User:Cplakidas/Sandbox/Byzantine-Arab4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Background[edit]

The Byzantine emperor Nikephoros II Phokas (r. 963–969) presided over a sustained Byzantine offensive that culminated in the conquest of Cilicia in 965, followed by devastating incursions into Upper Mesopotamia and northern Syria, where the great city of Antioch was placed under siege in 968.[1] The Byzantine advances had taken place against the Hamdanid Emirate of Aleppo, whose founder, Sayf al-Dawla (r. 944–967), had for two decades been the Byzantines' main antagonist in the East.[2][3] His death in February 967, in the midst of the Byzantine offensive and rebellions by his closest lieutenants, hastened the disintegration of his state.[4][5]

The year 969 was a crucial one in Syrian history. In the north, it marked the climax of the Byzantine advance, as the Byzantine generals Michael Bourtzes and Peter captured Antioch, securing Byzantine control over the north Syrian littoral, and proceeded shortly after to reduce Aleppo to a Byzantine vassal.[4][6][7] In the south, it marked the entry of a new player in the power politics of the region: the Fatimid Caliphate, which conquered Egypt from its Ikhshidid rulers and proceeded to expand into Syria.[6] The competition between these two powers, Byzantium and the Fatimids, would shape the history of Syria for the next fifty years, mostly revolving around control of the rump Emirate of Aleppo.[6]

Rival powers[edit]

Byzantine Empire[edit]

The conquest of Antioch was a major achievement, and for the next century, until its conquest by the Seljuq Turks in 1084, provided the bastion of Byzantine rule in northern Syria.[8] It was governed by a Byzantine general, the doux of Antioch (δοὺξ Ἀντιοχείας, doux Antiocheias), who headed a regional military command (doukaton) with authority over several local generals (στρατηγοὶ, strategoi, sing. στρατηγός, strategos) who in turn presided over small provinces (θέματα, themata, sing. θέμα, thema).[8][a] It covered the southeastern corner of the Byzantine Empire, shielding the approaches to Cilicia as well as Asia Minor from the south.[10]

Fatimid Caliphate[edit]

The Byzantine successes of the 960s reverberated across the Muslim world. While volunteers from as far as Khurasan arrived to fight in the jihād, the populace was enraged at the perceived passivity of their rulers, clamouring for action against the infidel Byzantines.[11][12]

The Fatimid dynasty had arrived to power first in Ifriqiya (modern Tunisia) in 909. In contrast to their Aghlabid predecessors, who were content to remain a regional dynasty in the western fringes of the Abbasid Caliphate, the Fatimids, as an Isma'ili Shi'a sect claiming descent from Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad and wife of Ali, held ecumenical pretensions: they regarded the Sunni Abbasids as usurpers and were determined to overthrow them and take their place. Thus, in early 910, the Fatimid ruler Abdallah declared himself imam and caliph as "al-Mahdi Billah" (reigned 909–934).[13] The Fatimids' ideological imperative also coloured their relations with the Byzantine Empire, with whom they became involved in a series of conflicts in Sicily and southern Italy: as the historian Yaacov Lev writes, "Fatimid policy toward Byzantium oscillated between contradicting tendencies; a practical policy of modus vivendi, and the need to appear as champions of jihād".[14]

At the time of their conquest of Egypt in 969, the evident inability of the nominal leaders of the Muslim world, the Sunni Abbasids, to oppose the Byzantine advance, was utilized to great effect in Fatimid propaganda, who based much of their legitimization in their new provinces on their championing of the fight against the infidels.[15][16] Nevertheless, the Byzantines were not the Fatimids' primary enemy: Fatimid expansion into Syria was targeted against the Abbasids, whom they sought to supplant.[17] In addition, the Fatimids continued the tradition of all Egypt-based regimes of trying to control Syria, or at least the southern part of it, "as a advanced outpost for the defence of Egypt" itself.[17]

