Early Medieval Europe - 2023 - Sykopetritou

Mobility in seventh-century Byzantium:
analysing Emperor Heraclius’ political

ideology and propaganda
PARASKEVI SYKOPETRITOU
This paper aims to shed light on the mobility of people and relics in the
seventh century. It will show that Emperor Heraclius strategically designed
his movements and those of his household, citizens, and officials, as well as
those of relics within and beyond the borders of Byzantium, in order to
consolidate the empire and his position in it. These movements also allowed
Heraclius to associate himself effectively with Old Testament, antique, and
Byzantine exemplary models of leadership. Overall, this look at mobility in
terms of political ideology and propaganda provides a more nuanced
understanding of imperial leadership in seventh-century Byzantium.
When Heraclius (r. 610–41) took the reins of power after usurping the
throne in 610, he strove to become an exemplary ruler for his
successors. He had a lot of challenges to overcome. During the late
sixth and early seventh centuries, Byzantium faced various
socio-political problems. Intense social and religious disputes led to
internal conflicts and political upheaval. Slavic and Avar populations
moved from the northern Danube region and invaded the European
provinces of the Byzantine Empire on the Balkan peninsula. The
Sasanian Empire threatened the eastern territories of the empire.
The army, dissatisfied with its governance and low compensation,
* I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr Claudia Rapp (University of Vienna/Austrian

Academy of Sciences), the two anonymous reviewers, and the entire EME editorial team for
their insightful suggestions that have substantially improved the quality of this paper. I also
owe special thanks to the University of Vienna, which has financed the open access
publication of this paper.
Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3) 405–429

© 2023 The Authors. Early Medieval Europe published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work
is properly cited.
14680254, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emed.12646 by Cochrane Slovakia, Wiley Online Library on [12/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
406 Paraskevi Sykopetritou
became increasingly undisciplined and thus ineffective in protecting

Byzantium from external danger. Moreover, a plethora of plagues
(epidemics, diseases), bad harvests and earthquakes resulted in the
inevitable abandonment of cities and, in some cases, their complete
depopulation.1 Heraclius reorganized the administration and the
military and focused on protecting Byzantium against external threats.
Through his military campaigns he significantly enlarged the empire,
reclaiming territory that had been lost to the Sasanian Persians. He
reclaimed Jerusalem in 629/30 and restored from the Sasanian enemies
one of the holiest Christian relics, the True Cross. Modern scholarship
has dealt with Heraclius’ achievements and examined the structures and
mechanisms that shaped and conditioned his imperial practice.2 This
1
For a broader view of the era, see for example: M. Meier, Geschichte der Völkerwanderung.
Europa, Asien und Afrika vom 3. bis zum 8. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Munich, 2020);
J. Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War of Antiquity (Oxford, 2021); J. Preiser-Kapeller, Der
Lange Sommer und die Kleine Eiszeit: Klima, Pandemien und der Wandel der Alten Welt von
500 bis 1500 n. Chr. (Vienna, 2021); St. Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire. AD
284–641, 2nd edn (Malden, Oxford and Chichester, 2015); G.J. Reinink and B.H. Stolte
(eds), The Reign of Heraclius (610–641). Crisis and Confrontation (Leuven, Paris and Dudley,
2002); W. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford, 1997);
M. Whittow, The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600–1025 (Berkley and Los Angeles, 1996);
J. Koder, ‘“Zeitenwenden”. Zur Periodisierungsfrage aus byzantinischer Sicht’, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 84/5 (1991/2), pp. 409–22; J.E. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The
Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge, 1990); A.N. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh
Century, I: 602–634, trans. M. Ogilvie-Grant (Amsterdam, 1968).
2
To the best of my knowledge, the most recent works on Heraclius are: N. Hächler, ‘Heraclius
Constantine III – Emperor of Byzantium (613–641)’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 115.1 (2022),
pp. 69–116; N. Hächler, ‘Anordnungen zu jüdischen Zwangstaufen unter Kaiser Herakleios
(610–641) als Folgen staatlicher Resilienzstrategien’, Byzantion 91 (2021), pp. 155–95;
H. Leppin, ‘George Pisides’ Expeditio Persica and Discourses on Warfare in Late Antiquity’,
in F. Hadjittofi and A. Lefteratou (eds), The Genres of Late Antique Christian Poetry: Between
Modulations and Transpositions (Berlin and Boston, 2020), pp. 293–310; Th. Raum, Szenen
eines Überlebenskampfes. Akteure und Handlungsspielräume im Imperium Romanum 610–630
(Stuttgart, 2021); N. Viermann, Herakleios, der schwitzende Kaiser: Die oströmische Monarchie
in der ausgehenden Spätantike (Berlin, 2021); N. Viermann, ‘The Battle of Yarmouk, a Bridge
of Boats, and Heraclius’ Alleged Fear of Water: Assessing the Consequences of Roman
Military Defeat’, Studies in Late Antiquity 5.2 (2021), pp. 241–66; A. Mellas, ‘Herakleios or
Herakles? Panegyric and Pathopoeia in George of Pisidia’s Heraklias’, in L. Allan,
E. Anagnostou-Laoutides and E. Stafford (eds), Herakles Inside and Outside the Church. From
the First Apologists to the End of the Quattrocento (Leiden and Boston, 2020), pp. 116–32;
A. Sirotenko, ‘Erinnern an Herakleios: zur Darstellung des Kaisers Herakleios in
mittelalterlichen Quellen’, Ph.D. thesis, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (2020);
N. Viermann, ‘Merging Supreme Commander and Holy Man: George of Pisidia’s Poetic
Response to Heraclius’ Military Campaigns’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 70
(2020), pp. 379–402; Ph. Booth, ‘The Ghost of Maurice at the Court of Heraclius’,
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 112.3 (2019), pp. 781–826; N. Hächler, ‘Der Exarchat von Ravenna
unter Kaiser Herakleios. Transformation und Kontinuität staatlicher Herrschafts- und
Verwaltungsstrukturen in den Peripherien des byzantinischen Reiches in der 1. Hälfte des 7.
Jhs.’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 69 (2019), pp. 155–84; Th. Raum, ‘The
Reinvention of the Soldier Emperor Under Heraclius’, in M. Kinloch and A. MacFarlane
(eds), Trends and Turning Points. Constructing the Late Antique and Byzantine World (Leiden
and Boston, 2019), pp. 133–47; A. Sirotenko, ‘Constructing Memory. The Chronicle of
Theophanes on the Reign of Heraclius’, in Ch. Messis, M.E. Mullett and I. Nilsson (eds),
Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Heraclius’ political ideology and propaganda 407
paper hopes to contribute to the ongoing research on Heraclius by

