Jump to content

Thomas the Slav

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cplakidas (talk | contribs) at 22:44, 28 April 2011 (→Aftermath and effects). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thomas
Folio from the Madrid Skylitzes with scenes from Thomas' rebellion: above, Thomas negotiates with the Arabs, and below, Thomas' troops defeat an imperial army.
AllegianceByzantine army
Years of serviceca. 803–820
Ranktourmarches

Thomas the Slav (Greek: Θωμάς; ca. 760 – October 823 AD) was a 9th century Byzantine military and naval commander, entrusted with a high command during the reign of Emperor Leo V the Armenian (r. 813–820). He later led a wide-scale revolt against Emperor Michael II (r. 820–829).

Thomas was an army officer of Slavic origin from the Pontus (now north-eastern Turkey) who rose in prominence under the protection of Bardanes Tourkos. After Bardanes's failed rebellion in 803, nothing is known of Thomas for a decade, until he was raised to a senior military command by his old friend Leo V. After the murder of Leo and usurpation of the throne by Michael the Syrian, Thomas rose in revolt, claiming the throne for himself. According to some Byzantine sources, he pretended to be Emperor Constantine VI (r. 780–797), but the validity of this claim is questionable. He secured the support of most of the provinces (themes) of Asia Minor and of the troops stationed in them, and concluded an alliance with the Abbasid Caliphate. After he won over the maritime themes with their fleets to his cause, he crossed with his army to Europe, and besieged Constantinople. Michael II called for help from the Bulgar ruler Omurtag (r. 815–831), whose troops caused severe casualties to Thomas's army. Thomas sought refuge in Arkadiopolis, where he was soon seized by Michael's troops and executed.

Thomas's rebellion was one of the largest in scale throughout the Empire's history, but the precise circumstances are unclear and contested due to conflicting historical narratives and the distorting influence of later hostile propaganda disseminated by Michael II. Various motives have been ascribed to it, from Thomas's own ambition to a desire to avenge Leo V's murder by Michael. Some scholars link it to a reaction to renewed iconoclasm, to an uprising of the Empire's non-Greek ethnic groups, or to discontent among the peasantry. Its long-term effects on the Empire are also disputed.

Early life and career

Thomas's ethnic origin is unclear. Theophanes Continuatus states that he was born of Slavic parents, from the South Slavs resettled in Asia Minor by various Byzantine emperors, while Genesios calls him "Thomas from Lake Gouzourou, of Armenian race". Most modern scholars support his Slavic descent (hence his modern sobriquet), and believe his birthplace to have been near Gaziura in the Pontus.[1][2][3][4] He was probably born in ca. 760.[2]

Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus both record two different accounts on his life. In the first one, he first appeared in 803 in the company of the general Bardanes Tourkos, and then pursued a military career until launching his revolt late in 820. In the second, he had come to Constantinople as a poor youth and entered the service of a patrician. Then he was discovered trying to commit adultery with his master's wife and fled to the Arabs in Syria, where he remained there for 25 years before leading an Arab-sponsored invasion of Asia Minor.[5][6] J.B. Bury tried to reconcile the two narratives, placing Thomas's flight to the Abbasid Caliphate ca. 788 and then having him return to Byzantine service before 803.[7] The second version is explicitly preferred by Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus, and is the only one recorded in 9th-century sources, namely the chronicle of George the Monk and the vita of Saints David, Symeon and George of Lesbos. The French Byzantinist Paul Lemerle and other modern scholars however consider it an unreliable later tradition, created by Michael II's propaganda to discredit Thomas, and reject it altogether.[6][8]

According to the first tradition, Thomas served as a staff officer (spatharios) to Bardanes Tourkos, then the overall commander (monostrategos) of the eastern themes, in 803, when the latter rose in rebellion against Emperor Nikephoros I (r. 802–811). Alongside Thomas, there were two other young spatharioi in Bardanes's retinue, who together formed an association (hetaireia): Leo the Armenian, the future Leo V, and Michael the Syrian, the future Michael II. According to a later hagiographic tradition, before launching his revolt, Bardanes, in the company of his three young protégés, visited a monk near Philomelion who was reputed to foresee the future. The monk correctly prophesized that Bardanes's revolt would fail, that Leo and Michael would both become emperors, and that Thomas would be acclaimed emperor and then killed.[9] Bardanes nevertheless rose up, but failed to win any widespread support. Leo and Michael soon abandoned him and defected to the imperial camp, being rewarded with senior military posts. Thomas alone remained loyal to Bardanes up to the latter's surrender.[10] In the aftermath of Bardanes's failure, Thomas disappears from the sources for the next ten years.[11] Bury suggested that he fled (for the second time) to the Arabs,[12] a view accepted by a few other scholars.[2][13] Others think that he remained in the Empire and was even in active service, but his association with Bardanes certainly hampered his career.[14]