The conflict in Syria forced the Fatimids to undertake major changes in the composition of their forces: the Kutama Berbers had traditionally provided the mainstay of the Fatimid armies and had played the main role in the takeover of Ifriqiya and the conquest of Egypt, but now they began to be eclipsed. On the one hand, following their relocation to Egypt, the Fatimids failed to attract new recruits from the Kutama homeland, and on the other, the need to confront the heavy Byzantine troops forced the Fatimids to introduce heavier troops—chiefly Turkish and Daylamite ghilman—in their armies. Very quickly, the Fatimid armies also came to include Bedouin and Kurdish tribesmen, Nubian slaves (Sudan), Slavs (saqaliba) and even Byzantine Greeks (Rum), coming to resemble the other Islamic armies of the period.[18][19] In tactics too, the Fatimids probably followed the general practices used by the Byzantines and Hamdanids; the writings of Nikephoros Ouranos, doux of Antioch at the turn of the 11th century, suggest the presence of both heavy infantry and heavy cavalry among the Fatimid forces.[20]

Regional Arab powers[edit]

Cover the Hamdanids and Mirdasids, as well as Bedouin forces (Jarrahids etc)


Events[edit]

The vassalization of Aleppo[edit]

Sayf al-Dawla's chief minister and chamberlain (hajib), Qarghuyah, who had ruled Aleppo in his master's absence, took advantage of the Byzantine threat to force Sayf al-Dawla's underage son and heir, Sa'd al-Dawla, to leave the city and usurp his authority. Sa'd al-Dawla was reduced to wandering from city to city across the lands that were nominally his, hoping to gain entry, until he found refuge at Homs.[4][5] In the meantime, many of his father's old supporters left to join his cousin Abu Taghlib, Emir of Mosul, who used the opportunity to expand his own territory. Immediately after Sayf al-Dawla's death, he captured Raqqa, and by 971 extended his control over the provinces of Diyar Bakr and Diyar Mudar. Sa'd al-Dawla, unable to offer any resistance, tacitly accepted these losses as well as his cousin's suzerainty.[21][6]

In late 969, fresh from the conquest of Antioch, the Byzantine stratopedarches Peter proceeded to Aleppo. After a brief siege, Qarghuyah and his lieutenant, Bakjur, capitulated. In the Treaty of Safar, the Emirate of Aleppo became a vassal of the Byzantine Empire, and much of northern Syria came under Byzantine rule.[22]

The new border began north of Tripoli and Arqa (in modern Lebanon), then somewhat west of the Orontes River, leaving at least Shayzar, Rafaniya and Barzuya under Arab control, before crossing the river near the junction of the Afrin River. There it followed the highlands between the Afrin and the plains of the Aleppo plateau before turning east, approximately following the modern Syria–Turkey border, to the Sajur River, which it then followed until its junction with the Euphrates.[22][23] The other terms of the treaty established the emirate of Aleppo as a Byzantine tributary state and vassal, obliging it to render military assistance to the Byzantines.[7] These stipulations were not accepted by the exiled Sa'd al-Dawla, who ruled over Homs, [Hama]], Rafaniya, and Ma'arrat al-Nu'man, nor by the commandant of Barzuya, Ruqtash. As a result, the Byzantines launched an attack on Homs.[24][25]

First Fatimid expansion into Syria[edit]

The Fatimids followed up their conquest of Egypt with an invasion of Palestine in 970. The Fatimid commander Ja'far ibn Fallah defeated the Ikhshidid remnants under al-Hasan ibn Ubayd Allah ibn Tughj and took Ramla, Tiberias, and Damascus.[26][27] Almost as soon as Damascus submitted, Ibn Fallah entrusted one of his ghilman, named Futuh ("Victories"), to carry out the promised jihad against the Byzantines.[28] Futuh led an army 20,000 strog, composed of Kutama strengthened with levies from Palestine and southern Syria, and moved to besiege Antioch in December 970. The city resisted with success, and although Ibn Fallah sent reinforcements, they were unable to take it. In spring, a Byzantine relief army defeated a detachment of the Fatimid troops, forcing the Fatimids to raise the siege and withdraw.[15][29] At the same time, Ibn Fallah faced an invasion by the Qarmatians, who were joined by former Ikhsidid troops, local Bedouin, and even received support from the Buyids. Ibn Fallah was defeated and killed by the Qarmatian-led alliance in August 971, leading to the complete collapse of Fatimid rule in Syria.[26][30]

