Some Observations on Biographical Compositions and Egodocuments of the Middle
Byzantine Military Aristocracy (c.900-c.1200)
The prominence of certain aristocratic individuals and families in Byzantine
historiography of the tenth and eleventh centuries has encouraged a number of
arguments for the existence of biographical literature pertaining to these subjects.
These hypothesized works are now lost, though it is suggested that traces may be
observed in surviving histories of the period, such as those written by Leo the
Deacon,1 John Skylitzes,2 and Nikephoros Bryennios.3 As a potentially significant
source for historians of the period, these lost biographical compositions – a
convenient collective label, though not ideal – warrant further (albeit speculative)
study. Hitherto considered in isolation, the first part of this paper presents an
overview of the evidence and arguments for aristocratic biographical literature. The
second part takes a closer look at some of the potential extracts and demonstrates how
they may be symptomatic of a general Byzantine style of writing about warfare which
conformed to contemporary aristocratic ideals and literary interests.
The family name only appeared in Byzantium in the early ninth century, though it
quickly became essential to aristocratic identity and social status.4 As the Byzantines
gained the upper hand in the perpetual war against Islam, a number of military
families based in Asia Minor were able to accumulate wealth, power and prestige at
the head of Byzantium’s rapidly improving armed forces. The struggle for supremacy
among the Empire’s leading generals would become a consistent theme in Byzantine
1
Leonis Diaconi Caloënsis Historiae Libri Decem, ed. C.B. Hase (Bonn 1828); trans. A-M. Talbot &
D.F. Sullivan, The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century
(Washington D.C. 2005).
2
Ioannis Skylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, ed. I Thurn (Berlin 1973); trans. J. Wortley, John Skylitzes: A
Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057 (Cambridge 2010).
3
Nicephori Bryennii, Historiarium Libri Quattuor, ed. P. Gautier (Brussels 1975).
4
E. Patlagean, ‘Les débuts d’une aristocratie byzantine et le témoignage de l'historiographie: système
des noms et liens de parenté aux IXe-Xe siècles’, in M. Angold (ed.), The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to
XIII Centuries, BAR Int. Series 221 (Oxford 1984); A. Kazhdan, ‘The formation of Byzantine family
names in the ninth and tenth centuries’, Byzantinoslavica LVIII 1 (1997); E. Kountoura-Galaki,
‘Iconoclast officials and the formation of surnames during the reign of Constantine V’, Revue des
études byzantines 62 (2004).
1
politics until the end of the eleventh century.5 Against this backdrop, the allure of
biographical literature to the military aristocracy is clear. By documenting their noble
character and accomplishments, competing factions could show themselves to be
worthy of acclaim and favour, and even of the imperial throne itself.
References and allusions to aristocratic biography in Middle Byzantine
historiography
The tenth-century chronicle, Theophanes Continuatus, directs the reader to an eightvolume work by a certain Manuel which documented the deeds of John Kourkouas,
famed commander of the imperial forces for over two decades under the Emperor
Romanos I Lekapenos (r.920-944).6 Little is known of the work or its author, though
Athanasios Markopoulos has postulated that the book portrayed Kourkouas as an
ideal military man by demonstrating his courage, intelligence and generalship.7 Since
the author of the sixth book of Theophanes Continuatus, writing c.963, was familiar
with Manuel’s work, it is roughtly datable to c.945-962.
The Phokas clan became increasingly relevant from the late ninth century. By 963,
the family had a representative on the throne - Nikephoros II Phokas - and, following
his murder in 969, waged an intermittent war for rule of the Byzantine Empire until
the early eleventh century.8 Though the family became largely inconsequential after
this time, references from texts of the late eleventh century attest to the enduring
popularity of Nikephoros II Phokas. The Historia Syntomos, a world chronicle
thought to have been written by the renowned writer and philosopher Michael Psellos,
states: ‘About the emperor Nikephoros Phokas many detailed writings have been
published both by contemporaries and by authors shortly after, and whoever read
them will know how many things were achieved by this man as a private person and
5
J-C. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance (963-1210) (Paris 1990); C. Holmes, Basil II and
the Governance of Empire (976-1025) (Oxford 2005).
6
Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I Bekker (Bonn 1838), 427-428; Skylitzes, 230.
7
A. Markopoulos, ‘Η ιστοριογραφία των δυνατών κατά τη µεσοβυζαντινή περίοδο. Ο Ιωάννης
Κουρκούας στην ιστορική στην ιστορική συγγραφή του πρωτοσπαθάριου και κριτή Μανουήλ’,
Παρουσία 17-18 (2004-2005).
8
R. Morris, ‘Succession and usurpation: politics and rhetoric in the late tenth century’, in P. Magdalino
(ed.), New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries (Aldershot
1994).