In July 813, Leo the Armenian became emperor. He quickly rewarded his old companions by making Michael commander of the elite regiment (tagma) of the Excubitors, and giving Thomas command of the division (tourma) of the Foederati in the Anatolic Theme.[11][15]

Rebellion

Background and motives

On Christmas Day 820, Leo was murdered in the palace chapel by officials under the direction of Michael the Syrian, who became emperor.[16] At about the same time, Thomas launched a rebellion in the Anatolic Theme. The sources are divided on the exact chronology and motives of the revolt. Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus, as well as a letter from Michael II to Louis the Pious, purport that Thomas had risen up against Leo, before Michael's usurpation. This is followed by a number of modern scholars like J.B. Bury or Alexander Kazhdan.[2][17] In his study on Thomas and his revolt, Paul Lemerle dismisses this claim as a fabrication by Michael's propaganda.[18] Most recent studies follow him and prefer the account of Symeon Logothetes, according to which Thomas rebelled a few days after the murder of Leo and in reaction to it.[2][19][20]

"Two rivals fought for a crown, which one of them had seized, but could not yet be said to have firmly grasped. Michael had been regularly elected, acclaimed, and crowned in the capital, and he had the advantage of possessing the Imperial city. [Thomas] had the support of most of the Asiatic provinces; he was only a rebel because he failed."

J.B. Bury[7]

From this moment, the Empire became divided in a struggle that was less a rebellion against the established government and more a contest for the throne between equal contenders. Michael held Constantinople and the European provinces, controlled the imperial bureaucracy, and had been properly crowned by the Patriarch, but had come to the throne through murder, while Thomas gained support and legitimacy through his claim to avenge the murdered Leo, and won the backing of the provinces both in Asia and later in Europe.[21] Despite his advanced age and his mid-level rank, Thomas was a well-known, popular and respected figure in Asia Minor, where Leo V had enjoyed considerable support. Michael, on the other hand, was virtually unknown outside the capital; his military record was unremarkable, he was uneducated and coarse of manner, his stutter earned him ridicule, and he was reputed to sympathize with the heretical sect of the Athinganoi, to which his family had belonged.[22]

Byzantine accounts of Thomas's rebellion also state that he did not in fact claim the throne as himself, but assumed the identity of Emperor Constantine VI (r. 780–797), who had been deposed, blinded, and murdered by his mother, Irene of Athens.[23] Most modern scholars follow Paul Lemerle, who dismissed this too as yet another later fabrication.[24][25] Connected to this is the statement in some hagiographic sources that Thomas was "said to be" a supporter of the worship of icons, as opposed to Michael's support for renewed iconoclasm: it was under Constantine VI that the first phase of iconoclasm had ended and the icons restored. In reality, the ambiguous phrasing of the sources, the fact that many of the themes of Asia Minor had iconoclast leanings, and Thomas's later alliance with the Arabs seem to speak against any open commitment to icon worship.[25][26] Warren Treadgold theorized that Thomas's claim to be Constantine VI may have been little more than a rumour circulated to win support, and that he pursued a "studied ambiguity" towards icons, designed to attract support from iconophiles: "Thomas could be all things to all men until he had conquered the whole empire, and then he would have time enough to disappoint some of his followers".[27]

Some scholars explain the widespread support that Thomas gained as an expression of social discontent among the rural population, which suffered under the heavy taxation imposed by the capital's bureaucracy.[28] Others, however, notably Paul Lemerle, acknowledge its existence but dismiss rural discontent as a primary factor during the revolt.[29]

Outbreak and spread of the revolt in Asia Minor

Map of the themes of Asia Minor and Thrace in ca. 842.