John I Tzimiskes' campaigns[edit]

In December 971, the Fatimids were driven back into Egypt by the Qarmatians, and did not re-emerge to play a role in Syrian affairs until three years later.[15] In the meantime, the new Byzantine emperor, John I Tzimiskes (r. 969–976) had been occupied with his war against the Rus' in Bulgaria. Only as it drew to an end did he turn to the problems of his eastern frontier.[25] In 971 an earthquake destroyed the walls of Antioch, and Tzimiskes sent Michael Bourtzes with 12,000 workmen to repair them. No title is given for Bourtzes by Yahya of Antioch, but it is likely that he was the first person to be appointed as doux of Antioch.[15]

The domestikos ton scholon of the East, the Armenian Melias, was sent to invade Upper Mesopotamia, where he sacked Nisibis in October 972. According to Yahya of Antioch, however, it was Tzimiskes himself who led the expedition.[31] Byzantine attempts to capture Mayyafariqin failed, and in the summer of 973 Melias was defeated and captured before Amid by Abu Taghlib's brother, Abu'l-Qasim Hibat Allah.[32]

In 974, Tzimiskes himself campaigned in the east. First he marched to Taron, where he secured 10,000 men from the King of Armenia, Ashot III (r. 953–977). He then invaded Upper Mesopotamia, allegedly, according to Matthew of Edessa, "up to the environs of Baghdad", destroying 300 fortresses.[32] Tzimiskes himself, in a letter to Ashot III, reports that he advanced to Nisibis. Due to the similarity with the campaign of 972, these events are usually considered the same by modern historians, and assigned to one of the years, with 972 the more likely since no Byzantine successes are reported in Arabic sources for 974.[33] In April/May 974, Tzimiskes sent an envoy to the new Fatimid capital of Cairo to conclude a peace. The negotiations failed due to the ambassador's death. As the Fatimids began to restore control over the coastal cities of Syria, in the next year, the two powers again came into direct confrontation.[34]

Tzimiskes' "Crusade" of 975[edit]

In his letter to Ashot, Tzimiskes gives report on his campaign of 975, which according to the emperor led deep into Palestine.[32] This was directed against the Fatimids ("Africans" in Tzimiskes' letter), who in the summer of 974, after defeating the Qarmatians, had re-entered Syria with their army.[15] In early 975, the eunuch Raiyan had captured Tripoli, before being recalled to Damascus. Shortly after, however, in April/May 975, Damascus was taken over by the Turkish general Alptakin, who overthrew Fatimid rule and ordered the Friday prayer to be said in the name of the Abbasid caliph.[35] These events offered an opportunity for Tzimiskes,[36] who set out from Antioch in April 975. His army took Afamiya, Homs, and Ba'albek (on 29 May), and then secured the submission of Alptakin and the city notables of Damascus, who agreed to an annual tribute of 60,000 to 100,000 gold dinars.[15][37]

Tzimiskes then claims that he invaded Palestine, passing by Tiberias and Nazareth. Envoys from Jerusalem and Ramlah arrived to offer tribute, and Tzimiskes installed governors in all towns of the region, before moving to the coast at Caesarea. According to the letter, an operation against Jerusalem was not possible because the "Africans" had taken refuge in the coastal fortresses.[38] Modern scholars generally dismiss this part of the account as hollow "boastfulness" (Honigmann), since no such events are mentioned in contemporary eastern sources, and the army of Raiyan would quickly have rendered such conquests, if they indeed happened, ephemeral.[15][39]

He then turned to the coast, from Sidon to Beirut, where the Emperor defeated and took prisoner the Fatimid eunuch general Nusayr, who in April/May had defeated a Byzantine army before Tripoli. Tripoli itself resisted attack, but the Byzantines laid waste to its environs. The Fatimid sources report that the Byzantines were defeated in a battle near the city by Raiyan, while Tzimiskes claims the victory as his own.[15][40] Tzimiskes then occupied the coastal towns of Balanias and Jabala. At the same time, the Jacobite Kulayb handed over the fortresses of Barzuya and Sahyun, being rewarded with the title of patrikios and governor (basilikos) of Antioch. Tzimiskes installed Byzantine garrisons under a strategos in each of the four fortresses, before returning to Antioch in September.[41][42]