2
as emperor’.9 Roughly contemporaneous with the Historia Syntomos was the Historia
of military judge Michael Attaleiates.10 The deeds of the Phokas family, Attaleiates
relates, continued to be ‘well-known and much talked of’.11 Attaleiates states that he
learned of the noble ancestry of Nikephoros II Phokas, going back to Constantine the
Great and the Fabii, in ‘an old book’ (βίβλου τινὸς παλαιᾶς).12 Athanasios
Markopoulos speculated that this text may have been one of the works alluded to in
the Historia Syntomos.13 The extensive and often favourable coverage afforded to the
Phokas family in historiography of the tenth and eleventh centuries has given rise to
many arguments for the existence of pro-Phokades literature, including various
biographies of Nikephoros Phokas and a ‘Familiengeschichte der Phocas’.14
The use of aristocratic biographical literature in the composition of Skylitzes’
Synopsis Historion
The Synopsis Historion of John Skylitzes, probably written in the 1080s, documents
the period from 811-1057. While Skylitzes has been shown to have relied heavily
upon the aforementioned Theophanes Continuatus for his account of 811-c.948, his
sources for events after this date are no longer extant.15 Though Skylitzes lists a
9
Michaeli Pselli Historia Syntomos, ed. & trans. W. Aerts (Berlin 1990), 98-99. See J. Ljubarskij,
‘Nikephoros Phokas in Byzantine historical writings - trace of the secular biography in Byzantium’,
Byzantinoslavica LIV (1993).
10
Miguel Ataliates Historia, ed. I. Pérez Martín (Madrid 2002).
11
Attaleiates, 162.
12
Ibid, 159.
13
A. Markopoulos, ‘Constantine the Great in Macedonian historiography: models and approaches’, in
P. Magdalino (ed.), New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th
Centuries (Aldershot 1994), 166-169; idem, ‘The portrayal of the male figure in Michael Attaleiates’,
in V. Vlyssidou (ed.), The Empire in Crisis (?): Byzantium in the 11th Century (1025-1081) (Athens
2003), 218-219, 223-226, 229-230.
14
F. Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien (Leipzig 1876), 50-51, 356-375; F. Tinnefeld, Kategorien der
Kaiserkritik in der Byzantinischen Historiographie (Munich 1971), 108-110; C. Roueché, ‘Byzantine
writers and readers: storytelling in the eleventh century’, in R.M. Beaton (ed.), The Greek Novel, AD 11985 (London 1988), 127-128; R. Morris, ‘The two faces of Nikephoros Phokas’, Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies 12 (1988); A. Markopoulos, ‘Sur les deux versions de la chronographie de
Syméon Logothète’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 76 (1983), esp. 284; idem, ‘Zu den biographien des
Nikephoros Phokas’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 38 (1988); idem, ‘Byzantine history
writing at the end of the first millennium’, in P. Magdalino (ed.), Byzantium in the Year 1000 (Leiden
2003), 187-189, 195-196; idem, ‘From narrative historiography to historical biography. New trends in
Byzantine historical writing in the 10th-11th Centuries’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102/2 (2009), 703705.
15
See most recently B. Flusin, ‘Re-writing history: John Skylitzes’ Synopsis historion’, in J. Wortley,
John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057 (Cambridge 2010), xviii-xx.
3
number of authors in his preface, it is clear that he does not list all his sources, for
there is no obvious mention of the Theophanes Continuatus.16 Speculation that
Skylitzes utilized another unspecified source - a pro-Phokas source that Alexander
Kazhdan termed ‘Source B’ - has encouraged suggestions that other aristocratic
biographies underlie the Synopsis Historion.17
Jonathan Shepard has published several studies concerning Skylitzes’ coverage of
Katakalon Kekaumenos, a prominent general active across the Byzantine Empire in
the 1040s and 1050s.18 The highly detailed narrative of Kekaumenos’ military
activities, which generally complements the general for any success or extricates him
from blame in the event of a defeat, leads Shepard to the conclusion that Skylitzes
employed an (auto)biography of Katakalon Kekaumenos. Shepard proposes that the
laudatory work was written some time between 1057 and 1060.19
Shepard’s research into Skylitzes’ record of the attempted reconquest of Sicily
between 1038 and 1042 indicates the use of another biographical source alongside the
Kekaumenos biography: a text sympathetic to George Maniakes, a formidable soldier
renowned for his efforts in southern Italy and Sicily between 1035 and 1042.20
Shepard speculates that the source was not a full biography, but a political pamphlet
focused primarily on the events of 1040-1043, intended to lambast Maniakes’ political
enemies as much as commend his own achievements. Shepard’s argument for a
limited scope is contentious, since Skylitzes’ provides a similarly favourable account
of Maniakes’ early career on the eastern frontier. In any case, the absence of direct
16
For the authors cited by Skylitzes see N.M. Panagiotakes, ‘Fragments of a lost eleventh-century
Byzantine historical work?’, in C.N. Constantinides et al (eds.), Philhellen. Studies in Honour of
Robert Browning (Venice 1996), esp. 239-240; C. Holmes (as in note 5), 91-99, 121-125, 548-550; B.
Flusin (as in note 15), xiii-xxiii.
17
R. Morris (as in note 14), 85-86; J. Ljubarskij (as in note 9), 252-253; A. Kazhdan, A History of
Byzantine Literature (850-1000), C. Angelidi (ed.) (Athens 2006), 273-274; B. Flusin (as in note 15),
xx-xxi.
18
J. Shepard, ‘Scylitzes on Armenia in the 1040s, and the role of Catacalon Cecaumenos’, Revue des
études arméniennes 11 (1975-1976); idem, ‘Byzantium’s last Sicilian expedition: Scylitzes’
testimony’, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici xxiv-xxvi (1977-1979), 155-159; idem, ‘A suspected
source of John Scylitzes’ Synopsis Historion: the great Catacalon Cecaumenus’, Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies 16 (1992).
