Byzantine Empire, also styled the EAST ROMAN, EASTERN, GREEK, or LOWER EMPIRE, was founded in 395 A.D., when Theodosius the Great, at his death, divided the Roman empire between his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius. The empire had previously for a time been divided into East and West, but the division then made by Theodosius was final. Arcadius, a weak and luxurious character, was made emperor of the eastern division, formerly included under the prefectures of the East and part of Illyricum—namely, Syria, Asia Minor, and Pontus, stretching along the shores of the Black Sea in Asia; Egypt in Africa; and Thrace, Mœsia (now Bulgaria), Macedonia, Greece, and Crete in Europe. The empire thus formed lasted more than a thousand years, and underwent a great variety of fortune. It took the name of Byzantine empire from Byzantium, the ancient name of its capital, which after 330 was usually called Constantinople or New Rome.
(1) Period of Greek Revival (395–716), marked by the victories of Justinian and Heraclius.—Arcadius left the government of the empire in the hands of his minister Rufinus, from whom it passed to the eunuch Eutropius, and afterwards to Gainas, the murderer of Rufinus. Gainas fell by his ambition in 401, and the shameless and avaricious Empress Eudoxia ruled until the time of her death in 404 (see ARCADIUS). Arcadius was succeeded by his son, Theodosius II. (408–450), a feeble prince. During his reign affairs were ably and successfully conducted by his sister, Pulcheria. Yet Thrace and Macedonia could only be secured from the destructive conquests of Attila by the payment of tribute. After the death of Theodosius II., Pulcheria married the senator Marcianus (450–457), whose firmness repelled the invasions of Attila. Marcianus was followed by Leo I., surnamed Macella (the Butcher), a Thracian of low birth, but elevated to the throne by the commander-in-chief, Aspar, who, being himself an Arian, would not venture to encounter the perils that sovereignty might have entailed on one of his religious views. Leo II., grandson of the former, succeeded, but died after a few months, in consequence of which the crown came into the possession of his father, Zeno (474–491), who was banished by Basiliscus (475), but who reascended the throne in 477. Though a weak and unpopular ruler, he contrived to retain his power in spite of several serious revolts. The internal distraction of the empire, to which, as at other times, religious strifes added considerably, increased greatly during the reign of Zeno, and the invasions of the Goths were prevented only by gifts and stratagems. Ariadne, widow of Zeno, married the courtier Silentiarius, and raised him to the throne under the title of Anastasius I. (491–518). By the help of the Goths, this monarch overthrew the robber tribes of Mount Taurus. A new enemy, however, now appeared on the Danube in the Bulgarians, against whose desolating raids Anastasius built the Long Wall, to protect the peninsula on which Constantinople is situated. The war with the Persians also broke out anew during his reign, and religious tumults often purpled the streets of Constantinople itself. After his death, the army raised Justinus I. to the throne. He maintained his position mainly through the favour of the clergy, whom he had conciliated by his severe persecution of heretics.
His nephew, Justinian (q.v.), succeeded (527–565). He was celebrated for his code of laws, and for the victories of his great generals, Belisarius (q.v.) and Narses (q.v.), which re-established the empire both in Africa and Italy. But the rapid decline of the empire after his death showed that he had not been able to give it any internal consolidation or vitality. It was during the reign of Justinian that those pestilent contests of the Blues and Whites against the Greens and Reds (political factions so named from the colours respectively worn) first attained any consequence; and though the first disturbance was terribly chastised by Belisarius in 532, they continued to distract the capital periodically down to the 7th century. Justin II. (565–578), a weak man, governed by his wife, Sophia, yielded a part of Italy to the Longobards, was unsuccessful against the Persians, allowed the Avars to plunder the Danubian provinces, and ultimately became insane through vexation and anxiety. Tiberius, the captain of the guard, was then made regent, and after the death of Justin II., received the imperial dignity. He ruled with mildness and prudence (578–582), purchased a peace with the Avars, concluded the war with Persia, and left as his successor the commander-in-chief, Maurice, who reigned from 582 to 602. Having replaced on the throne the Persian king, Chosroes II., who had been banished by his subjects, he thus secured the peace of his eastern frontiers; but the war against the Avars did not prosper. His niggardly treatment of the army caused a military insurrection, in which he was slain along with his son; and Phocas, one of his