centuries. The lands had become relatively inexpensive due to the
constant raids and invasions plaguing the region, however, as the 9th century unfolded and the
Macedonian Renaissance brought stability to the region, the fortunes of these territories turned
around, once again becoming lucrative. Thus, large provincial magnate families appeared on the
land, and by the 10th century and such families as the Phokades and Maleinoi had monopolized the
senior administrative and military posts in Asia Minor and much of Anatolia, enriching themselves
at the expense of the penetes, the much larger, poorer, agrarian populace who had been the
backbone of the Byzantine military and economy previously. And now they had the power and
influence to challenge the emperor's rule. The Byzantine emperors soon realised
the threat from these growing noble families and attempted to curtail their rising
influence. Starting with Romanos I Lekapenos, legislation was passed to stop the activity of the
dynatoi, this included agrarian reforms such as preventing them from acquiring the stratiotika
ktemata: the military lands allocated to the maintenance of the thematic armies. Basil II, in
particular, tried to limit the dynatio’s power, perhaps encouraged to do so after the rebellion of
the Phokades clan, headed by Bardas Phokas. Basil II also punished the dynatoi who refused to comply
with his demands, enacting a series of heavy taxes such as the allelengyon, in an attempt to curb
their influence. Ultimately, these measures failed, as demonstrated by the rise of one of the
most powerful dynatoi families, the Komnenids. Even before the Komnenids' ascent, the
Byzantine Empire faced significant instability. The reconquest of the Balkans, an extremely
ethnically diverse region, caused civil unrest, such as a revolt of the Serbs' under Stefan
Vojislav and the Bulgarian uprising led by Peter Delyan. Simultaneously, the growing rift
between the dynatoi and civil magistrates fueled more internal conflict. The Byzantine bureaucracy,
often headed by the emperors, actively distrusted and undermined its generals and members of the
military aristocracy, such as by removing the day-to-day control of the military forces from
the traditionally aristocratic strategoi and giving it to the praetors. These actions spurred
the strategoi to rebellion like Leo Tornikios did against Constantine IX. The instability was
further compounded by the Battle of Manzikert, which dealt a severe blow to the Byzantine
army, leaving the empire at the mercy of scheming court officials and dynatoi families.
These officials and families played a pivotal role in the empire's instability, working
against the emperor and state's authority for their own benefit and often feuding with
each other, which further eroded imperial power. Rather than supporting capable emperors who
could lead the empire, they lent their aid to weaker emperors who could be better controlled.
This was demonstrated when Romanos IV Diogenes returned from Seljuk captivity, only to be
betrayed by the Doukas family and forced to battle the puppet emperor Michael VII Doukas, a
war he lost that weakened the state even more. By this point, the Byzantine Empire's
central authority was extremely weak, and the divide between the military families and
state officials became almost insurmountable. The increasing reliance on mercenaries, loyal
only to coin, made rebellion even easier while the mercenary dependency would see the rise
of foreign mercenary lords on Byzantine land, such as Hervé Frankopoulos and Roussel
de Bailleul. The incompetent Michael VII only exacerbated the situation, pushing his
general Nikephoros III Botaneiates to rebellion, a war he would ultimately win. This victory was
followed by a series of continuous rebellions and usurpations by the empire's various generals.
Confidence in central Byzantine authority had been destroyed, and the strategoi and dynatoi,
alienated by the courtiers in Constantinople, no longer felt any loyalty to the
state. Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder, Philaretos Brachamios, Nikephoros Basilakes, and
Nikephoros Melissenos would all make plays for Constantinople, with the holder of that city
possessing the now symbolic title of emperor. This state of chaos would only be ended by the
ascension of Alexios I Komnenos to the imperial purple. With the support of his own Komneni family
and the Doukai, another powerful dynatoi house, the cunning general usurped the throne
before setting out to restore imperial rule to the fractured empire. Alexios would defeat the
cuman-backed insurrection of Constantine Diogenes, the revolt of Theodore Gabras, governor of
Chaldia, and the rebellions of Karykes at Crete and Rhapsomates at Cyprus. In this manner, the
grand Komnenian restoration commenced, heralding a period of renewed stability for the beleaguered
empire. However, as with the ebb and flow of Byzantine history, this era of tranquillity proved
all too brief, and chaos would once again reign. Using discontent among the people at the
regency of the Latin, Maria of Antioch, one Andronikos Komnenos would resurface
from exile, usurping the throne for himself. However, his reign would prove even more
unpopular, inciting the general Andronikos Lapardas, as well as the Thracian and Prusan
governors, John Komnenos Vatatzes and John Kantakouzenos, respectively, to take
up arms against him. Amidst the tumult, Isaac II Angelos would emerge the victor, yet
at the cost of irrevocable damage to the empire. While the Komnenian restoration initially
reinstated confidence in Byzantine governance, the deep-seated mistrust and divisions that
plagued the empire from the preceding era endured. Andronikos's despotic rule and subsequent civil
unrest completely shattered imperial authority. As a result, Philadelphia, Tarsia, Laconia,
Peloponnese, and Central Greece all broke away from the empire. The newly crowned emperor
was ultimately overthrown and blinded by his elder brother, Alexios III Angelos, while
a series of revolts erupted in Macedonia. This catastrophic collapse occurred at the most
inopportune moment, coinciding with the assembly of the fourth crusade in Venice in 1202. The
empire, already weakened, could not withstand this storm. The provinces of the fragmented
empire refused to aid the stranded Alexios, and the city of Constantinople eventually
succumbed to the might of the Crusaders. Although Nicea attempted to mend the shattered
pieces of the empire, it would never again be the same. Internal tensions within the Palaiologos
family, like the conflict between Andronikos II and his grandson Andronikos III and the subsequent
struggle involving the Kantakouzenos family and the Palaiologi, further destabilized the empire.
All while, the Ottoman Empire relentlessly encroached upon its limited territories,
gradually eroding its already weakened holdings, until Constantine's great empire finally
fell after Constantinople's fall in 1453. The Byzantine Empire is one of the greatest
paradoxes of the medieval age. When united, as demonstrated by Basil and Alexios,
it was a force to be feared whose power seemed boundless. But ultimately, the Romans'
empire, whether through scheming court officials, powerful thematic governors, or great dynatoi
houses, never proved able to unite for long, instead descending into anarchy and civil
unrest even while enemies eyed its territories. As the relentless bombardment from Mehmed's
cannons shook the walls of Constantinople, Byzantine territories still remained in civil war.
A chronic problem that prevented the empire from ever eclipsing its unified predecessor
and sealed its eventual destruction. More videos on Byzantine history are on the
way, and if you don’t want to miss them, make sure you are subscribed and pressed
the bell button. Please, consider liking, subscribing, commenting, and sharing - it
helps immensely. Recently we have started releasing weekly patron and YouTube member
exclusive content, consider joining their ranks via the link in the description or button
under the video to watch these weekly videos, learn about our schedule, get early access
to our videos, access our private discord, and much more. This is the Kings and Generals
channel, and we will catch you on the next one.