19
Idem, ‘Isaac Comnenus’ Coronation Day’, Byzantinoslavica XXXVIII (1977).
20
J. Shepard (as in note 18: 1977-1979).
4
criticism of Constantine IX Monomachos (r.1042-1055) intimates that the Maniakes
text appeared shortly after the general’s death in 1043.
Shepard’s ideas inspired other arguments for aristocratic biographies or manifestos
lurking within Skylitzes’ Synopsis Historion. Stephen Kamer was among the first to
speculate that Skylitzes may have used a biography of the infamous tenth-century
warlord Bardas Skleros, possibly written by his son, Romanos.21 Charlotte Roueché
independently came to the same conclusion, observing that passages highlighting the
military genius of Skleros might derive from ‘an account of his life’.22 Catherine
Holmes has since considerably expanded upon this hypothesis, tracing the use of a
pro-Bardas Skleros document in the composition of Skylitzes and also the
Chronographia of Michael Psellos. Holmes suggests that the text was written c.990,
and that it served to remind the state that Bardas Skleros and his family might still be
of use to the empire following their fall from favour in 989.23
Heroic tales of the Doukas family
The Doukai were one of the preeminent families in late eleventh-century Byzantium.
Michael Psellos, writing c.1080, said of the Emperor Constantine X Doukas:
His family, as far back as his great-grandfathers, had been both distinguished and
affluent, the kind of persons historians record in their works. Certain it is that to
this very day the names of the celebrated Andronikos, of Constantine, of
Pantherios, are on everybody’s lips – all relatives of his, some on the paternal,
others on the mother’s side.24
Andronikos Doukas and his son Constantine were notable generals who became
embroiled in rebellions against the state in 906/907 and 913 respectively.25 D.I.
Polemis considers it extremely unlikely that the Doukai of the late eleventh century
were descended from the same family to which Andronikos and Constantine
21
S. Kamer, Emperors and Aristocrats in Byzantium, 976-1081, PhD Thesis (Michigan 1986), 31-32,
406-407 n.134.
22
C. Roueché (as in note 14), 127-128.
23
C. Holmes (as in note 5), 255-297.
24
Michel Psellos. Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976-1077), ed. É. Renauld (Paris
1926-1928), II, 140; trans. E.R.A. Sewter, Fourteen Byzantine Rulers (London 1953), 333.
25
D.I. Polemis, The Doukai: A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography (London 1968), 16-25.
5
belonged.26 This is immaterial. Evidently, the likes of Constantine X Doukas
professed to have been part of the same unbroken line, and exploited the popularity
and heroic reputation of the Doukas name to back his claim to greatness.
Andronikos and Constantine Doukas are also thought to have inspired frontier oral
tales and epic poems. The famous Digenes Akrites, an epic poem which tells of the
background and life of a mixed-race border warlord, was probably committed to
writing in the first half of the twelfth century, though almost certainly existed in some
oral form since the tenth century.27 In the Escorial version of the poem, the
eponymous Digenes is said to have descended from the Doukai;28 the Grottaferrata
redaction is more specific, claiming that Digenes was related to one Constantine
Doukas on his mother’s side.29 Though it would be imprudent to link Constantine to a
historical person, there can be few doubts that the early Doukai inspired some of the
characters and scenarios of the poem.30 Indeed, Henri Grégoire and Hans-Georg
Beck suggest that Digenes Akrites derives in part from legendary oral stories about
the heroes of the first incarnation of the Doukas family.31 The testimony of Michael
Psellos confirms that these stories continued to be transmitted in the late eleventh
century.
With the emergence of a new, more influential Doukas clan in the second half of the
eleventh century, thoughts turned towards preserving their deeds in writing. Leonora
Neville has put forward a persuasive argument for the existence of a source detailing
the life of the caesar John Doukas, uncle of the emperor Michael VII Doukas (r.10711078). Several aspects of Doukas’ sympathetic presentation in the twelfth-century
Hyle Historias of Nikephoros Bryennios move Neville to hypothesize the existence of
26
Ibid, 6-15.
R. Beaton and D. Ricks (eds.), Digenes Akrites: New Approaches to Byzantine Heroic Poetry
(Aldershot 1993); R. Beaton, ‘Cappadocians at court: Digenes and Timarion’, in M. Mullett & D.
Smythe (eds.), Alexios I Komnenos (Belfast 1996), 335-336; E. Jeffreys, Digenis Akritis: The
Grottaferrata and Escorial Versions (Cambridge 1998), xiii-lxii.
28
Digenis Akritis: The Grottaferrata and Escorial Versions, ed. & trans. E. Jeffreys (Cambridge 1998),
E136-137.
29
Ibid, G267.
30
G. Huxley, ‘Antecedents and Context of Digenis Akrites: I - historical aspects of the Lay of the Emir;
II - Digenes and the akritai’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 15 (1974), 323-324.
31
H. Grégoire, ‘Etudes sur l’épopée byzantine’, Revue des études Grecques 46 (1933); H-G. Beck,
Geschichte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur (Munich 1971), 48-97; D.I. Polemis (as in note 25), 1415.