bringing together various widely accepted analyses and reflecting more
on mobility in terms of political ideology and propaganda, providing
further understanding of the phenomenon of imperial leadership in
seventh-century Byzantium.
This paper aims to shed light on the mobility of people and relics in
the seventh century during the reign of Heraclius. It will show that
Emperor Heraclius strategically orchestrated the movement of
individuals (i.e., his own and those of his household, citizens, officials,
and army) and the movement of relics, such as that of the True Cross,
both within and beyond the borders of the Byzantine Empire, to
strengthen his position and cement his power. These movements
allowed Heraclius to associate himself effectively with Old Testament,
antique, and Byzantine models of leadership such as Moses and David,
Alexander the Great, and Constantine the Great. By doing so, he
legitimized his accession to the throne and justified his rulership and
political efforts to bring stability to the empire. In this paper, Heraclius’
actions and decisions connected to six key movements will be
interpreted in terms of political ideology and propaganda to show how
these movements caused and reflect pivotal moments in Heraclius’
reign that signalled lasting changes in Byzantine geopolitics and
imperial ideology.
In my view, there were six strategic movements during the reign of
Heraclius, each involving various actors and planned with different
intentions. First comes Heraclius’ arrival in Constantinople in 610 to
claim the imperial throne. Second is Heraclius’ departure from
Constantinople in 613 to lead in person the army against external
threats. The third movement is Heraclius’ departure along with his
army in 622 that inaugurated his long-lasting military campaign on the
Persian front. The fourth was his rushed trip, away from his military
campaign, to Constantinople in 623 to negotiate peace with the Avars,
who were threatening the capital, and his departure in 624 to continue
the military expedition against the Persians, this time accompanied by
his wife Martina. Fifth is his return to the capital in 629 after his
triumph over the Sasanians and the subsequent restoration to Jerusalem
of the True Cross, upon which Jesus was crucified. And sixth and last,
we have the majestic ceremonial sea-crossing on horseback over a
0
Storytelling in Byzantium: Narratological Approaches to Byzantine Texts and Images (Uppsala,
2018), pp. 223–42; M. Meier, ‘Der Monarch auf der Suche nach seinem Platz.
Kaiserherrschaft im frühen Byzanz (5. bis 7. Jahrhundert n. Chr.)’, in St. Rebenich (ed.) and
J. Wienand (collab.), Monarchische Herrschaft im Altertum (Berlin and Boston, 2017), pp.
509–44.