generals, was elevated to the throne. Phocas proved a bad ruler. Through his monstrous vices, tyranny, and incapacity for government, the empire lapsed into still deeper anarchy. Suddenly, however, a deliverer appeared in the person of Heraclius (q.v.), son of the exarch or governor-general of Africa, who overthrew the tyrant, and ascended the throne in 610. But great as was the genius of Heraclius, he had to submit to twelve years of defeat before he could organise and discipline a victorious army. In 622 he opened those magnificent campaigns in which the power of Persia was crushed, and which, in the opinion of Gibbon, were equal to those of Scipio or Hannibal. He lived, however, to see more formidable foes in the Saracens, who, during 632-641, overrun the countries on the Euphrates, with Syria, Judæa, and Egypt. The power of the Greeks, which was demanded to resist the Arabian invasions, was miserably divided and weakened by their unending religious quarrels, especially the controversy of the Orthodox against the Monothelites (q.v.). The empire was breaking asunder, and Heraclius, worn out with the fatigues of war, had abandoned his enfeebled senses to pleasure, and his enfeebled intellect to theological discussions. He died in 641. Constantine III., who succeeded his father, Heraclius, also died soon after, and was followed for a short time by Heracleonas. The next ruler was Constans, son of Constantine III., who ruled from 642 to 668, made himself odious by cruelty, and perished in an insurrection. His son, Constantine IV., Pogonatus (668-685), repelled a seven years' siege (672-679) of the Saracens, chiefly by means of the Greek fire. On the other hand, he was compelled to pay tribute to the Bulgarians, who had established themselves in ancient Mæsia. Justinian II. (685-711), son and successor of Pogonatus, had a most troubled reign. At this period the empire had sunk to a very low condition, having lost most of its possessions both in Asia and Europe, while anarchy and rebellion prevailed at home. Six emperors were dethroned in twenty-one years. It was saved from ruin by the talent and energy of Leo III., the Isaurian, general of the army of the East, who in 716 seized the throne.
(2) Period of Comparative Prosperity (716-1057), marked by successful defence against Saracens and Bulgarians.—Leo reorganised the army and the financial system, and in 718 repelled a formidable attack of the Saracens, but in 726 unfortunately began the controversy about image-worship, which rent the empire for more than a century. In 728 the exarchate of Ravenna was lost, and the eastern provinces became the prey of the Saracens, over whom, however, he won a great victory in Phrygia. He died in 741. Constantine V. (741-775), son of Leo III., was on account of his zeal as an iconoclast hated by the monks, who gave him the surname 'Copronymos,' because, as they said, he had polluted the font at his baptism. He was a brave ruler, recovered from the Saracens parts of Syria and Armenia, and ultimately defeated the Bulgarians, against whom he had long been unsuccessful. His son, Leo IV. (775-780), was a mild ruler; but by the ability of his generals, he made the boundaries of the empire secure against the Saracens. After him, Constantine VI. ascended the throne under the guardianship of his ambitious mother, Irene (q.v.), who raised a powerful party in favour of image-worship. Constantine having made an attempt to liberate himself from the influence of his mother and her paramour, Stauratius, Irene barbarously caused her own son to be blinded (797). He died soon after this atrocity; and Irene, who had boldly conceived the design of marrying the Emperor Charlemagne, and thus uniting the east and west of Europe in one vast realm, excited the opposition which in 802 placed her treasurer, Nicephorus, on the throne. The restoration of the western empire by Charlemagne in 800 completed the division of the old Roman empire into East and West. Nicephorus, who fell in battle against the Bulgarians (811), was succeeded by his son, Stauratius, who soon yielded the throne to his brother-in-law, Michael I., from whom it was taken by the Armenian general, Leo V., a powerful ruler, who conquered the Bulgarians, but fell (820) in a conspiracy excited by his zeal against image-worship. Michael II., the Stammerer, was raised from a dungeon to the throne, and ruled until 829. In his reign, Crete and Sicily passed into the hands of the Saracens. Under the rule of his son, Theophilus, who is praised by the Byzantine historians for his love of justice (829-842), the general, Manuel, gained some indecisive victories over the Saracens. Theodora, widow of Theophilus, and guardian of Michael III. (842-867), brought the controversy about image-worship to a close at the council of Nicæa, or Nice, in 842, when it was fully sanctioned and restored. During this reign the government busied itself in the persecution of the Paulicians (q.v.), while the Saracens devastated the Asiatic provinces.