27
6
an encomiastic source devoted to this individual. Neville proposes that Bryennios’
intimate knowledge of John Doukas stemmed not from oral stories but from a written
text, perhaps a funeral encomium or history of the Doukas family, but more likely his
own memoirs or letters.32
Conclusion
References found in the historical works of the Continuator of Theophanes, Michael
Attaleiates and Michael Psellos confirm that aristocratic generals were the subject of
literary compositions in the Middle Byzantine period, and the convincing arguments
put forward by numerous scholars suggest that such works were relatively abundant
and served as useful sources for historians and chroniclers. It now remains to
examine some of the biographical data presented and discuss the nature and purpose
of the presentation of the subject. While attributing specific parts of a history to a lost
written source puts us firmly in the troubling realm of speculation, the methodology
employed by Catherine Holmes and Leonora Neville – assessing Skylitzes and
Bryennios’ use of other written material which is known to us - has shown these
historians to have been extremely faithful in rendering their original source, generally
omitting or abridging rather than making any substantial changes. The obvious
indication is that Skylitzes and Bryennios would also have adhered closely to the
biographical material they appear to have employed, though in any case my
observations are rather broad and speak of more general trends in how the Byzantines
of the Middle period detailed military episodes.
32
L. Neville, ‘A history of the Caesar John Doukas in Nikephoros Bryennios’ Material for History?’,
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32/2 (2008).
7
Presentation of the Subject in the Potential Biographical Content
The fragmentary evidence analyzed below suggests that aristocratic biographical
compositions featured vivid accounts of campaigns and battles, with emphasis drawn
to the ability of the subject. Comparison to contemporary military handbooks reveals
the strategies and tactics employed to reflect current trends, something which would
not have been lost on an aristocratic audience, encouraged to read military manuals in
order to bolster their theoretical knowledge of warfare. Consequently, the authors of
soldier biographies tended to depict their subject as one who played it by the book, as
it were, perhaps deeming it the best way to demonstrate the extent of his ability. And
just as the manuals promote original thinking, we similarly witness moments of
ingenuity and innovation.
Leo the Deacon’s detailed account of the victory of Leo Phokas over the Arab emir
Sayf al-Dawla in 960 is suggestive of the use of an informed written source keen to
extol Leo Phokas and laud his success.33 The positive traits attributed to Leo Phokas
– courage and vigour, exceptionally good judgment, supremely clever at devising the
proper course of action – support Athanasios Markopoulos’ idea of the virtues
esteemed in aristocratic biographies: courage, intelligence, and martial prowess.34
Before Leo the Deacon describes the battle against the Arab raiders, he provides a
brief record of an earlier victory won by Leo Phokas over the Magyars.35 Comparison
of the two accounts of Leo’s victories suggests that the episodes may have originated
in the same source. In both instances the perilous nature of the situation is stressed –
the enemy army is vastly superior in numbers, skill, arms, and morale. Nevertheless,
Leo triumphs by monitoring the enemy closely, planning his attack, and unleashing a
sudden ambush to devastating effect. The specifics vary, but in both battles the
cautious and tactically-aware Leo Phokas is presented as an expert practitioner of the
skirmishing warfare presented in the contemporary military handbook, the De
Velitatione. As Jean-Claude Cheynet and Gilbert Dagron have demonstrated,
chapters III (on occupying difficult terrain in advance of the enemy), XXIII (on
ambushing a withdrawing enemy in mountain passes) and XXIV (on night attacks) of
33
Leo the Deacon, 18-24; cf. Skylitzes, 249-250; Theophanes Continuatus, 479.
A. Markopoulos (as in note 7).
35
Leo the Deacon, 18-19.
34
8
the De Velitatione provide principals so strikingly similar to those followed by Leo
Phokas against the Arabs and Magyars that we must wonder if his victories provided
the blueprint for these sections.36 In any case, an aristocratic readership would have
appreciated Leo’s accomplishments as textbook victories.
Catherine Holmes proposes that the Bardas Skleros biographical source sought to
present its subject as an expert general by highlighting his cunning and strategic
awareness.37 Skylitzes’ extensive use of the work allows us to highlight several ways
in which the original author did this. The account of Skleros’ victory over a
combined Magyar-Pecheneg-Bulgarian force near the Thracian town of Arcadiopolis
in 970 has been shown by Eric McGeer to present a perfect execution of the tactics
prescribed for defeating a superior force in the military treatise, the Praecepta
Militaria (see below).38 Here Bardas Skleros’ generalship and combat skills are
complimented, but in other instances it is his quick thinking and innovative
stratagems. At the battle of Lapara in 976, Skleros deceived the imperial army by
ordering his troops to fall upon them whilst the opposition was eating. Though the
enemy stood firm initially, they were eventually unnerved by Bardas’ outflanking
manoeuvre and broke ranks.39 It is also suggested that the Skleros manifesto offered a
fictitious account of Skleros’ daring escape from captivity in Baghdad, apparently
made possible through his considerable ingenuity, courage and military ability.40
Exhilarating stories, along with accounts of textbook military victories, best conveyed
the magnitude of the subject; in turn, they were also what the intended audience
wished to read about.