manufactured bridge of boats in 638, to counteract the negative

connotations of Heraclius’ campaign in the early 630s against the
Arabs. The following analysis will show that each of these movements
had a significant impact, not only on Heraclius’ reign but also on the
fate of the Byzantine Empire.
Arriving in Constantinople (610)
Heraclius, son of the exarch of Carthage Heraclius the Elder, came to

power in 610, after instigating a revolt against the usurper Phocas, who
in 602 had murdered the reigning Emperor Maurice and his family.3
Phocas was unable to form a naval defence against Heraclius’ fleet and
was thus defeated and executed. Heraclius was proclaimed by the
Senate and crowned emperor by Patriarch Sergius on 5 October 610.4
Even though Heraclius was supported by both the political faction of
the Greens and the church in his plans to depose Phocas, one must not
forget that he too was a ‘usurper’.5
3
About the political dynamics in Byzantium during the sixth century and Phocas’s coup, see
D.M. Olster, The Politics of Usurpation in the Seventh Century: Rhetoric and Revolution in
Byzantium (Amsterdam, 1993). On the ceremonies performed during the rise of the so-called
tyrant Phocas to power, see also A. Christophilopoulou, Ἀκλογή, Ἀναγόρευσις καὶ Στέψις
τοῦ Βυζ αντινοῦ Αὐτοκράτορος, Πραγματεῖαι τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν 22.2 (Athens, 1956),
pp. 56–8. A fresh analysis of the accession and coronation rituals of Phocas and Heraclius is
offered by Viermann, Herakleios, pp. 78–137, and esp. at pp. 110–28.
4
Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, 2 vols, Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae 16 (Bonn
1832), vol. 1, p. 701, ll. 11–13 (text); M. Whitby and M. Whitby (eds), Chronicon Paschale
284–628 A.D. Translated with Notes and Introduction, Translated Texts for Historians 7
(Liverpool 1989), p. 152 (trans.). Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History,
ed. and trans. C. Mango, Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae 13 (Washington, DC, 1999),
p. 166, c. 2, ll. 6–7 (text). Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols (Leipzig, 1883),
vol. 1, pp. 298, ll. 15–19 and 299, ll. 6–10 (text); C. Mango and R.S. Scott (eds), The
Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford, 1997), pp. 427–8 (trans.). George the Monk,
Chronikon, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols (Leipzig, 1904), vol. 1, p. 667, ll. 18–20. See also the
comments of Christophilopoulou, ’Eκλογή, pp. 67–8. Cf. Sirotenko, ‘Constructing Memory’,
pp. 277–9.
5
On Heraclius’ coup and the events leading up to Phocas’s overthrow, see Raum, Szenen eines
Überlebenskampfes, pp. 29–51; U. Roberto, ‘The Circus Factions and the Death of the Tyrant:
John of Antioch on the Fate of the Emperor Phocas’, in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds),
Byzanz – Das Römerreich im Mittelalter, vol. 1: Welt der Ideen, Welt der Dinge (Mainz, 2010),
pp. 55–77; R. Pfeilschifter, Der Kaiser und Konstantinopel: Kommunikation und Konfliktaustrag
in einer spätantiken Metropole (Berlin and Boston, 2014), pp. 584–605; W.E.J. Kaegi,
Heraclius Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 37–52; Olster, The Politics of
Usurpation, esp. at pp. 117–38. For recent reflections on the notion of usurpation in the case
of Heraclius, see Viermann, ‘Merging’, p. 387 n. 52, with further bibliography. For a
thorough discussion of Heraclius’ efforts to demonstrate the legitimacy of his rule, sustain
acceptance, and establish his dynasty by promoting his children to the imperial throne, see
M. Meier, ‘Kaiser Phocas (602–610) als Erinnerungsproblem’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 107.1
(2014), pp. 139–74, as well as Hächler, ‘Heraclius Constantine III’, pp. 69–116; Viermann,
Herakleios, pp. 160–76.