Another Byzantine embassy in autumn 975 failed due to the death of the Fatimid ruler, al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah (r. 953–975).[34] In a way, as Yaacov Lev remarks, the latter was fortuitous, as it spared the Fatimids of the odium of concluding a peace with Byzantium at a time when fear and hatred of the Byzantines was rampant throughout the Muslim world due to Tzimiskes' campaigns.[43] Tzimiskes' successes were not to last long: the emperor died on 10 January 976, and Alptakin quickly recovered Sidon, advancing as far as Tiberias and Acre.[44]

Byzantine civil wars and the problem of Aleppo[edit]

Gold dinar of al-Aziz Billah, minted in Palestine in AH 366 (976/7 CE)

Al-Ma'izz's successor, al-Aziz Billah (r. 975–996), presided over a period of internal tranquility and consolidation of Fatimid control, over Egypt as well as Palestine and southern Syria.[43] Damascus returned to Fatimid control in 978...

On the Byzantine side, the new emperor, Basil II (r. 976–989), initially ordered Bourtzes to raid Muslim territory in the direction of Tripoli.[45]

Al-Aziz then set his sights on Aleppo. The powerful vizier, Yaqub ibn Killis, opposed this course as it would lead to another confrontation with Byzantium, but he was ignored.[46] In the meantime, Sa'd al-Dawla had finally gained control of Aleppo in 977, after Bakjur had deposed and imprisoned Qarghuyah two years prior. Qarghuyah was set free and entrusted with with the affairs of state until his death a few years later, while Bakjur was given the governorship of Homs.[4][47][48] Recognizing the suzerainty of the Buyid Adud al-Dawla, for which he received governorship of the Diyar Mudar, except for Raqqa and Rahba,[49] Sa'd al-Dawla ceased the tribute payments to the Byzantines.[45]

Bakjur, in the meantime, had used his new post at Homs to open contacts with the Fatimids, who intended to use him as a pawn to subdue Aleppo and complete their conquest of the entirety of Syria.[49] Sa'd al-Dawla himself oscillated between the Fatimids and Byzantium: on the one hand he resented Byzantine overlordship and was willing to acknowledge the Fatimid Caliph, but on the other hand he did not want to see his domain become merely another Fatimid province like southern Syria.[48] His first attempt to shake free of the Byzantine protectorate, in 981, thus ended in failure due to lack of outside support, when a Byzantine army appeared before Aleppo's walls to enforce compliance.[48][49] The Fatimids now induced Bakjur to act, and in September 983, the latter launched an attack on Aleppo with the support of Fatimid troops. Sa'd al-Dawla was forced to appeal to Basil II for help, and the siege was raised by a Byzantine army under Bardas Phokas the Younger. The Byzantines then proceeded to sack Homs in October. The city was returned to Hamdanid control, while Bakjur fled to Fatimid territory, where he assumed the governorship of Damascus.[48][49][50][51] It is an indication of the strained relations between Sa'd al-Dawla and his "saviours" that after Bakjur's flight, there were clashes between Byzantine and Hamdanid troops, which were settled only when the Hamdanid emir agreed to pay twice the usual yearly amount of tribute of 20,000 gold dinars.[48]

In 987/8, a seven-year truce was signed between the Fatimids and Byzantium, stipulating an exchange of prisoners, the recognition of the Byzantine emperor as protector of the Christians under Fatimid rule and of the Fatimid Caliph as protector of the Muslims under Byzantine control, as well as the replacement of the Abbasid Caliph's name by that of the Fatimid Caliph in the Friday prayer in the mosque of Constantinople.[52][53] Despite this agreement, and perhaps in the belief that Byzantium would not interfere, al-Aziz entrusted his favourite Turkish general, Manjutakin, with a campaign against the Hamdanid emirate in 991 after Bakjur failed to capture the town himself. Manjutakin's efforts at first met with success, and he even scored a major victory over the Byzantines under Michael Bourtzes on the banks of the Orontes river in 994. However, the Fatimid successes led to the direct intervention of the Byzantine emperor Basil II, who in a lightning campaign in April 995 forced the Fatimids to withdraw. The Byzantines failed again to take Tripoli, but the city threw of Fatimid control as well. In the end, Basil took and refortified the ruined town of Antarsus, which he garrisoned with Armenian troops who then repelled Manjutakin's assaults. In response, al-Aziz himself prepared to take the field and initiated large-scale preparations, which were however cut short upon his death in October 996.[54][55]