This emphasis on exciting military episodes exhibiting the bravery and cunning of the
general is also evident in material relating to Katakalon Kekaumenos, another general
thought to have been the subject of a biographical source employed by Skylitzes. As
the Arabs moved to regain Sicilian cities lost to the Byzantines in 1041, only Messina,
36
G. Dagron & H. Mihăescu, Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) de l'empereur Nicéphore Phocas
(963-969) (Paris 1986), 165-169, 223 n.16; J-C. Cheynet, ‘Les Phocas’, in G. Dagron & H. Mihăescu,
Le traité sur la guérilla..., 293-294, 304-305.
37
C. Holmes (as in note 5), 255-298.
38
E. McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century (Washington D.C.
1995), 294-300.
39
Skylitzes, 319.
40
Ibid, 332-334. See C. Holmes (as in note 5), 276-278.
9
entrusted to the command of Kekaumenos, held out. Beset by a vast army,
Kekaumenos delayed while the frustrated Arabs turned to drink and grew careless.
This was not lost on Kekaumenos, who led a charge against the unprepared enemy,
and rode straight for the enemy leader, who was cut down. To target the opposition
commander was a key principle of tenth-century Byzantine military theory, with the
hope that the enemy army would be demoralized if he perished.41 Kekaumenos’
boldness paid off as the enemy took to disorderly flight.42 The account paints a
familiar picture of a skilled general pulling off a defeat through cunning and military
prowess in the face of overwhelming odds.
We encounter further episodes showcasing Kekaumenos’ expertise during Skylitzes’
discussion of the general’s tenure as governor of Ani and Iberia in Armenia.43 In
1048, Kekaumenos, having been called to assist Aaron, governor of Vaspurakan,
against the incursions of the Turks, favoured abandoning the fortified camp and
ambushing the Turks as they were pillaging the site. By outlining the plan, and then
describing its perfect execution, the text stresses that the victory was entirely down to
Kekaumenos’ expertise.44 Significantly, whenever Kekaumenos’ advice is
overlooked, the Turks enjoy success; the momentum from the initial success is lost
when Aaron ignores Kekaumenos’ plea to attack the Turks massing for a retaliatory
raid, while the inhabitants of Artze might have been spared had they listened to
Kekaumenos and sought refuge behind their walls.45 The Byzantine-Iberian force
loses the initiative again when Kekaumenos’ co-commander refuses his call to attack
the Turks before they had time to form a cohesive unit.46 This aggressive stance
seems to have been a particular trait of Kekaumenos, since precisely the same advice
is ignored in relation to a different enemy, the Pechenegs, at the battle of Diakene in
1049; inevitably, the Byzantines lost the battle, with only Kekaumenos emerging with
his reputation intact.47 Consistency in Kekaumenos’ tactics is seen also in Skylitzes’
account of the battle of Hades, which confirmed the triumph of the rebel Isaac
41
‘Praecepta Militaria’, ed. & trans. E. McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the
Tenth Century (Washington D.C. 1995), II.115-120, IV, 120-123, with commentary at 307-308.
42
Skylitzes, 406-407.
43
J. Shepard (as in note 18: 1975-1976).
44
Skylitzes, 448-449.
45
Ibid, 449-452.
46
Ibid, 452-453.
47
Ibid, 468.
10
Komnenos over reigning emperor Michael VI. Kekaumenos, fighting under Isaac, is
reported to have led a direct attack on the imperial camp, a manoeuvre with clear
parallels to his actions at Messina. From the traces of a pro-Kekaumenos biography
in Skylitzes, we might infer that the work sought to present its subject as an energetic
leader, eager to take the fight to the enemy to avoid large-scale pitched battle.
Though Skylitzes used his proposed George Maniakes biographical source more
fleetingly, the document appears to have contained episodes similar to those outlined
above, demonstrating Maniakes’ martial prowess and guile. Skylitzes relates how
Maniakes was able to save the eastern city of Telouch from an Arab force through a
cunning trick: having sent the Arabs food and drink, and informed them he would
surrender the following morning, Maniakes attacked whilst they were drunk and
negligent, slaughtering them all.48 Maniakes’ siegecraft skills are evident in his
successful defence of Edessa against a substantial Arab force.49 While the narrative
of Maniakes’ time in Sicily is summarized and lacking in tactical detail, it is said that
Maniakes made use of ‘devices and stratagems’ (στρατηγικαῖς µηχαναῖς) in lieu of
inferior numbers to frustrate Norman rebels; we might speculate that the precise
nature of these ruses would have been detailed in the original source.50
The correlation between the tactics employed by these generals and the guidance of
contemporary handbooks reflects the renewed interest in military theory during this
period. The Emperor Leo VI the Wise (r.886-912) drafted an exhaustive Taktika
which drew heavily upon the Strategikon of Emperor Maurice (r.582-602) and the
works of Hellenistic authors on warfare, including Onasander and Aelian.51
Subsequent manuals, written by men with practical experience, are less compilatory
and show a greater awareness of current tactical developments. The De Velitatione
documents the procedures for frontier warfare against the bordering Arab states, and
serves as a valuable witness to the raid and counter-raid pattern evident during the
48
Ibid, 381-382.
Ibid, 387.
50
Ibid, 427.