As commander of the Foederati, Thomas was based at Amorion, the capital of the Anatolic Theme. Although junior to the theme's strategos, his proclamation does not appear to have been opposed by anyone, and quickly received widespread support throughout Asia Minor. Within a short time, all the Asian themes proclaimed themselves for Thomas, except for the Opsician Theme under the patrician Katakylas, a nephew of Michael II, and the Armeniac Theme under its strategos Olbianos. The Thracesian Theme also wavered between the two rivals, but finally threw its support behind Thomas. In this way, more than two thirds of the Empire's Asian army went over to Thomas, while the defection of the provincial tax officials provided him with much-needed revenue.[30][31][32] Genesios and other chroniclers also state that Thomas won the support of a multitude of ethnic groups, "Hagarenes, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medians, Abasgians, Zichs, Iberians, Kabirs, Slavs, Huns, Vandals, Getae, the sectarians of Manes, Laz, Alanians, Chaldians, Armenians and every kind of other peoples",[33] a statement which led to modern claims that Thomas's rebellion represented an uprising of the Empire's non-Greek ethnic groups.[2] In reality, this exaggerated account was yet another piece of hostile propaganda. It is almost certain, however, that Thomas could count on the support among the Empire's Caucasian neighbours, for the presence of Abasgians, Armenians and Iberians in his army is mentioned in the near-contemporary letter of Michael II to Louis the Pious. The reasons for this support are unclear; Thomas may have made unspecified promises, but Paul Lemerle suggests that the Armenians might have been in part motivated by revenge for their murdered kinsman Leo.[34]

The first reaction of Michael's forces was an attack by the Armeniac army against Thomas, but it was easily defeated in battle by Thomas, who advanced through the eastern parts of the Armeniac Theme and occupied the frontier region of Chaldia.[4][35] Thomas was unable to complete the conquest of the Armeniac Theme as the Abbasids, taking advantage of the Byzantine civil war, launched raids by land and sea against southern Asia Minor, where Thomas had left few troops behind. Instead of returning to face these raids, however, Thomas launched a large-scale invasion of his own against Abbasid territory in spring 821, either in Syria (according to Bury and others) or in Arab-held Armenia (according to Treadgold).[32][36] Thomas then sent an embassy to the Caliph al-Ma'mun (r. 813–833). Thomas's show of force was sufficiently impressive to make the Caliph receptive to his proposals, especially in view of the Caliphate's own problems with the Khurramite rebellion of Babak Khorramdin. Thomas and Ma'mun concluded a treaty of peace and mutual alliance. The Caliph not only allowed Thomas to recruit men from Arab-held territories, he also gave leave for Thomas to cross the border and travel to Arab-held Antioch, where he was crowned emperor by the iconophile Patriarch of Antioch, Job. In exchange, Thomas is said to have promised to cede certain unspecified territories, and to become a tributary vassal of the Caliph, but it is impossible to say how much of this reflects the true terms or later propaganda.[37] At about the same time, Thomas adopted an young man of obscure origin, whom he named Constantius and made his co-emperor.[38]

In the meantime, Michael II tried to win support among the iconophiles by appointing a relative of his as Archbishop of Ephesus, but this failed when the latter refused to be consecrated by the avowedly iconoclast Patriarch Antony I Kassimates. In an effort to consolidate his hold on the two Asian themes still loyal to him, Michael also proclaimed a reduction in the taxes of 821–822 by a quarter.[39]

By summer 821, Thomas had consolidated his position in the East, although the Opsician and Armeniac themes still escaped his control. He now set his sights on the ultimate prize: Constantinople, possession of which alone conferred full legitimacy to an emperor. Thomas began assembling his troops, gathered supplies, and built siege machines. To counter the powerful Imperial Fleet stationed in the capital, he also built new ships to augment his existing fleet, which came from the Cibyrrhaeot and Aegean Sea naval themes and possibly included task forces from the theme of Hellas as well.[40][41] From the island of Skyros, Thomas recalled Gregory Pterotos, a general and nephew of Leo V who had been exiled there by Michael, and gave him command of his fleet. By October, the thematic fleets loyal to Thomas had finished assembling at Lesbos, and Thomas's army began marching from the Thracesian Theme towards Abydos, where he intended to cross over into Europe.[42]

Thomas and his fleet cross from Abydos to Thrace. Miniature from the Madrid Skylitzes.

At this point, Thomas suffered his first reverse: prior to his departure for Abydos, he had sent an army under his adoptive son Constantius against the Armeniacs. Constantius, however, was ambushed by Olbianos and killed, although the army itself was able to withdraw with relatively little casualties. Constantius's severed head was sent to Michael, who in turn dispatched it to Thomas at Abydos.[43][44] Thomas was undaunted by this relatively minor setback, and crossed over into Europe some time in late October or early November. There, Constantius was soon replaced by another obscure individual, a former monk whom Thomas named Anastasius.[43][45]

Siege of Constantinople

Constantinople and its walls during the Byzantine era.

