Theme (Byzantine district)

The themata of the Byzantine Empire at the death of Basil II in 1025.

The themes or themata (Greek: θέματα; singular θέμα, thema) were the main administrative divisions of the middle Byzantine Empire. They were established in the mid-seventh century in the aftermath of the Muslim conquests of Byzantine territory and replaced the earlier provincial system established by emperors Diocletian and Constantine the Great. In their origin, the first themes were created from the areas of encampment of the field armies of the East Roman army, and their names corresponded to the military units they had resulted from. The theme system reached its apogee in the 9th and 10th centuries, as older themes were split up and the conquest of territory resulted in the creation of new ones. The original theme system underwent significant changes in the 11th and 12th centuries, but the term remained in use as a provincial and financial circumscription, until the very end of the Empire.

History

Background

During the late sixth and early seventh centuries, the Byzantine Empire was under frequent attack from all sides. The Sassanid Empire was pressing from the east on Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia. Slavs and Avars raided Greece and settled in the Balkans. The Lombards occupied northern Italy, largely unopposed. In order to face the mounting pressure, in the more distant provinces of the West, recently regained by Justinian I (r. 527–565), Emperor Maurice (r. 582–602) combined supreme civil and military authority in the person of an exarch, forming the exarchates of Ravenna and Africa.^[1] These developments overturned the strict division of civil and military offices, which had been one of the cornerstones of the reforms of Diocletian (r. 284–305). In essence however they merely recognized and formalized the greater prominence of the local general, or magister militum, over the respective civilian praetorian prefect as a result of the provinces' precarious security situation.^[2]

This trend had already featured in some of the administrative reforms of Justinian I in the 530s. Justinian had given military authority to the governors of individual provinces plagued by brigandage in Asia Minor, but more importantly, he had also created the exceptional combined military-civilian circumscription of the quaestura exercitus and abolished the civilian Diocese of Egypt, putting a dux with combined authority at the head of each of its old provinces.^[3] However, in most of the Empire, the old system continued to function until the 640s, when the eastern part of the Empire collapsed under the onslaught of the Muslim Caliphate. The rapid Muslim conquest of Syria and Egypt and consequent Byzantine losses in manpower and territory meant that the Empire found itself struggling for survival.

In order to respond to this unprecedented crisis, the Empire was drastically reorganized. The remaining imperial territory in Asia Minor was divided into four large themes, and although some elements of the earlier civil administration survived, they were subordinated to the governing general or stratēgos.^[4]

Origins

The origin and early nature of the themes has been heavily disputed amongst scholars. The very name thema is of uncertain etymology: it has been suggested that it came from the Chazar Turkic tūmān, "ten thousand men", but most scholars follow Constantine Porphyrogennetos, who records that it originates from Greek thesis ("placement").^[5][6] The date of their creation is also uncertain. For most of the 20th century, the establishment of the themes was attributed to the Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), during the last of the Byzantine–Sassanid Wars.^[7] Most notable amongst the supporters of this thesis was George Ostrogorsky who based this opinion on an extract from the chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor mentioning the arrival of Heraclius "in the lands of the themes" for the year 622. According to Ostrogorsky, this "shows that the process of establishing troops (themes) in specific areas of Asia Minor has already begun at this time."^[8] This view has been objected to by other historians however, and more recent scholarship dates their creation later, to the period from the 640s to the 660s, under Constans II (r. 641–668).^[9] It has further been shown that, contrary to Ostrogorsky's conception of the themata being established from the outset as distinct, well-defined regions where a stratēgos held joint military and civil authority, the term thema originally seems to have referred exclusively to the armies themselves, and only in the later 7th or early 8th centuries did it come to be transferred to the districts where these armies were encamped as well.^[10]

Tied to the question of chronology is also the issue of a corresponding social and military transformation. The traditional view, championed by Ostrogorsky, holds that the establishment of the themes also meant the creation of a new type of army. In his view, instead of the old force, heavily reliant on foreign mercenaries, the new Byzantine army was based on native farmer-soldiers living on state-leased military estates.^[5][11] More recent scholars however have posited that the formation of the themes did not constitute a radical break with the past, but rather a logical extension of pre-existing, 6th-century trends, and that its direct social impact was minimal.^[5]

The first themes: 7th–8th centuries

The Byzantine themes as they existed in ca. 770, following the creation of the Bucellarian and Optimatoi themes out of the original theme of the Opsikion.