51
The Taktika of Leo VI, ed. & trans. G.T. Dennis (Washington D.C. 2010); Das Strategikon des
Maurikios, ed. G.T. Dennis (Vienna 1981); Maurice’s Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military
Strategy, trans. G.T. Dennis (Philadelphia 1984); Aeneas Tacticus, Onasander, Asclepiodotus, ed. &
trans. the Illinois Greek Club (Massachusetts, 1928); Aelian, ‘Theorie der Taktik’, in H. Köchly & W.
Rüstow (eds.), Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller, Vol.2/1 (Leipzig 1855).
49
11
period c.840-c.958.52 The shift to more offensive tactics in the war against the Arabs
is first seen in the largely encyclopaedic Sylloge Tacticorum, compiled during the
reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos (c.944-959);53 the relevant sections were
soon reworked and expanded by the Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas in his Praecepta
Militaria.54 Instructional works on defensive (De Obsidione Toleranda) and
offensive siege warfare (the Parangelmata Poliorcetica by the so-called Heron of
Byzantium) appeared in the mid-tenth century.55 Imperial campaigns in Bulgaria
were covered in the treatise De Re Militari, thought to have been composed in the first
half of Basil II’s reign (r.976-1025).56 Finally, in the early-eleventh century
Nikephoros Ouranos, a leading general of Basil II, compiled a comprehensive Taktika
which was comprised mostly of archaic material but included some new content
reflecting changes in eastern warfare since Nikephoros II Phokas’ day.57
While it is unknown if any of these particular works were read by soldiers, the very
fact that they dealt with current circumstances and were written by men with military
experience suggests a practical intent. The Vita Basilii, an encomiastic biography of
the Emperor Basil I (c.867-886), stresses the importance of military handbooks to
those considering engaging in war: ‘Were it possible for everyone to learn military
science or art without study and considerable practice, authors of works on tactics
who devote so much labour to this topic would be merely ranting senselessly’.58
Nikephoros Bryennios notes that the military education which the Emperor Basil II
gave to the young John and Isaac Komnenos involved the study of taktika.59 The
former soldier Kekaumenos, author of the late eleventh century advice work Consilia
52
Three Byzantine Military Treatises, ed. & trans. G.T. Dennis (Washington D.C. 1985), 137-240
(under the title ‘On Skirmishing’). Another edition with French translation and in-depth analysis is
provided by G. Dagron & H. Mihăescu, Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) de l'empereur
Nicéphore Phocas (963-969) (Paris 1986).
53
Sylloge tacticorum, quae olim Inedita Leonis tactica dicebatur, ed. A. Dain (Paris 1938).
54
E. McGeer (as in note 38), 3-78.
55
Siegecraft: Two Tenth-Century Instructional Manuals by Heron of Byzantium, ed. & trans. D.F.
Sullivan (Washington D.C. 2000); D.F. Sullivan, ‘A Byzantine instructional manual on siege defense:
the De Obsidione Toleranda: Introduction, English translation and annotations’, in J.W. Nesbitt (ed.),
Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations (Leiden 2003).
56
G.T. Dennis (as in note 52), 241-335.
57
E. McGeer (as in note 38), 79-167.
58
Chronographiae Quae Theophanis Continuati Nomine Fertur Liber Quo Vita Basilii Imperatoris
Amplectitur, ed. & trans. I. Ševčenko (Berlin/Boston 2011), 36.18-23; trans. 135.
59
Nikephoros Bryennios, 75.9-22.
12
et Narrationes, counseled generals to read military handbooks whenever not at war,
and himself appears to have been familiar with such works.60 Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitos instructed that military manuals (βιβλία στρατηγικά) and works
detailing siege engines (βιβλία µηχανικά, ἑλεπόλεις ἔχοντα) should be taken on an
imperial expedition.61 Michael Psellos notes that the caesar John Doukas acquired a
knowledge of strategy and tactics from the works of Aelian and other Hellenistic
military writers.62 Anna Komnene similarly revealed that her father, the emperor
Alexios I Komnenos (r.1081-1118), ‘was not unfamiliar with the Taktika of Aelian’.63
With military manuals regularly consulted by aristocratic generals and emperors,
accounts of textbook victories in aristocratic biographical literature were highly likely
to find appreciation among their intended readership.
Advice literature of the Middle Byzantine period also encouraged the reader to break
from tradition and use their initiative and cunning.64 The opportunism of Bardas
Skleros, Katakalon Kekaumenos and George Maniakes is evident in the episodes
mentioned above. These stories satisfied the Byzantine fondness for trickery and the
stratagem, the surprise attack and avoidance of pitched battle;65 indeed, Everett
Wheeler considered stratagems to be ‘the predominant theme of Byzantine military
theory’.66 The mentality may be traced back to the cunning Odysseus in the works of
Homer,67 and, to a lesser extent, the Old Testament,68 both of which constituted
essential reading for educated Byzantines.69 Prokopios’ Wars, sixth-century works of
60
Cecaumeni strategicon et incerti scriptoris de officiis regiis libellus, eds. B. Wassiliewsky & V.
Jernstedt (Amsterdam 1965), 19.23ff. See C. Roueché, ‘The Literary Background of Kekaumenos’, in
C. Holmes & J. Waring (eds.), Literacy, education and manuscript transmission in Byzantium and
beyond (Leiden 2002), 117-123.