A factor that could have perhaps lent him further legitimacy would
have been the incorporation of the army into his ceremonial accession.
However, the absence of any mention in the sources of the
involvement of any members of the military aristocracy underscores
Heraclius’ careful planning and the calculation he put into his accession
to the throne. He strove to promote the idea of a smooth transition
after the rule of Phocas, regarded as a tyrant, and avoided certain
accession rituals used by his predecessors, such as the shield-raising
ceremony and the army’s involvement in the process.6 Moreover, to
secure his position, Heraclius made plans to establish a long-lasting
dynasty granting his wife, Fabia-Eudokia, the title of augusta.7 Their
first son Heraclius Constantine III, born in Constantinople on 3 May
612, was proclaimed co-emperor (basileus) less than one year later, on
22 January 613.8 The senior emperor, Heraclius, crowned his young son
in the palace. The Senate and factions of the Greens and the Blues
performed acclamations in the Hippodrome, and then, both father and
son headed to the Great Church for the blessing by the patriarch.9
Shortly after Heraclius Constantine III’s coronation, Heraclius
arranged his successor’s betrothal to Gregoria, daughter of the
influential patrician Niketas, cousin of Heraclius.10 This political action
6
Regarding the military origins of the performance of the shield-raising ceremony during the
appointment of Byzantine emperors, see K. Trampedach, ‘Kaiserwechsel und Krönungsritual
im Konstantinopel des 5.–6. Jahrhunderts’, in M. Steinicke and S. Weinfurter (eds),
Investitur- und Krönungsrituale. Herrschaftseinsetzungen im kulturellen Vergleich (Cologne,
Weimar and Vienna, 2005), pp. 275–90; H. Teitler, ‘Raising on a Shield: Origin and Afterlife
of a Coronation Ceremony’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition 8.4 (2002),
pp. 501–21; Ch. Walter, ‘Raising on a Shield in Byzantine Iconography’, Revue des études
byzantines 33 (1975), pp. 133–76, repr. in eadem, Studies in Byzantine Iconography (London,
1977), XII, pp. 133–75; O. Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer
Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell: vom oströmischen Staats- und Reichsgedanken (Jena, 1938;
repr. Darmstadt, 1956), pp. 20–5, esp. at p. 22. For a recent, detailed analysis of the accession
ceremonies of Heraclius, see Viermann, Herakleios, pp. 78–137, esp. at pp. 110–28. About
other rhetorical strategies that Heraclius used to distance himself from Phocas as far as
possible, see Meier, ‘Kaiser Phocas (602–610) als Erinnerungsproblem’, pp. 139–74.
7
Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. de Boor, vol. 1, p. 299, ll. 10–14 (text); Mango and Scott (eds),
The Chronicle, p. 428 (trans.). For further sources and commentary, see Christophilopoulou,
Ἀκλογή, pp. 67–8.
8
On Heraclius Constantine III, see Hächler, ‘Heraclius Constantine III’, pp. 69–116.
9
Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, vol. 1, p. 703, ll. 17–21 and p. 704, ll. 1–3 (text); Whitby and
Whitby (eds), Chronicon Paschale, p. 155 (trans.). Nikephoros, Short History, ed. and trans.
C. Mango, Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae 13 (Washington, DC, 1999), p. 167, c. 2, ll.
20–2 and p. 169, c. 5, ll. 1–3 (text). Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. de Boor, vol. 1, p. 301, ll.
6–7 (text); Mango and Scott (eds), The Chronicle, p. 431 (trans.). Additional commentary can be
found in Hächler, ‘Heraclius Constantine III’, pp. 72–5; Christophilopoulou, Ἐκλογή, pp. 68–71.
10
The couple eventually married in 629/39. See Nikephoros, Short History, ed. and trans. Mango,
p. 44, c. 5, ll. 6–7 (text) and p. 45 (trans); p. 64, c. 17, ll. 19–21 (text) and p. 65 (trans). Cf. also
Hächler, ‘Heraclius Constantine III’, pp. 74, 99–100. For Niketas, see for example C. Rapp, ‘All
in the Family: John the Almsgiver, Nicetas and Heraclius’, Nea Rhome 11 (2004), pp. 21–134;
A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale and J. Morris (eds), The Prosopography of the Later Roman
Empire, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1971–92), vol. 3B, pp. 940–3 (Niketas 7).

allowed Heraclius to enhance his family alliances further and establish his
dynasty.
Regarding Byzantine political ideology, the emperor’s relationship with
the similarly named hero Heracles offered the opportunity for an
apparent mythological analogy.11 Heracles’ (Hercules’) labours were
compared with Heraclius’ efforts to overthrow the tyrant Phocas or to
overcome the Persian threat.12 However, Heracles’ labours, such as
killing a boar or a lion, may even be considered insignificant by
comparison with those of Heraclius, whose actions benefited the
greater good.13 Thus, Heraclius was also identified with Christ himself,
as both Christ and Heraclius strove to save the world – the city of
Jerusalem plays a major role here, as we will also see below. Heraclius
was even given the epithet κοσμορύστης/kosmorhystes (a hapax
legomenon), which means ‘saviour of the world’.14
Leading the army in person (613)
After having consolidated his authority and dynastic succession,