Theodora having been banished to a convent by her son, the government was for some time held by Bardas, uncle of Michael III., and after his assassination, by Basilus I., the Macedonian, who caused Michael to be put to death, and afterwards ruled ably from 867 to 886. But though on the whole he was successful against the Saracens, the latter contrived to make themselves masters of Syracuse. His dynasty (the Macedonian) maintained itself on the Byzantine throne, with some few interruptions, until 1056. The reign of his son, Leo VI., the Philosopher (886-912), was not prosperous. The inroads of the Bulgarians and of the Saracens, who in 904 plundered Thessalonica, continued to increase during the government of his son, Constantine VII., Porphyrogenitus, who ruled mildly but feebly (912-959). Under his son, the dissolute Romanus II. (959-963), Crete was retaken from the Saracens by the vigour of his general, Nicephorus Phocas, who, on the death of the emperor, married his widow, Theophania. She, however, caused him to be murdered in 969, as she wished to marry John Zimisces, who ruled till 976, and, like his predecessor, was victorious against the Saracens and Bulgarians, as also the Russians, who for a considerable period annoyed the empire with their attacks. His successor, Basilus II. (976-1025), the son of Romanus, conquered the Bulgarian kingdom, and attached it as a province to the empire, which it remained till 1186, when it again became independent. His brother, Constantine VIII. (1025-28), did not resemble him. Romanus III. next ascended the throne, but was assassinated by his wife, Zoe, a profligate but crafty princess, who raised successively to the imperial dignity Michael IV. (1034), Michael V. (1041), and Constantine IX. (1042). After Constantine's death in 1054, Theodora, sister of Zoe, was elected empress; and on her death in 1056, Michael VI., who was deposed by Isaac I., Comnenus. At the beginning of the 11th century the Saracen power, which had so long been a dangerous rival of the Byzantine empire, broke down, but the Seljuk Turks, a yet more formidable enemy, appeared on the eastern frontier.
In Lower Italy, the Normans narrowed the Byzantine power to the possession of Otranto.
(3) Period of Decline (1057-1204), marked by the Crusades and the advance of the Turkish power in Asia.—With Isaac I., Comnenus, who came to the throne in 1057, the dynasty of the Comnenian emperors began. He retired to a monastery (1059), and was succeeded by Constantine X., whose widow, Eudocia, married Romanus IV., and raised him to the throne. Romanus was deposed in 1071 by Michael VII. (son of Constantine X.), who, in his turn, was dethroned by Nicephorus III. (1078), who reigned until 1081, when he was deposed by Alexius I. (q.v.), Comnenus (1081-1118). This last reign was marked by the commencement of the Crusades, during which the Byzantine emperors had a most difficult part to play. The Crusades, however, helped greatly to check the advance of the Seljuk Turks, whose dominion had already extended itself to the Hellespont. The successors of Alexius—his son, Kalo-Joannes (1118-43), and Manuel I. (1143-80)—were able rulers, and victorious in their engagements with the Turks. Manuel's son, Alexius II., was murdered by his guardian, Andronicus (grandson of Alexius I.), who raised himself to the throne. He was the last prince of the Comnenian dynasty, and fell in an insurrection excited by his own cruelty (1185). A period of confusion ensued, during which an Isaac II., and three emperors of the name of Alexius, followed each other in quick succession till 1204.
(4) Latin Occupation (1204-61).—In 1204 the French and the Venetians (collectively named Latins) advanced on Constantinople, and captured the city. The European portion of the empire was divided into four parts, of which the first, including the metropolis, fell to the lot of Baldwin, Count of Flanders, who was made emperor, and to whom the other participants in the expedition did fealty for their respective shares. In the west of Asia Minor, Theodorus Lascaris, who had been elected emperor at Constantinople, formally transferred the seat of government to Nicea; in the north-east of Asia Minor, the governor of the province of Colchis, Alexius Comnenus, ultimately ruled at Trebizond with absolute authority; while one of his successors, John Comnenus, even assumed the title of emperor. The Latin occupation was an event alike disgraceful to the leaders who effected it and permanently hurtful to the Byzantine empire, which never recovered its lost cohesion. At Constantinople neither Baldwin nor his successors could strengthen the sinking empire. Baldwin himself died a prisoner in the hands of the Bulgarians. After him came his brother Henry, who ruled bravely and wisely till 1216. For the next four years the empire was actually without a ruler, and a prey to utter anarchy. In 1221 Robert, son of Peter, Count of Auxerre and Courtenay, came to the throne; he was succeeded by John of Brienne, titular king of Jerusalem (1228-37), and the latter by Baldwin II. (1237-61). During these reigns a great part of the empire was seized by John Vatazes, successor of Theodorus Lascaris of Nicea (1222-55). This ruler was followed in Nicea by Theodorus II. (1255-59), whose son, Johannes, during his minority, was superseded by Michael VIII., Palæologus, who, by the help of the Genoese, captured Constantinople in 1261, and thus put an end to the Latin dynasty.