Anticipating Thomas's move, Michael had gone out at the head of an army to the themes of Thrace and Macedonia and strengthened the garrisons of several fortresses there to secure the loyalty of their populace. When Thomas landed, however, the populations of the European themes welcomed him with enthusiasm, and Michael was forced to withdraw to Constantinople. Volunteers, including many Slavs, flocked to Thomas's banner, and as he set out towards Constantinople, his army had swelled to some 80,000 men according to the chroniclers.[46] The capital was defended by the imperial tagmata, augmented by reinforcements from the Opsician and Armeniac themes. Michael had ordered the city walls to be repaired, and closed off the entrance to the Golden Horn by a chain, while the Imperial Fleet guarded the capital from the sea. Nevertheless, judging from Michael's passive stance, his forces were considerably inferior to those of his opponent (Warren Treadgold estimates them at ca. 35,000).[47]

Thomas's fleet arrived at the capital first. Facing no opposition by the Imperial Fleet, the rebels broke or unfastened the chain and entered the Golden Horn, taking station off the mouths of the Barbysos river, where they awaited the arrival of Thomas and his army.[48] Thomas arrived before the city in early December. If he hoped that the sight of his huge force would cow the capital's inhabitants and open the gates for him, he was disappointed: unlike the provinces, the capital's citizens and garrison stood firmly behind Michael. To further encourage his troops, Michael had his young son Theophilos led a procession along the walls, carrying a piece of the True Cross and the mantle of the Virgin Mary, while a large standard was hoisted on top of the Church of St. Mary at Blachernae, in full view of both armies.[49]

Therefore, and after subduing the cities around the capital, Thomas resolved to attack the city on three sides. Perhaps he still hoped that this would impress the inhabitants or create an opportunity for a crucial defection. His deputies Anastasius and Gregory Pterotos would attack the Theodosian land walls and the sea walls respectively, while he would lead the main attack against the less formidable walls protecting Blachernae. All of Thomas's forces were amply supplied with siege engines and catapults, and his fleet fielded quantities of Greek fire in addition to large shipborne catapults.[50] Nevertheless, all three attacks failed: the defenders' own artillery proved superior and kept Thomas's engines away from the land walls, while adverse winds hindered the fleet from any meaningful action. Deciding that operations in the midst of winter were hazardous and unlikely to succeed, Thomas suspended all further attacks until spring and withdrew his army to winter quarters.[51][52]

Michael used the respite to ferry in additional reinforcements from Asia Minor and repair the walls of Blachernae. When Thomas returned in spring, he decided to focus his attack on the Blachernae sector alone. Before the attack began, Michael himself ascended the walls and addressed Thomas's troops, exhorting them to abandon him and promising amnesty if they would defect. Thomas's army apparently took this as a sign of great distress, and advanced confidently to begin the assault. As they neared the wall, however, the defenders opened the gates and sallied forth against them. The sudden attack by Michael's men achieved success and drove back Thomas's army, and at the same time the Imperial Fleet managed to defeat Thomas's ships, whose crews broke quickly and fled to the shore in panic.[53] This defeat diminished Thomas's naval strength, and although he continued his land blockade of the capital, it demoralized his supporters, who began defecting. Even Gregory Pterotos, whose family was in Michael's hands, resolved to desert Thomas, followed by a small band of men loyal to him. He departed the rebel camp headed west and sent a monk to inform Michael of his defection, but he failed to get past the blockade and reach the capital. Upon learning of this defection, Thomas reacted quickly: with a picked detachment, he followed Gregory, defeated his troops and killed him.[52][54][55]

Michael's fleet destroys Thomas's ships using Greek fire. Miniature from the Madrid Skylitzes.