Warfare between the two powers continued, with the Byzantines supporting an anti-Fatimid uprising in Tyre. In 998, the Byzantines under Bourtzes' successor, Damian Dalassenos, launched an attack on Apamea, but the Fatimid general Jaush ibn al-Samsama defeated them in battle on 19 July 998. This new defeat brought Basil II once again to Syria in October 999: Basil spent three months in Syria, during which the Byzantines took and garrisoned Shaizar and captured three minor forts in its vicinity, but attacks on Hims and Tripoli failed. However, as Basil's attention was needed in Armenia, he soon dispatched another embassy to Cairo, and in 1000 a ten-year truce was concluded between the two states.[56][57]


For the remainder of the reign of al-Hakim (r. 996–1021) relations remained peaceful, as Hakim was more interested in internal affairs. Even the acknowledgement of Fatimid suzerainty by Lulu of Aleppo in 1004 and the Fatimid-sponsored instalment of Fatik Aziz al-Dawla as the city's emir in 1017 did not lead the a resumption of hostilities, especially since Lu'lu continued to pay tribute to Byzantium and Fatik quickly began acting as an independent ruler.[58][59] Nevertheless, Hakim's persecution of Christians in his realm, and especially the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at his orders in 1009, strained relations and would, along with Fatimid interference in Aleppo, provide the main focus of Fatimid-Byzantine relations until the late 1030s.[60]

In 1027, a truce was signed between Byzantium and the Fatimids, repeating the stipulations of the 987/988 agreement on the use of the Fatimid Caliph's name in the mosques in Byzantine territory. The Fatimids acquired the right to maintain the mosque at Constantinople, and in exchnage the Holy Sepulchre was entrusted to the protection of the Byzantine emperor.[61] In 1035/1036, a ten-year truce was concluded between the two powers,[62] which was renewed in 1045/1046 for another ten years.[63] The close cooperation between the two states, marked by the frequent exchange of embassies and lavish gifts, was not shaken for a long time, despite the meddling with Aleppo by both sides. The Byzantines even detained an Abbasid envoy bearing insignia of sovereignty to the Zirids after the latter had broken away from Fatimid control.[64] Emperor Constantine IX even agreed to offer grain to famine-plagued Egypt in 1054/1055, but his deposition prevented this from happening, and brought the two states to the brink of war. Matters were further aggravated when the Byzantines acceded to a request by Tughril and re-inserted the Abbasid Caliph's name in the prayers of the Constantinople mosque, even while a Fatimid embassy was present in the Byzantine capital. The Fatimids responded by emptying the Church of the Sepulche, closing down several other churches, and increasing the poll-tax paid by their Christian subjects. Finally, the two states clashed over control of Latakia, but the details or even chronology of these events (ca. 1055–1058) are unclear. According to the main source, the historian al-Maqrizi, Latakia was taken by the Fatimids after repeated assaults, and the territories around Antioch raided. Negotiations also took place, but their outcome is unclear.[65]

Turkish invasion of Syria[edit]

