Byzantium was a monarchic republic

Slightly clickbait title, I admit. Currently working through Kaldellis' "The Byzantine Republic", where he analyses the full sweep of East Roman history from 500-1200, with looks at the early Empire and Palaiologan period. I paraphrase his key argument summary below, to see what posters on AH.com make of it, and to try to get some debate going. If nothing else, it's a very interesting way of looking at it, that is already radically changing my perceptions of AH.com's favourite civilisation.

There are more than sufficient grounds to conclude that the Byzantine political sphere was defined in large part by a distinctly Roman and republican ideology. It is no longer possible to say dismissively that all these Roman notions survived only "in an antiquarian and vestigial sense". They were very much alive. The basileia belonged to the politeia (ie, the Greek rendition of the Latin term res publica), not the person who happened to occupy the throne, and the politeia belonged to all members of the republic, including the people. The emperor's sole responsibility was to labour on behalf of the republic, and he was morally and politically accountable to his subjects. The people may not have had much say in determining who was thrust before them as a candidate for the throne, but their consent was absolutely necessary for his accession and reign to be legitimate. There was no source of authority that could override the will of the people in this matter. They were, as Cliff Ando called them, "the shareholders in the res publica and in their corporate capacity still sovereign in the state."

Not only did imperial legitimacy have popular roots, it was contingent upon the people's continued good will. Popular opinion could not be taken for granted even when it had formally approved an emperor at a ceremony of accession; it had to be cultivated continuously. In this respect, Byzantium was the exact opposite of an oriental despotism or a monarchy by divine right. This emerges clearly when we consider the fate of emperors who lost the people's favour. What happened to them demonstrates that this republicanism was not a fiction or merely propaganda deployed by the monarchy to mobilise popular support. It corresponded to what the law stated, and the populace believed, was within the people's right and power. Episodes of popular intervention "illustrate how conscious all sections of Constantinopolitan society were of their constitutional role in the making and unmaking of emperors, and not just of emperors." No imperial legislation ever denied that the collective will of the Roman people had the right to exert itself in this way, even when it was doing so regularly and bloodily.

The people were at almost all times a foremost factor in the political life of the Romano-Byzantine republic: the emperor had to cultivate public opinion and keep it on his side, because the moment it began to slip from his grasp, which happened often, there were many rivals present who would use it to attempt to raise themselves to the throne. In this sense, politics in Byzantium was always popular. One's hold on the throne was always a function of public opinion. This explains more about the picture that Byzantine political history presents than does the rhetorical fiction of divine favour presented in imperial panegyric.

What do we reckon?
 
Every history I've ever read about Byzantium tacitly confirms this. Hence all the dramatics about going before the people in the hippodrome and the usual Bread and Circus (well, minus the bread, if I recall correctly) dynamics.
 
Well, I can't say I'm surprised that the continuity of Late Imperial structures are being re-considered positively : it's the ungoing trend on Early Medieval studies, and giving the huge political and cultural proximity of Byzantine Empire with Late Empire for obvious reasons, I'd be actually more skeptical of the contrary.

(The "hippodromos' politics" being an exemple, once removed the cliché representations)

I don't exactly remember Louis Bréhier's stance on it, but IRRC, his introduction and analysis of the situation are more in favour of marking a distinction with the Arab conquests rather than 1200's, though.
The author you quote is right to say Romans never loose interest on politics as a culture, but how politics were made seems to have changed for what I remember.

As in, instead of religion being acted on by politics, seeing the reverse with Iconoclasm, and I wonder how much the Kommenoi (without going one step on "oriental despotism" non-sense*) weren't the equivalent of military emperors of classical Rome, being more strong men and less about popular will (while being really careful to not piss on people, at the contrary).

*I wonder how much the author isn't exaggerating the part of "oriental despotism" he pretends fighting. I never encountered a study pretending that that wouldn't have been made in the early XXth at latest.
 
Makes sense. After all from the fall of Phokas to the deposement of Andronikos or the downfall of the Angelii it appears Emperor's relied heavily on public opinion. However now we must study as to what extent popular opinion held sway over the imperial court and whether the republic was one ruled by the Dynatoi/powerful families or whether it was controlled wholly by all people or in between.


It is difficult though to make sweeping statements such as this about a complex entity like Byzantium for the monarchic republic model fits well in some cases but not so well in others and thus while Byzantium appears to be a monarchic republic more research must be done and hard data/evidence both qualitative and quantitative must still be analyzed to understand how well this model holds up, though it does appear to be on the right track.

As for Absolute Authority well The Emperor held absolute authority in the sense that whatever laws or edicts he passed or where he warred the people had no say in voting yes or no for the laws. Eg the emperor could hypothetically pass a law forcing all people to wear funny dresses and none can oppose his edict. Yet if he actually tries to implement such a law popular opinion will turn against him and he will get deposed. So Byzantium does not appear to be a republic in the classical sense but practically appears to function as a monarchic one.
 