Heraclius shifted his focus to external enemies threatening the empire’s
11
Scholars have pointed out a few intriguing parallels between Heraclius and King David in the
Old Testament that concern their path to the throne and the subsequent removal of their rivals.
Neither Heraclius nor David came to power by ‘orderly’ succession. David was anointed king of
Judah by the men of Judah at Hebron and had to overcome the king of Israel and Saul’s
surviving son, Ishbosheth. Likewise, Heraclius came to power after revolting against Phocas.
Furthermore, David and Heraclius were both ‘tyrant’-killers: David killed the dreaded Philistine
Goliath; Heraclius killed Phocas and defeated Chosroes, the king of the Sasanians. See, for
example, S. Spain Alexander, ‘Byzantine Imperial Ideology and the David Plates’, Speculum
52.2 (1977), pp. 217–37, at pp. 229–30. Yet, in Byzantine literary sources, Heraclius’ connection
to Heracles is more common than his connection to David. See M. Whitby, ‘A New Image for a
New Age. George of Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius’, in E. Dąbrowa (ed.), The Roman and
Byzantine Army in the East. Proceedings of a Colloq[u]ium Held at the Jagiellonian University,
Kraków in September 1992 (Krakow, 1994), pp. 197–225, at p. 219.
12
One must not forget that the depiction of Heraclius along the lines of the political ideology
described in this paper is the result of literary intervention, especially by George of Pisidia.
The images of these characters were created by authors with a specific intention: to extol
Heraclius and his dynasty. The same holds true for the depiction of Phocas as a ‘tyrant’, a
deliberate attempt by Heraclius’ propaganda apparatus to discredit his predecessor and
thereby justify his own usurpation. See, for example, Georgios Pisides, Heraclias, ed.
A. Pertusi, Giorgio di Pisidia. Poemi. I. Panegirici epici, Studia Patristica et Byzantina 7 (Ettal,
1959), pp. 240–61, at pp. 251–3 (Heraclias II). Cf. Meier, ‘Kaiser Phocas (602–610) als
Erinnerungsproblem’, pp. 168–70. On the connection of Heracles with Heraclius, see, for
example, M. Meier, ‘Herakles – Herakleios – Christus. Georgios Pisides und der
“kosmorhystes”’, in H. Leppin (ed.), Antike Mythologie in christlichen Kontexten der
Spätantike (Berlin, Munich and Boston, 2015), pp. 167–92, at pp. 176–82; Whitby, ‘A New
Image for a New Age’, pp. 197–225, at pp. 206–10.
13
See Georgios Pisides, In Bonum patricium, ed. A. Pertusi, Giorgio di Pisidia. Poemi. I. Panegirici
epici, Studia Patristica et Byzantina 7 (Ettal, 1959), pp. 163–70, at p. 163. Cf. Whitby, ‘A New
Image for a New Age’, p. 206.
14
See Georgios Pisides, In Bonum patricium, ed. Pertusi, p. 163. Cf. Meier, ‘Herakles – Herakleios
– Christus’, pp. 180–1.

stability. In 613, he took a risk by departing from Constantinople and

leading the army against the Sasanian troops raiding Syria and Anatolia.
Since the reign of Emperor Theodosius I (r. 347–95), emperors had not
campaigned in person.15 The campaign of 613 signalled a significant shift
in political ideology and resulted in the remilitarization of the imperial
office under Heraclius. His decision to move away from Constantinople
and go to war in person broke a long tradition of imperial rulership in
which the sovereign, to a great extent, remained in the Byzantine capital.
Modern scholarship pointed out that Heraclius’ decision shifted the
pre-existing dynamic relationship between the emperor, the military,
and the urban aristocracy.16 By acting as a military general and leading
the army in battle, Heraclius wished to manage the dangerous Sasanian
threat and maintain authority over the Byzantine forces, thus preventing
any potential usurpation orchestrated by ambitious high-ranking
commanders.17 Despite the personal involvement of the emperor and
the commitment of all available troops, the Byzantine strategy of
coordinated attacks from the west and south failed. Sasanian control
reached the southern slopes of the Taurus Mountains in the north-west
and to northern Palestine in the south.18 Heraclius was forced to
withdraw back to Constantinople.
Engaging in an offensive war (622)
Heraclius’ life combined rotating periods of immobility and extensive

mobility: the lengthiest stationary part of Heraclius’ reign was probably
15
See Raum, ‘The Reinvention’, pp. 133–47; M. Meier, ‘Liturgification and Hyper-sacralization:
The Declining Importance of Imperial Piety in Constantinople Between the 6th and 7th
Centuries A.D.’, in G.B. Lanfranchi and R. Rollinger (eds), The Body of the King: The Staging
of the Body of the Institutional Leader from Antiquity to Middle Ages in East and West.
Proceedings of the Meeting Held in Padova, July 6th–9th, 2011 (Padua, 2016), pp. 227–46; and
M. Meier, ‘Liturgisierung und Hypersakralisierung. Zum Bedeutungsverlust kaiserlicher
Frömmigkeit in Konstantinopel zwischen dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert n. Chr.’, in
N. Schmidt, A. Neuwirth and N.K. Schmid (eds), Denkraum Spätantike. Reflexionen von
Antiken im Umfeld des Koran (Wiesbaden, 2016), pp. 75–106; M. Meier, ‘Der christliche
Kaiser zieht (nicht) in den Krieg. “Religionskriege” in der Spätantike?’, in A. Holzem (ed.),
Krieg und Christentum: Religiöse Gewalttheorien in der Kriegserfahrung des Westens (Paderborn,
2009), pp. 254–78; Kaegi, Heraclius, pp. 68–9.
16
On the importance of Constantinople, the relevance of the urban environment for the stability
of imperial rule, and the backdrop of the large-scale processes that ignited Heraclius’ decision to
lead the Byzantine army into battle personally, see for example: Viermann, Herakleios;
Viermann, ‘Merging’, pp. 379–402; Raum, ‘The Reinvention’, pp. 133–47. See also Meier,
‘Liturgification’, pp. 227–46; Pfeilschifter, Der Kaiser und Konstantinopel, and esp. at
pp. 17–28 and 41–75.
17
See Viermann, ‘Merging’, pp. 379–402; Viermann, Herakleios, pp. 27–77, 138–85; Raum, ‘The
Reinvention’, pp. 133–47; F.K. Maier, Palastrevolution. Der Weg zum hauptstädtischen Kaisertum
im Römischen Reich des vierten Jahrhunderts (Leiden and Paderborn, 2019).
18
About the campaign of 613, see for example Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War, pp. 85–87,
100; Kaegi, Heraclius, pp. 75–8, 96; Stratos, Byzantium, pp. 105–7.