Thereafter, due to the internal anarchy of the Fatimid Caliphate and the conquests of the Seljuq Turks, the two states became territorially separated, and their relations ceased for almost a century. Only under Manuel I Komnenos did some contacts revive. Thus in 1158/1159 he sent an embassy to Cairo asking for assistance against the Normans for his projected campaign in southern Italy, but ten years later he proposed to Amalric I of Jerusalem a joint expedition against Egypt. The Crusaders agreed, and the joint fleet besieged Damietta between 25 October and 13 December 1169, but the Egyptians, under the leadership of Saladin, mounted an effective defence, aided by internal discord among the Christians.[66]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ The exact extent of the doukaton of Antioch is unclear, but in the Treaty of Devol of 1108 a list of the subordinates of the doux is given as comprising the themata of Podandos, Tarsus, Mopsuestia, Anabarza, Hagios Elias, Mauron Oros, Palatza, Germanikeia, Telouch, Artach, Pagras, Zoume, Borze, Larissa, Laodicea, Gabala, Balanias, Marakeos, and Antarados.[8][9]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 93–94.
  2. ^ Bianquis 1997, pp. 106–107.
  3. ^ Whittow 1996, p. 320.
  4. ^ a b c d Canard 1971, p. 129.
  5. ^ a b Kennedy 2004, pp. 277–280.
  6. ^ a b c d Kennedy 2004, p. 280.
  7. ^ a b Todt & Vest 2014, pp. 189–190.
  8. ^ a b c Kühn 1991, pp. 170–171.
  9. ^ Todt & Vest 2014, pp. 190–191.
  10. ^ Kühn 1991, p. 170.
  11. ^ Lev 1984, pp. 237–239.
  12. ^ Lev 1995, pp. 198–199.
  13. ^ Lev 1984, pp. 227–228.
  14. ^ Lev 1995, pp. 191–192.
  15. ^ a b c d e f g h Todt & Vest 2014, p. 191.
  16. ^ Lev 1995, pp. 198, 199.
  17. ^ a b Lev 1995, p. 199.
  18. ^ Lev 1987, pp. 344–346.
  19. ^ McGeer 2008, pp. 246–247.
  20. ^ McGeer 2008, pp. 247–248.
  21. ^ Canard 1971, pp. 127–128, 129.
  22. ^ a b Todt & Vest 2014, p. 189.
  23. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 94–97.
  24. ^ Todt & Vest 2014, p. 190.
  25. ^ a b Honigmann 1935, p. 97.
  26. ^ a b Kennedy 2004, p. 318.
  27. ^ Brett 2001, pp. 311–313.
  28. ^ Brett 2001, p. 313.
  29. ^ Walker 1972, pp. 431–439.
  30. ^ Brett 2001, pp. 313–315.
  31. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 97–98.
  32. ^ a b c Honigmann 1935, p. 98.
  33. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 98–99, 101.
  34. ^ a b Lev 1995, p. 200.
  35. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 101–102.
  36. ^ Honigmann 1935, p. 101.
  37. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 99, 102.
  38. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 99–100.
  39. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 101–103.
  40. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 100, 102.
  41. ^ Todt & Vest 2014, pp. 191–192.
  42. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 100–101.
  43. ^ a b Lev 1995, p. 201.
  44. ^ Honigmann 1935, pp. 102–103.
  45. ^ a b Honigmann 1935, p. 103.
  46. ^ Lev 1995, pp. 201–202.
  47. ^ Kennedy 2004, pp. 280–281.
  48. ^ a b c d e Stevenson 1926, p. 250.
  49. ^ a b c d Canard 1971, p. 130.
  50. ^ Kennedy (2004), p. 281
  51. ^ Whittow (1996), p. 367
  52. ^ Lev 1995, p. 202.
  53. ^ Stevenson 1926, p. 251.
  54. ^ Lev 1995, pp. 202–203.
  55. ^ Stevenson 1926, pp. 251–252.
  56. ^ Lev (1995), pp. 203–205
  57. ^ Stevenson (1926), p. 252
  58. ^ Lev (1995), p. 205
  59. ^ Stevenson (1926), pp. 254–255
  60. ^ Lev (1995), pp. 203, 205–208
  61. ^ Stevenson (1926), p. 256
  62. ^ Lev (1995), p. 208
  63. ^ Lev (1999–2000), p. 273
  64. ^ Lev (1999–2000), pp. 273–274
  65. ^ Lev (1999–2000), pp. 274–275
  66. ^ Lev (1999–2000), pp. 275–277

Sources[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cplakidas/Sandbox/Byzantine-Arab4&oldid=1023467598"