What is clear is that at some point in the mid-7th century, probably in the late 630s and 640s, the Empire's field armies were withdrawn to Anatolia, the last major contiguous territory remaining to the Empire, and assigned to the districts that became known as the themes. Territorially, each of the new themes encompassed several of the older provinces, and with a few exceptions, seems to have followed the old provincial boundaries.^[12] The first four themes were those of the Armeniacs, Anatolics and Thracesians, and the Opsician theme. The Armeniac Theme (Θέμα Άρμενιάκων, Thema Armeniakōn), first mentioned in 667, was the successor of the Army of Armenia. It occupied the old areas of the Pontus, Armenia Minor and northern Cappadocia, with its capital at Amasea.^[13][14] The Anatolic Theme (Θέμα Άνατολικῶν, Thema Anatolikōn), first mentioned in 669, was the successor of the Army of the East (Άνατολῆ, Anatolē). It covered southern central Asia Minor, and its capital was Amorium.^[15][16] Together, these two themes formed the first tier of defence of Byzantine Anatolia, bordering Muslim Armenia and Syria respectively. The Thracesian Theme (Θέμα Θρᾳκησίων, Thema Thrakēsiōn), first mentioned clearly as late as ca. 740, was the successor of the Army of Thrace, and covered the central western coast of Asia Minor (Ionia, Lydia and Caria), with its capital most likely at Chonae.^[17] The Opsician Theme (Θέμα Ὀψικίου, Thema Opsikiou), first mentioned in 680, was constituted from the imperial retinue (in Latin Obsequium). It covered northwestern Asia Minor (Bithynia, Paphlagonia and parts of Galatia), and was based at Nicaea. Uniquely, its commander retained his title of komēs ("count").^[18]

In addition, the great naval division of the Carabisians or Karabisianoi (Kαραβισιάνοι, from κάραβις, "ship"), first mentioned in 680, was probably formed of the remains of the Army of the Illyricum or, more likely, the old quaestura exercitus. It never formed a theme proper, but occupied parts of the southern coast of Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands, with its stratēgos seat most likely at Samos. It provided the bulk of the Byzantine navy facing the new Arab fleets, which after the Battle of the Masts contested control of the Mediterranean with the Empire.^[19] In the event, the Carabisians would prove unsatisfactory in that role, and by 720 they had been disbanded in favour of a fully-fledged naval theme, that of the Cibyrrhaeots (Θέμα Κιβυρραιωτῶν, Thema Kibyrrhaiotōn), which encompassed the southern coasts of Asia Minor and the Aegean islands.^[20][21]

The part of the region of Thrace under Byzantine control was probably constituted as a theme at about 680, as a response to the Bulgar threat, although for a time the command over Thrace appears to have been exercised by the Count of the Opsikion.^[22][23][24] Successive campaigns by the emperors of the Heraclian dynasty in Greece also led to the recovery of control of Central Greece from Slavic invaders, and to the establishment of the theme of Hellas there between 687 and 695.^[25] Sicily too was formed as a theme by the end of the century, but the imperial possessions in mainland Italy remained under the exarch of Ravenna or the local doukes, as did Byzantine Africa until the fall of Carthage in 698. At the same time, Crete and the imperial exclave of Cherson in the Crimea formed independent archontiai.^[23][26]

Thus, by the turning of the century, the themes had become the dominant feature of imperial administration. Their large size and power however made their generals prone to revolt, as had been evidenced in the turbulent period 695–715, and would again during the great revolt of Artabasdos in 741–742.^[27] The suppression of Artabasdos' revolt heralded the first significant changes in the Anatolian themes: the over-mighty Opsikion was broken up with the creation of two new themes, the Bucellarian Theme and the Optimates, while the role of imperial guard was assumed by a new type of professional force, the imperial tagmata.^[28]

The height of the theme system: 9th–10th centuries

Map showing the extent of the Byzantine Empire in ca. 600 and ca. 900, including the themes for the latter date.

Despite the prominence of the themes, it was some time before they became the basic unit of the imperial administrative system. Although they had become associated with specific regions by the early 8th century, it took until the end of the century for the civil fiscal administration to begin being organized around them, instead of following the old provincial system.^[29] This process, resulting in unified control over both military and civil affairs of each theme by its strategos, was complete by the mid-9th century,^[30] and is the "classical" thematic model mentioned in such works as the Klētorologion and the De Administrando Imperio.