from late 614 until the end of 621, when the emperor remained in the
capital except for some short diplomatic trips in the vicinity.19 During
that time, he oversaw the preparations of the troops and planned a
long-lasting offensive war against the Byzantines’ enemies. On 4 April
622, the emperor was ready to depart on a campaign against the
Sasanians, who had attacked the eastern provinces of the Byzantine
Empire and drew the war closer to the Byzantine capital.20 He left
behind his ten-year-old son and crowned successor in the safe hands of
Patriarch Sergius and the statesman Bonus as regents to manage the
religious and administrative affairs during his absence.21 This decision
illustrates Heraclius’ profound political thought and foresight. From the
day of his birth, Heraclius’ son, Heraclius Constantine III, was
groomed to take over the reins of state. The senior emperor ensured
that during his own absence from the Byzantine capital, his young son
would have appropriate guidance from advisers with both religious and
civil backgrounds.
Rushing back to Constantinople – facing the Avars’ threat (623–4)
Heraclius’ initial confrontations with the Persians were interrupted by the

threatening advance towards Constantinople of the Avars. The news
alarmed Heraclius, and thus, when in 623 he was summoned to the
capital to negotiate with the Khagan of the Avars for peace, he returned
in a rush only to find that it was a trap.22 However, Heraclius, aware of
19
Kaegi, Heraclius, p. 100.
20
The main sources concerning Heraclius’ preparation and campaign against the Persians in 622
are the poem of George Pisides, Expeditio Persica and the chronicle of Theophanes the
Confessor (818). See Georgios Pisides, Expeditio Persica, ed. A. Pertusi, Giorgio di Pisidia.
Poemi. I. Panegirici epici, Studia Patristica et Byzantina 7 (Ettal, 1959), pp. 84–136; and
Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. de Boor, vol. 1, p. 302, l. 32–p. 306, l. 17 (text); Mango and
Scott (eds), The Chronicle, pp. 435–8 (trans.). There is a long discussion and commentary on
the available primary sources. See, for example, N. Oikonomidès, ‘A Chronological Note on
the First Persian Campaign of Heraclius (622)’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 1 (1975),
pp. 1–9; and, more recently, Viermann, ‘Merging’, pp. 379–80 n. 4; Leppin, ‘George Pisides’,
pp. 293–310; Sirotenko, ‘Constructing Memory’, pp. 223–42. On the Sasanian attacks, see
for example Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War, pp. 191–2. In contrast to earlier
defensive modes, Heraclius now explored offensive warfare practices. See Kaegi, Heraclius,
p. 100. For an analysis of the campaign of 622, see Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War,
pp. 192–200.
21
The Chronicle, p. 435 (trans.). Cf. Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War, pp. 192–200;
Kaegi, Heraclius, pp. 100–17. See also M. Whitby, ‘Defender of the Cross: George of Pisidia
on the Emperor Heraclius and his Deputies’, in M. Whitby (ed.), The Propaganda of Power:
The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Leiden, Boston and Cologne, 1998), pp. 247–73.
22
On the failed Avar ambush against Emperor Heraclius near Heraclea and commentary on the
sources, see Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War, pp. 207–13; P. Walter. The Avars: A Steppe
Empire in Europe, 567–822 (Ithaca, New York and London, 2018), pp. 291–2; Kaegi, Heraclius,
pp. 118–20.