Thomas exploited this small victory for all it was worth, widely proclaiming that he had defeated Michael's troops "by land and sea", He sent messages to the themes of Greece, whose support had been lukewarm up until now, demanding additional ships. This time, the themes responded in force and sent their squadrons, allegedly numbering 350 vessels, to join him. Thus reinforced, Thomas decided to launch a two-pronged assault against Constantinople's sea walls, with his original fleet attacking the wall of the Goldern Horn, and the new fleet attacking the south coast, looking towards the Sea of Marmara. Michael, however, did not remain idle: his own fleet attacked the thematic force soon after its arrival at its anchorage in Byrida. Using Greek fire, the Imperial Fleet destroyed many of the rebel vessels and captured most of the remaining. Only a few managed to escape and rejoin Thomas's forces.[52][55][56]

Through this victory, Michael secured control of the sea, but Thomas's army remained superior on land, and continued its blockade of Constantinople. For the remainder of the year, both sides engaged in minor skirmishes, with Michael's forces sallying forth from the city to attack Thomas's forces. Although both sides claimed minor successes in these clashes, neither was able to gain a decisive advantage.[57]

The Bulgars under Omurtag attack Thomas's army. Miniature from the Madrid Skylitzes.

At this point, Michael turned to the Empire's northern neighbour, Bulgaria, for help. The two states were bound by a 30-year treaty signed under Leo V, and the Bulgarian ruler, khan Omurtag (r. 814–831), was happy to respond to Michael's request for assistance. A later tradition, reported by Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus, holds that Omurtag acted of his own accord and against Michael's will, but this is almost universally rejected as a version started or at least encouraged by Michael, who did not wish to be seen encouraging "barbarians" to invade the empire.[58] The Bulgarian army invaded Thrace, probably in November 822 (Bury believes that the Bulgarian attack occurred in spring 823), and advanced towards Constantinople. Thomas raised the siege and with his army marched to meet them. The two armies met at a plain with an aqueduct (hence known as "Kedouktos" in the Byzantine sources) near Heraclea. The accounts of the subsequent battle differ: the later sources state that Thomas lost the battle, but the near-contemporary George the Monk states that Thomas "killed many Bulgarians". Given the lack of Bulgarian activity after the battle at Kedouktos, most modern scholars (with the notable exception of Bury) believe that Thomas won the battle.[59]

End of the revolt and death of Thomas

Michael II's army defeats Thomas. Miniature from the Chronicle of Constantine Manasses.

Despite this victory, Thomas was unable to resume the siege: aside from the probably heavy casualties his army suffered, during his absence, his fleet, which he had left behind in the Golden Horn, surrendered to Michael. Thomas therefore set up camp at the plain of Diabasis, some 40 km west of Constantinople. There he spent the winter and early spring. While a few of his men deserted, the bulk remained loyal to him.[52][60] Finally, in late April or early May 823, Michael marched against Thomas with his troops, accompanied by the generals Olbianos and Katakylas with new troops from Asia Minor. Thomas marched to meet them, and planned to use a stratagem to outwit his opponents: his men, ostensibly demoralized, would feign flight, and when the imperial army broke ranks to pursue them, they would turn back and attack it. In the event, however, Thomas's troops were by now weary of the prolonged conflict, and they broke and fled in reality. Many surrendered to Michael, while others fled to nearby fortified cities. Thomas himself with the larger group sought refuge in Arkadiopolis, his adopted son Anastasius with others to Bizye, while others fled to Panium and Heraclea.[61][62]

Michael blockaded these cities, but did not actively assault them, instead aiming to capture them peacefully by wearing their defenders out. In this, he was motivated both by the political expedient of not needlessly "shedding Christian blood", but also, according to the chroniclers, for fear of demonstrating to the Bulgarians that the Byzantine cities' fortifications could fall to attack. In the meantime, in Asia Minor, Thomas's partisans hoped to draw the emperor away by allowing the Arabs free passage to raid the provinces of Opsikion and Optimaton, which were loyal to Michael. The emperor, however, remained unmoved and continued the blockade.[63][64] In Arkadiopolis, Michael's troops closed off access to the city with a ditch. I order to conserve their supplies, the blockaded troops sent away women and children, followed by those too old, wounded or otherwise incapable of bearing arms. After five months of blockade, Thomas's loyalists were eventually forced to eat their starved horses and even their hides. Thomas sent a few messengers to Bizye, where the blockade was less close, to arrange a relief attempt with Anastasius. Before anything could be done, however, the exhausted troops at Arkadiopolis surrendered their leader in exchange for a pardon for themselves.[61][64][65] Thomas was delivered to Michael seated on a donkey and bound in chains. He was prostrated before the emperor, who placed his foot on his defeated rival's neck and ordered his hands and feet to be cut off and his corpse to be impaled. Thomas pleaded for clemency with the words "Have mercy on me, oh True Emperor!", but Michael only asked Thomas to reveal whether any of his own senior officials had had dealings with him. Before Thomas could respond, the Logothete of the Course, John Hexaboulios, advised against hearing whatever claims a defeated rebel might make. Michael agreed, and Thomas's sentence was carried out immediately.[66]