While an interesting theory, I have to disagree with it. Yes at certain times the mobs of Constantinople were able to force their voices to be heard and occasionally were able to depose an Emperor, those times tended to be far and in between. For the most part Byzantium was ruled by dynasties, with interregnums of 10 to about 30 years separating dynastic rule. The mobs on their own rarely were successful in removing an unpopular Emperor.

In fact the only major example I can think of for Byzantium (not the Eastern Roman Empire), mobs not prompted by rivals marching on the capital, would be Michael V and Empresses Zoe and Theodora.

As for the bread and circus, that mainly helped keep the populace under control and was a holdover from Rome and the ancient empire, not a modern invention. Many riots were put down in a bloody way (the Nika riots, for example). Finally the "power" of the mobs, if they had any, declined heavily after the rise of Islam, with only a few successes separated by centuries. The idea of a Monarchic republic works in the early centuries of the Eastern Roman Empire but not for Byzantium. At least in my opinion anyway.
 
I would agree to this, in very specific periods. By say, 1100, you just can't describe Byzantium as a Republic anymore; it has far more in common with the contemporary (of the time, ofc) West than it does with even the Rome of Late Antiquity. It had become ruled by the Aristocracy and a pretty clear rule of hereditary succession, excepting usurpation which happened about as often as it did in the West. If you're going to say that's a republic, then you might as well call any Western Kingdom a Republic, because when they were sick of rulers they often dethroned them.

But then there's Late Antiquity, which is where this argument makes the most sense. The Army, the Senate (prodded along by forces like the Excubitors), and the Constantinopolitan mob all played a part in choosing the next Emperor. In some ways it's more inclusive than the early Empire was.

If we're looking at the "Byzantine" period (so after the fall of Western Rome), there are only two examples of succession actually looking like a Monarchic Republic, and not being usurpations or designated successors of the previous Emperor. Those are Anastasius and Justin. In both cases, we're looking at something that seemed to follow a quasi-Republican process: they're voted upon by members of the Senate and have the mob behind them.

Technically, this was true of plenty of other Emperors, but in reality this was because they either had the approval of the last Emperor or they had the power to place themselves on the throne. Though they might have been good choices, I don't think Justin---> Tiberius---> Maurice qualifies as a Republican transition of power. Feel free to disagree.

And even if they did, Phocas and Heraclius completely shredded this legitimacy and turned the system back into who has power keeps it/hereditary.

So essentially, I agree that Byzantium could qualify as a monarchic republic up until the upheaval of the 7th century, and not for much longer after that. While the Basileus often needed the support of the people/Senate/military, and some were overthrown for not having it, there was never really a time where the succession wasn't either forced at the point of the sword or hereditary after that.

EDIT: So basically, I conquer with EC besides a few quibbles.
 
Since this seems to be picking up steam, lets consider that the Byzantine Period covers the better part of. Millennium. Its as appropriate to draw a general conclsuon about their society as it is to draw a similarly broad conclusion about England from William the Conqueror to Elizabeth II.
 
Since this seems to be picking up steam, lets consider that the Byzantine Period covers the better part of. Millennium. Its as appropriate to draw a general conclsuon about their society as it is to draw a similarly broad conclusion about England from William the Conqueror to Elizabeth II.

Doubt it. To draw a broad conclusion about England form Williams reign to Elizabeth glosses over the massive changes that occurred in English society during the time period and thus a model describing or analyzing Norman England would fall apart when applied to Elizabethan England. Essentially one can draw broad conclusions about a society provided those conclusions are within the context of a period of that societies history. For example early byzantine, mid byzantine and late Byzantine periods one can draw conclusions about Byzantine society within each period but then to create a general conclusion about Byzantine society as a whole from say 5th century to the 15th is not possible because of how rapidly Byzantine society, culture, economy, politics, and etc changed during this time period.
 
So, this thread will not affect any Byzantophiliac TLs at present or the future?

I did have that Byzantine Republic discussion going on a month or two back, where the anarchy leadinng up to the Isaurian dynasty resulted in an elective government... This dovetails nicely enough, it seems.
 
Seems this analysis largely ignores the secondary, but still very powerful figure, of the Patriach within Byzantine politics and how the religious dimensions played out stronger or weaker at varies times vis-a-vis the emperor.
 
Isn't this just social contract theory, which appears in various forms in just about every culture, including so-called oriental despotisms (what does this even refer to? Persians, Arabs, Turks, Chinese?)?
 

trajen777

Banned
I strongly disagree with this -- i think the Bread and Circus was less to get the mandate from / for the people but more to minimize the revolt of the people.

I think the great issue with Rome to Byz was the breakdown of the original republic idea (from Sulla on ) whereby force (personality or military or both ) overcame a poorly formed Republic process to be replaced by Augustus 1st citizen -- but their was never a true RESPECTED transition of power -- and this was one of the great downfalls of Rome === the civil wars -- Marius / Papagonias / civil war after mazikert / Justinian 2 etc etc
 
Isn't this just social contract theory, which appears in various forms in just about every culture, including so-called oriental despotisms (what does this even refer to? Persians, Arabs, Turks, Chinese?)?

More or less. And when you consider that the Mandate of Heaven was more or less a Confucian version...
 
Top