(5) Period of Fall (1261-1453), marked from 1354 by the rapid advance of the Turks in Europe. Michael, the first of the Palæologi, a powerful prince, really endeavoured to strengthen the realm; but by his unhappy attempt to unite the Greek Church with the Latin, from which it had decisively separated (1054), he gave great offence to the clergy and the people. His son, Andronicus II., who came to the throne in 1282, re-established the Greek ritual. After the death of his son and co-regent, Michael IX. (1320), Andronicus II. was compelled to divide the throne with his grandson, Andronicus III., who became sole emperor in 1328. This monarch unsuccessfully opposed the Turks, who took Nicea and Nicomedia in 1339, and wasted the European coasts. He died in 1341. Under his son, Johannes V., the Turks first made a permanent settlement in Europe by the taking of Gallipoli in 1354. In 1361 the sultan Amurath took Adrianople, and made it the seat of government. In 1381 all that remained of the Byzantine empire became tributary to the Turks. Manuel II., son and successor of Johannes, was besieged in Constantinople by Bajazet, who defeated an army under Sigismund of Hungary at Nicopolis in 1396, and compelled the Byzantine monarch to cede to the Turks one of the main streets of the city. The fall of the city seemed inevitable, when it was saved by the advance into Asia Minor of the great Tartar conqueror, Timur, who defeated Bajazet at Angora in 1402. By this diversion Manuel recovered some portion of the Byzantine provinces; but made so little use of the occasion, that in 1422 the metropolis was again besieged by Amurath II., who, after he had overthrown the force sent to aid the emperor by Ladislav, king of Hungary, at the battle of Varna, made Constantinople in 1444 the limit of the domains of Johannes VII., son of Manuel. Constantine XI., brother of Johannes, bravely but fruitlessly contended against the overwhelming Turkish forces, and fell heroically in the defence of Constantinople, which was captured by Mohammed II., May 29, 1453, when the Byzantine empire was brought to a close. The petty Latin princes who existed here and there in Greece, and the despots, Demetrius and Thomas, who ruled in the Morea, were subdued by Mohammed in 1460; while David, a member of the Comnenian dynasty, the last emperor of Trebizond, submitted in 1461.
It has hitherto been usual for authors dealing with the bloody record of dynastic crimes in the Byzantine empire to affirm that the history of the world never witnessed so degraded a caricature of imperial government. Against all such summary statements Mr Freeman and others energetically protest; declaring that careful study brings the fairer side into relief, and that, on the whole, the history of the fall of the Byzantine empire is the record of a noble struggle in the face of overwhelming odds. For many centuries the empire was a bulwark of Christian culture against Persians, Saracens, and Turks; and it transmitted Christianity to Russian and other Slavonic tribes after long protecting it from them.
The constitution of the Byzantine empire was founded on the institutions of Diocletian and Constantine the Great, and was purely despotic. The emperors, who were consecrated by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, claimed, as the true descendants of the Cæsars, a sovereignty over the West as well as the East, and styled themselves 'rulers of the Romans,' even after Charlemagne had founded a new dynasty. Though great influence was at various times exercised by the clergy as well as by women, courtiers, and ministers, the emperors were pure autocrats, having supreme power in all departments of government, and being themselves superior to all law. By pompous titles, by great splendour of costume, and by a strict observance of an elaborately minute court ceremonial, as well as by the cruel penalties inflicted for any insult offered to the imperial dignity, or to the dignity of the emperor's relatives, they kept themselves sacredly apart from the people. Gradually every- thing disappeared that might have been a check upon the utter despotism of the supreme power. As early as the 6th century, the consulate was absorbed into the mass of imperial honours, while the traces of the senate which Constantine had established at Byzantium, and which was composed of those on whom the emperor had bestowed the dignity of the patriciate, as well as the chartered privileges of the towns, had entirely vanished in the 10th century. The privy-council, to whom the conduct of the state was intrusted, was arbitrarily chosen by the emperor. The state officials were very numerous, and their respective ranks carefully distinguished. They were raised far above the people by titles and privileges, but were utterly dependent on the throne. Among these the Domstici (including many eunuchs) claimed the highest rank as immediate attendants on the emperor. The Domstici were made commanders-in-chief of the army. Among them the Domsticus of the East (styled, par excellence, Megadomsticus) held the highest rank, and finally, under the Palæologi, was considered the first civil and military officer of the realm. The provinces were ruled by governors bound to contribute certain sums to the royal revenue, which gave rise to oppressive exactions. No distinction was made between the state-revenue and the privy-purse. For military service, the land was divided into districts (Themata); and the army, down to the later times, consisted almost entirely of foreign mercenary troops. The imperial body-guard, or Spatharii, were mainly soldiers of Teutonic race, the most noted being the Varangians from Scandinavia. The admiral of the fleet was styled Megas Dux. In the midst of constant internal and external disturbances, the administration of justice was grossly neglected and abused, though Justinian and other emperors earnestly endeavoured to establish just laws. See the articles on the principal emperors; the historical sections of the articles ROME and TURKEY; Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; Finlay's History of Greece, the main authority for the Byzantine empire (7 vols. 1851-56; new ed. 1877); Gasquet, L'Empire Byzantin (1888); Krumbacher, Gesch. der Byzantinischen Litteratur (1891); Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (1889); Oman, The Byzantine Empire (1892).