61
Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, ed. & trans. J.F. Haldon (Vienna 1990), C196-199.
62
Michael Psellos, Chronographia, II, 181.
63
Annae Comnenae Alexias, ed. D.R. Reinsch & A. Kambylis (Berlin 2001), XV.3.6; trans. E.R.A.
Sewter, Anna Komnene: The Alexiad (London 1969; revised by Peter Frankopan, London 2009), 439.
64
E.g. Kekaumenos, 13.3-10, 16.15-19.
65
E.g. The Taktika of Leo, XII.4.
66
E.L. Wheeler, Stratagem and the Vocabulary of Military Trickery (New York 1988), 12; W. Kaegi,
Some thoughts on Byzantine military strategy (Massachusetts 1983).
67
A.T. Edwards, Achilles in the Odyssey: Ideologies of Heroism in the Homeric Epic (Meisenheim
1985).
68
For trickery in warfare in the Old Testament, see S. Niditch, Warfare in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in
the Ethics of Violence (New York/Oxford 1993), 106-122.
69
For the Byzantine appreciation of Homer, see R. Browning, ‘Homer in Byzantium’, Viator 6 (1975);
idem, ‘The Byzantines and Homer’, in R. Lamberton & J. J. Keaney (ed.), Homer's Ancient Readers:
13
history concerned often with the deeds of legendary general Belisarios, may have
impressed upon Middle Byzantine writers and readers a certain military ideology and
narrative style, with one twelfth-century chronicler, George Kedrenos, describing the
Wars as ‘the stratagems of Belisarios’.70
A particular type of ancient military writing – strategemata, which collected famous
examples of stratagems – was also popular in Byzantium. Polyainos’ Strategika, a
collection of over 900 mythical and classical exempla of trickery in war compiled in
the second century A.D., was abridged by an anonymous Byzantine redactor
sometime between the sixth and ninth century.71 Polyainos’ work formed the basis of
the so-called ‘Stratagems of the Emperor Leo’, preserved in the tenth-century Sylloge
Tacticorum,72 while chapters 123-171 of the Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos are
gleaned from Polyainos.73 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos recommended that
Polyainos’ work be among the books brought on an imperial expedition.74 The
aforementioned narrative episodes involving Middle Byzantine generals exhibiting
guile and ingenuity adhere closely to the strategemata tradition. The ruse employed
by Bardas Skleros at the battle of Lapara, where he fooled his opponents into breaking
for dinner and then attacked them as they ate, is very similar to a stratagem used by
Kleomenes of Sparta against the Argives, recorded in Polyainos as well as the
Byzantine excerpta and the later redaction in the Sylloge Tacticorum.75 Proposed
sections of aristocratic biographical literature strike us as Byzantine equivalents to the
ancient tales of cunning found in Polyainos’ Strategika.
The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic’s Earliest Exegetes (Princeton 1992). Kekaumenos (19.23ff)
encouraged soldiers to read books of the church for ideas, insisting that almost all of the Old Testament
‘is full of stories of strategy’.
70
Georgius Cedrenus, ed. I Bekker (Bonn 1938-1939), I, 649. See also W. Kaegi, ‘Procopius the
Military Historian’, Byzantinische Forschungen 15 (1990), 66; C.C. Whately, Descriptions of Battle in
the Wars of Procopius, PhD Thesis (University of Warwick 2009), esp. 168-169.
71
J-A. de Foucault, Stratagemata (Paris 1949). See also E.L. Wheeler & P. Krentz, Polyaenus,
Stratagems of War (Chicago 1994), I, xvi-xxi; A. Dain, ‘Les cinq adaptations byzantines des
“Stratagèmes” de Polyen’, Revue des études anciennes 33 (1931).
72
See E.L. Wheeler & P. Krentz (as in note 71), I, xxi-xxiii.
73
See F. Trombley, ‘The Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos and military encyclopaedism’, in P. Binkley
(ed.), Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts: Proceedings of the Second COMERS Congress, Groningen, 14 July 1996 (Leiden 1996), 270-274.
74
Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, C196-199.
75
Polyaenus, Stratagems of War, ed. & trans. P. Krentz & E. Wheeler (Chicago 1994): Polyaenus’
Strategica, 1.14; Excerpts of Polyaenus, 20.1; Leo the Emperor, Stratagems, 20.12.
14
Though we cannot discount that our historians drew from their material selectively,
culling the more exciting and memorable tales from longer campaign narratives, this
anecdotal style typifies the mode of relating military episodes in Middle Byzantium.76
James Howard-Johnston observed the trend in relation to the histories of Anna
Komnene and Nikephoros Bryennios,77 while Kekaumenos includes a number of tales
of bravado and cunning in his Consilia et Narrationes.78 Other such narrative
episodes in Skylitzes’ Synopsis Historion in addition to those identified above may
also be cited.79 This stemmed in part from an oral tradition of military men telling
something akin to campfire tales. According to Michael Psellos, the Emperor Isaac I
Komnenos (r.1057-1059) would entertain the court ‘with stories of the old times,
recalling all the witty sayings of…Basil (II) the Great’.80 Anna Komnene writes of
overhearing conversations between her father Alexios and his brother-in-law George
Palaiologos, the suggestion being that they were recalling past experiences in war.81
Adolf Stender-Peterson argued for the influence of a distinctly Byzantine mode of
storytelling in the twelfth-century Russian Primary Chronicle, wherein a number of
tales concerned with tricks and stratagems may be observed. It is suggested that these
‘Varagische Kriegslistanekdoten’ were brought north by veterans of the famous
Varangian Guard, or spread by traders who had come into contact with the elite
mercenary company based in Constantinople. Stender-Peterson viewed the Byzantine
military anecdote as part of a wider Greco-Roman tradition going back to the
stratagems collected by Polyainos.82 We might trace the custom back further still.