At the same time, the need to protect the Anatolian heartland of Byzantium from the Arab raids led to the the creation, in the later 8th and early 9th centuries, of a series of small frontier districts, the kleisourai or kleisourarchiai ("defiles, enclosures"). The term was previously used to signify strategically important, fortified mountain passages, and was now expanded to entire districts which formed separate commands under a kleisourarchēs, tasked with guerrilla warfare and locally countering small to mid-scale incursions and raids. Gradually, most of these were elevated to full themes.^[31][32] With the beginning of the Byzantine offensives in the East and the Balkans in the 10th century, especially under the warrior-emperors Nikephoros II (r. 963–969), John I Tzimiskes (r.969–976) and Basil II (r. 976–1025), newly gained territories were also incorporated into themes, although these were generally smaller than the original themes established in the 7th and 8th centuries.^[33] Most consisted merely of a fortress and its surrounding territory, with a lesser stratēgos as a commander and about 1,000 men as their garrison. In the East, where many were populated or resettled with Armenians, they became known as the "small" (μικρὰ θέματα) or "Armenian" themes (ἀρμενικὰ θέματα), in contrast to the traditional "great" or "Roman" themes (ῥωμαϊκά θέματα).^[30][34][35]

Change and decline: 11th–12th centuries

Late Byzantine themata

Organization

The term thema was ambiguous, referring both to a form of military tenure and to an administrative division. A theme was an arrangement of plots of land given for farming to the soldiers. The soldiers were still technically a military unit, under the command of a strategos, and they did not own the land they worked as it was still controlled by the state. Therefore, for its use the soldiers' pay was reduced. By accepting this proposition, the participants agreed that their descendants would also serve in the military and work in a theme, thus simultaneously reducing the need for unpopular conscription as well as cheaply maintaining the military. It also allowed for the settling of conquered lands, as there was always a substantial addition made to public lands during a conquest.

The commander of a theme, however, did not only command his soldiers. He united the civil and military jurisdictions in the territorial area in question. Thus the division set up by Diocletian between civil governors (praesides etc.) and military commanders (duces etc.) was abolished, and the Empire returned to a system much more similar to that of the Republic or the Principate, where provincial governors had also commanded the armies in their area.

The following table illustrates the thematic structure as found in the Thracesian Theme, circa 902-936:

List of the themes between ca. 660 and 960

This list includes the large "traditional" themes established in the period from the inception of the theme system in ca. 660 to the beginning of the great conquests in ca. 960 and the creation of the new, smaller themes.^[36]

Notes:
^† naval theme (θέμα ναυτικόν)
^§ Originally established as a kleisoura

Notes

References

• (French) Bréhier, Louis (2000), Les institutions de l'empire byzantin, Paris: Albin Michel, ISBN 978-2226047229 
• Bury, John B. (1963), Imperial Administrative System of the Ninth Century, Ayer Publishing, ISBN 0833704346 
• (French) Cheynet, Jean-Claude, ed. (2006), Le Monde Byzantin II - L'Empire byzantin (641–1204), Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, ISBN 978-2-13-052007-8 
• Cheynet, Jean-Claude (2008) (in French), Administration de l'Asie Mineure byzantine, Encyclopedia of the Hellenic World, Asia Minor, http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=12537, retrieved 2009-12-04 
• Haldon, John F. (1990), Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521319171, http://books.google.com/books?id=pSHmT1G_5T0C 
• Haldon, John F. (1999), Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565–1204, Routledge, ISBN 1857284941, http://books.google.com/books?id=-R0G0Enf58AC 
• Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991), Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6 
• Ostrogorsky, George (1997), History of the Byzantine State, Rutgers University Press, ISBN 978-0813511986 
• Runciman, Steven (1975), Byzantine civilisation, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 978-0416703801 
• Treadgold, Warren T. (1997), A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, ISBN 0804726302, http://books.google.com/books?id=nYbnr5XVbzUC 
• Treadgold, Warren T. (1998), Byzantium and Its Army, 284–1081, Stanford University Press, ISBN 0804731632, http://books.google.com/books?id=xfV0LkMNaLUC 
• Whittow, Mark (1996), The Making of Byzantium, 600–1025, University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-20496-4