When the inhabitants of Bizye heard of Thomas's fate, they surrendered Anastasius, who was meted out the same fate as Thomas. In the other two cities of Panium and Heraclea, Thomas's men held out until an earthquake struck in February 824. The tremor severely damaged the wall of Panium, leading to its surrender. The damage at Heraclea was less severe, but after Michael landed troops at its seaward side, it too was forced to surrender.[61][67][68] In Asia Minor, Thomas's loyalists mostly submitted peacefully, but in the Cibyrrhaeot Theme, resistance lingered for a while until suppressed by the strategos John Echimos, and in the Thracesian theme, Thomas's soldiers turned to brigandage. The most serious opposition was offered in central Asia Minor by two officers, who possibly had served Thomas as strategoi. These were Choireus, with his base at Kaballa northwest of Iconium, and Gazarenos Koloneiates with his base at Saniana southeast of Ancyra. From their strongholds, they spurned Michael's offer of a pardon and of the high title of magistros, and raided the provinces that had gone over to him. Soon, however, Michael's agents persuaded the inhabitants of the two forts to shut their gates against them. Choireus and Koloneiates then tried to seek refuge in Arab territory, but on their way they were attacked by loyalist troops, captured and crucified.[61][69]

Aftermath and effects

Gold solidus of Michael II with his son, Theophilos.

In this way, the great rebellion of Thomas the Slav ended, and in May 824, Michael II celebrated a triumph in Constantinople. While he executed the volunteers from the Caliphate and perhaps also the Slavs, by both considerations of policy and their sheer numbers, Michael was compelled to treat most of Thomas's defeated partisans with leniency: most were released after being paraded in the Hippodrome of Constantinople during his triumph, and only the most dangerous were exiled to the remotest corners of the Empire.[67][68] Despite his qualities and the widespread support he had gained, which had brought him control of most of the Empire, Thomas failed. As Paul Lemerle writes, the factors that played a role in his defeat were several: the Asian themes he had neglected to leave unsubdued and which supplied reinforcements to Michael, the bad performance of his fleet, and finally the Bulgarian attack. But the most important reason was the impregnable nature of Constantinople's fortifications, which meant that an emperor who controlled Constantinople could only be overthrown from within the city.[70] In an effort to discredit his opponent, Michael also authorized an "official" and heavily distorted version of Thomas's life and revolt to be written by the deacon Ignatios, which was published later in 824 as Against Thomas and quickly became the commonly accepted version of events.[6]

Thomas's rebellion was not very destructive in material terms: outside Thrace, which had suffered from the prolonged presence of the rival armies and the battles fought there, the larger part of the Empire had been spared the ravages of war.[71][72] The Byzantine navy suffered the greatest losses, with the thematic fleets in particular being decimated, while the land forces suffered comparatively fewer casualties.[71][73] This is commonly held to have resulted in a military weakness which was swiftly exploited by the Muslims: in the years after Thomas's rebellion, Andalusian exiles captured Crete, the Tunisian Aghlabids began their conquest of Sicily, while in the East, the Byzantines were forced to generally maintain a defensive stance towards the Caliphate.[71] Some scholars, however, have disputed this, citing other reasons for the Byzantines' military failures during these years.[74]