Polyainos is thought to have been influenced by military treatises and rhetorical
76
See in general C. Roueché (as in note 14).
J. Howard-Johnston, ‘Anna Komnena and the Alexiad’, in M. Mullett & D. Smythe (eds.), Alexios I
Komnenos (Belfast 1996).
78
A. Kazhdan, ‘The social views of Michael Attaleiates’, in A. Kazhdan & S. Franklin (eds.), Studies
on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Cambridge 1984), 68-70; C. Roueché
(as in note 60).
79
E.g. John Tzimiskes’ bloody victory over the Arabs at Adana in 964 (Skylitzes, 267-268); Michael
Bourtzes’ bold capture of Antioch in 969 (ibid, 272-273); Manuel Erotikos Komnenos’ defence of
Nicaea against Bardas Skleros in 978 (ibid, 323); the heroic defence of Manzikert against a Turkish
siege by one Basil Apokapes in 1053 (ibid, 462-464).
80
Michael Psellos, Chronographia, II, 130; trans. 323.
81
Anna Komnene, XIV.7.5.
82
A. Stender-Peterson, Die Varagersage als Quelle der altrussichen Chronik (Leipzig 1934), 77-90.
R. Cook, ‘Russian history, Icelandic story, and Byzantine strategy in Eymundar þáttr Hringssonar’,
Viator 17 (1986).
77
15
exempla collections,83 though it should also be noted that he was writing shortly after
Plutarch, when biographical interest in Greek literature was reignited. The sort of
military stratagems collected by Polyainos were anecdotes. The anecdote had long
been a staple of Greek biography, with Momigliano speaking of a notion that ‘a good
biography is full of good anecdotes’.84 Patricia Cox observed that the anecdote,
which she defines as ‘a brief narrative that relates a striking or unusual feature of the
hero’s character’, was ‘a major vehicle of biographical characterizations’.85 With the
stratagems of Polyainos similarly concerned with highlighting the character of a
historical figure through their achievements, Maria Pretzler has recently argued for
the influence of Second Sophistic biography on Polyainos.86 When we consider that
the revival of secular biography in tenth-century Byzantium owed much to Plutarch87
and to Cassius Dio88 – writers of biography and biographical history – it may be that
the anecdotal style was, in essence, merely an inheritance of traditional Greek
biography.
Conclusion
The Byzantine tradition of military anecdotes, evident in the purported extracts of
aristocratic biography, seems to owe much to the Strategika of Polyainos, which itself
was almost certainly influenced by the anecdotal form of much Greek biography. The
secular biographical compositions of Middle Byzantium may have followed
traditional literary conventions in this respect. However, the general popularity
during this period of military stories showcasing textbook generalship and ingenuity
83
E.L. Wheeler, ‘Polyaenus: Scriptor Militaris’, in K. Brodersen (ed.), Polyainos. Neue Studien (Berlin
2010), esp. 21-27.
84
A. Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (Massachusetts 1971), 72-76.
85
P. Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity: The Quest for the Holy Man (California 1983), 58.
86
M. Pretzler, ‘Polyainos the Historian? Stratagems and the Use of the Past in the Second Sophistic’, in
K. Brodersen (ed.), Polyainos. Neue Studien (Berlin 2010), 107.
87
G. Buckler, Anna Comnena: A Study (Oxford 1929), 205-206; Alexander, ‘Secular Biography at
Byzantium’, Speculum 15/2 (1939), 202-206; R. Jenkins, ‘Constantine VII’s portrait of Michael III’,
Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques. Académie Royale de Belgique,
5e série, 34 (1948); idem, ‘The classical background of the Scriptores post Theophanem’, Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 8 (1954); L. Van Hoof, ‘Among Christian Emperors. The Vita Basilii of Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus’, The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 54, no.3-4 (2002).
88
F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1966), 1-4, 195-203; P. Magdalino & R. Macrides, ‘The
fourth kingdom and the rhetoric of Hellenism’, in P. Magdalino (ed.), The Perception of the Past in
Twelfth-Century Europe (London 1992), 126-127; C. Roueché, ‘The Literary Background of
Kekaumenos’, in C. Holmes & J. Waring (eds.), Literacy, education and manuscript transmission in
Byzantium and beyond (Leiden 2002), 124-127.
16
attests to the influence of an aristocratic ideology, inspired by contemporary
instructional handbooks and older literature, including Homer and collections of
historical stratagems. With this development apparent in Byzantine literature only
from the mid-tenth century, it is feasible to suggest that it began with the now-lost
biographical compositions of the military aristocracy.
17