the complexity of fighting on two fronts against the Avars and the
Persians, signed a peace treaty with the Avars. In addition to financial
compensations, as a sign of goodwill he granted the Khagan the
privilege of being called Guardian and Protector (ἐπίτροπος) of
Heraclius Constantine III.23
The senior emperor celebrated Easter with his family, namely
Eudocia-Epiphania and Heraclius Constantine III (his two children
from his first wife Fabia-Eudokia) and his new wife Martina, near the
city of Nicomedia.24 Then he departed to fight the Persians, again
leaving his under-age son Heraclius Constantine III in charge of
Constantinople along with Patriarch Sergius and Bonus. Interestingly,
he chose a family member to accompany him on this expedition: his
spouse, Martina.25 Martina was Heraclius’ second wife, whom he
married after the death of Fabia-Eudokia. As Martina was also his niece,
the wedding was condemned as incestuous, and Martina was unpopular
with the clergy and the people, the factions, and the Senate.26
Interestingly, James Howard-Johnston suggests that Heraclius ‘decision
to take personal command of military operations’ may have been ‘partly
motivated by the need to distract attention from his private affairs and
to recover lost prestige’. 27 Again, in this case, Heraclius seems to have
acted very wisely in taking Martina with him. Of course, we cannot
exclude the possibility that this plan might have been based on the
personal desire of the couple, as it would simultaneously increase the
prospect of further offspring.28 However, additional reasons might
have inspired Heraclius’ strategy. Heraclius’ intention was probably to
prepare Martina for leadership, as he likely considered this
occasion an opportunity to improve his wife’s public image and
23
The Chronicle, p. 435 (trans.).
24
Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, vol. 1, p. 713, l. 19–p. 714, l. 8 (text); Whitby and Whitby
(eds), Chronicon Paschale, p. 166 (trans.).
25
On Martina, see Hächler, ‘Heraclius Constantine III’, pp. 75–110, 114–15; Kaegi, Heraclius,
pp. 106–7, with further bibliography.
26
Patriarch Sergius also attempted to put pressure on Heraclius by writing him a letter
admonishing him and urging him to repudiate Martina. Nevertheless, Emperor Heraclius
remained firm in his decision to marry her. See Nikephoros, Short History, ed. and trans.
Mango, p. 52, c. 11, ll. 1–20; p. 54, c. 11, ll. 21–3 (text); pp. 53 and 55 (trans). Cf. C. Mango,
‘Deux Études sur Byzance et la Perse sassanide’, Travaux et Mémoires 9 (1985), pp. 91–118, at
p. 114. Eventually, the patriarch decided to make the best of the situation and supported the
emperor by blessing the couple and crowning Martina augusta. Theophanes, Chronographia,
ed. de Boor, vol. 1, p. 300, ll. 25–8 (text); Mango and Scott (eds), The Chronicle, p. 430
(trans.). Cf. J. Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton, 1987; repr. 2021), p. 193.
27
J. Howard-Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis. Historians and Histories of the Middle East in
the Seventh Century (Oxford, 2010), pp. 252–3.
28
See Hächler, ‘Heraclius Constantine III’, p. 86.

authority.29 By following her husband, Martina could be cast as a caring

leader concerned about the serious affairs of state and claim that she was
able to live up to the demands of her role as empress, standing
stalwartly by her husband’s political decisions. Certainly, Heraclius’
military campaigns involved increased risks. Martina’s presence on
campaign was also an indication that the couple was willing to
undertake any necessary steps for the good of the empire.30 At the same
time, considering Martina’s great unpopularity, her absence from
Constantinople would likely have relieved tensions in the capital and
left the citizens with a sense of stability, at least in their internal affairs.
Continuing the offensive war (626)
In 626, while Heraclius and his army were far from Constantinople, the
city was besieged by a coordinated army of Avars, Slavs, and Persians.
The Sasanian army, led by the commander Shahrbaraz, attacked the
city from the east, while at the same time, an army of Avars, Slavs, and
Bulgars attacked from the west and the sea. In addition, the Persian
commander Sain (Σάϊν) was assigned a significant number of soldiers
to hold Mesopotamia and Armenia and thereby prevent Heraclius from
invading Persia.31 A high-ranking official and eyewitness of the events,
the clergyman Theodore Synkellos, lamented that the great Emperor
Heraclius was not in Constantinople.32 Yet a return would have robbed
Heraclius of all the strategic advantages against the Sasanians he had
29
Heraclius’ future decisions also manifest his intentions regarding the role Martina should take.
Before his death in 641, Heraclius drafted a will whereby his sons Heraclius Constantine III (by
his first wife Fabia-Eudokia) and Heraclonas (by his second wife Martina) were to have equal
status and ruling rights. The will also stipulated that Martina was to be regarded as empress. By
this time, Heraclius seemed confident that Martina had gained enough experience and could
thus handle leadership challenges successfully. See Nikephoros, Short History, ed. and trans.
Mango, p. 76, c. 27, ll. 10–13; pp. 77 and 79 (trans). Cf. also Hächler, ‘Heraclius
Constantine III’, p. 105, with further bibliography.
30
However, not everyone saw Martina’s travelling with Heraclius and the army in a positive way.
For example, in the 630s, when the Arabs overran the eastern provinces, Heraclius’ brother,
Theodore, mocked Heraclius’ decision-making by stating that the emperor would now have
the ‘sin continually before him’. As a result, Heraclius dispatched him to Constantinople and
had him dishonoured in public and imprisoned. See Nikephoros, Short History, ed. and
trans. Mango, p. 68, c. 20, ll. 1–9 (text); p. 69 (trans).
31
The Chronicle, p. 446 (trans.). On the Avar siege of Constantinople (29 July–7 August 626),
see for example Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War, pp. 246–92; Hächler, ‘Heraclius
Constantine III’, pp. 82–96; Walter, The Avars, pp. 294–311; Kaegi, Heraclius, pp. 118–20.
The miraculous intervention took place at about the time of the siege of Constantinople in
626 (although it is erroneously placed by Theophanes under 624/5). The precise location of
the battle is unknown, but it must have taken place somewhere in Asia Minor. See D. Lambert,
Cult of Saints, E08042, http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E08042.
32
On this topic, see Meier, Geschichte der Völkerwanderung, p. 20 and p. 1121 n. 3. Yet
retrospectively the sources admit that Heraclius took the right decision not to return to the