References

  1. ^ Bury 1912, p. 11; Lemerle 1965, pp. 264, 270, 284.
  2. ^ a b c d e f Kazhdan 1991, p. 2079.
  3. ^ Kiapidou 2003, Note 1.
  4. ^ a b Treadgold 1988, p. 229.
  5. ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 267–272.
  6. ^ a b c Treadgold 1988, pp. 244–245.
  7. ^ a b Bury 1912, p. 84.
  8. ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 259–272, 284.
  9. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 10–12; Kaegi 1981, p. 246; Lemerle 1965, pp. 264, 285.
  10. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 12–13; Treadgold 1988, pp. 131–133, 196–197.
  11. ^ a b Lemerle 1965, p. 285.
  12. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 84–85.
  13. ^ Kiapidou 2003, Note 3.
  14. ^ Treadgold 1988, p. 198.
  15. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 44–46; Treadgold 1988, p. 198.
  16. ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 223–225.
  17. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 48, 85.
  18. ^ Lemerle 1965, p. 284.
  19. ^ Treadgold 1988, p. 228.
  20. ^ Kiapidou 2003, Chapter 1.
  21. ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 228–229, 243.
  22. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 78–79, 85; Treadgold 1988, pp. 228–229.
  23. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 85–86.
  24. ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 283–284.
  25. ^ a b Kiapidou 2003, Note 5.
  26. ^ Kaegi 1982, pp. 265–266; Lemerle 1965, pp. 262–263, 285.
  27. ^ Treadgold 1988, p. 233.
  28. ^ Kiapidou 2003, Note 6.
  29. ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 296–297.
  30. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 86–87; Treadgold 1988, pp. 228–229, 234.
  31. ^ Lemerle 1965, p. 289.
  32. ^ a b Kiapidou 2003, Chapter 2.1.
  33. ^ Bury 1912, p. 89; Lemerle 1965, p. 265.
  34. ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 285–286, 294–295.
  35. ^ Lemerle 1965, pp. 286–287.
  36. ^ Bury 1912, p. 87; Treadgold 1988, pp. 229–230, 232.
  37. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 87–88; Lemerle 1965, pp. 287–288; Treadgold 1988, pp. 232–233.
  38. ^ Treadgold 1988, p. 233.
  39. ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 233–234.
  40. ^ Bury 1912, p. 90.
  41. ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 234–235.
  42. ^ Bury, pp. 90, 92–93; Lemerle 1965, pp. 289–290; Treadgold 1988, p. 235.
  43. ^ a b Bury 1912, pp. 90–91.
  44. ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 235–236.
  45. ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 236–237.
  46. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 91–92; Treadgold 1988, p. 236.
  47. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 90–91; Treadgold 1988, pp. 234, 236.
  48. ^ Bury 1912, p. 93; Treadgold 1988, pp. 236–237.
  49. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 93, 95; Treadgold 1988, p. 237.
  50. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 93–95; Treadgold 1988, pp. 237, 239.
  51. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 93–96; Treadgold 1988, pp. 237–238.
  52. ^ a b c d Kiapidou 2003, Chapter 2.2.
  53. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 96–97; Treadgold 1988, pp. 238–239.
  54. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 97–98.
  55. ^ a b Treadgold 1988, p. 239.
  56. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 98–99.
  57. ^ Bury 1912, p. 99; Treadgold 1988, pp. 239–240.
  58. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 100–101; Lemerle 1965, pp. 279–281; Treadgold 1988, pp. 240, 425.
  59. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 101–102; Lemerle 1965, pp. 279–281, 291; Treadgold 1988, p. 240.
  60. ^ Bury 1912, p. 102; Treadgold 1988, p. 240.
  61. ^ a b c d Kiapidou 2003, Chapter 2.3.
  62. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 102–103; Treadgold 1988, pp. 240–241.
  63. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 103–104.
  64. ^ a b Treadgold 1988, p. 241.
  65. ^ Bury 1912, p. 105.
  66. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 105–106; Treadgold 1988, pp. 241–242.
  67. ^ a b Bury 1912, p. 107.
  68. ^ a b Treadgold 1988, p. 242.
  69. ^ Bury 1912, pp. 107–108; Treadgold 1988, pp. 242–243.
  70. ^ Lemerle 1965, p. 297.
  71. ^ a b c Kiapidou 2003, Chapter 3.
  72. ^ Treadgold 1988, p. 244.
  73. ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 244, 259.
  74. ^ Treadgold 1988, pp. 259–260.

Sources

  • Bury, John Bagnell (1912). A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I (A.D. 802–867). London, United Kingdom: Macmillan and Company. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Kaegi, Walter Emil (1981). Byzantine Military Unrest, 471–843: An Interpretation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Adolf M. Hakkert. ISBN 9025609023. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Kazhdan, Alexander Petrovich (1991). Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195046526. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Kiapidou, Irini-Sofia (2003). "Rebellion of Thomas the Slav, 821–23". Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World, Asia Minor. Athens, Greece: Foundation of the Hellenic World. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lemerle, Paul (1965). "Thomas le Slave". Travaux et mémoires 1 (in French). Paris, France: Centre de recherche d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance. pp. 255–297. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Treadgold, Warren T. (1988). The Byzantine Revival, 780–842. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804714622. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Slav&oldid=426464522"