laboriously fought for over the past few years. Eventually, the siege was
lifted, and the miracle was attributed to the Mother of God, who
subsequently became the divine guardian of the city.33 Patriarch Sergius
carried an icon of the Mother of God (or of Christ) around the city walls
and throughout the streets in an attempt to bolster the confidence of the
besieged citizens.34 Soon enough, Ηeraclius’ tactical planning would fall
into place. His strategy included the division of the army into three parts
and its movement to three different places: one part would head to
Constantinople to strengthen the garrison there and to transmit essential
instructions for the city’s defence; the second, led by Heraclius’ brother
Theodorus, would face the numerous armed forces of the Sasanian
commander Sain; and the third part of the Byzantine army would remain
under Heraclius’ command. Although the troops led by the emperor’s
brother were regarded as vulnerable, amid battle, a hailstorm arose
unexpectedly or even miraculously (παραδόξως), as one would say,
striking down many of the Persians.35 Once more, Heraclius’ plans came
to fruition by divine providence.
city, thus recognizing his contribution from afar. See comment by Kaegi, Heraclius, pp. 134–9.
On the absence of the emperor, see Theodorus Syncellus, Sermon, ed. L. Sternbach, Analecta
avarice, Seorsum impressum ex tomo XXX Dissertationum philologicarum Academiae
Litterarum Cracoviensis (Krakow, 1900), pp. 298–320, at paragraphs 7, 10–11 and 14 (text);
F. Makk, Traduction et Commentaire de l’homélie écrite probablement par Théodore le Syncelle
sur le siège de Constantinople en 626 (Szeged, 1975), pp. 13–16 and 18 (trans.); cf. also the
English trans. by R. Pearse, Theodore the Syncellus, Homily on the siege of Constantinople in
626 AD (Ipswich, 2007), www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodore_syncellus_01_homily.htm.
33
Cf. Av. Cameron, ‘Introduction. The Mother of God in Byzantium: Relics, Icons, Texts’, in
L. Brubaker and M.B. Cunningham (eds), The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium: Texts
and Images (London and New York, 2011), pp. 1–5; L.M. Peltomaa, ‘Role of the Virgin Mary
at the Siege of Constantinople in 626’, Scrinium 5 (2009), pp. 284–99; B.V. Pentcheva, ‘The
Supernatural Protector of Constantinople: The Virgin and her Icons in the Tradition of the
Avar Siege’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 26 (2002), pp. 2–41.
34
M.D. Lauxtermann, ‘Two Epigrams by George of Pisidia in the Greek Anthology’, Byzantina
Symmeikta 32 (2022), pp. 43–57; M. Whitby, ‘The Patriarch Sergius and the Theotokos’,
Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 70 (2020), pp. 403–25; M. Hurbanič, The Avar
Siege of Constantinople in 626: History and Legend (Basingstoke, 2019); Kaegi, Heraclius,
p. 136. It is debatable whether Patriarch Sergius carried an icon of the Mother of God or an
icon of Christ. See, for example, B.V. Pentcheva, Icons and Power: The Mother of God in
Byzantium (University Park, 2006), pp. 38–43, 59; P. Speck, ‘The Virgin’s Help for
Constantinople’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 27 (2003), pp. 266–71; Pentcheva, ‘The
Supernatural Protector’, pp. 2–41.
35
The Chronicle, pp. 446–7 (trans.). Cf. Theodorus Syncellus, Sermon, ed. Sternbach,
pp. 298–320, paragraph 19 (text); Makk, Théodore le Syncelle, pp. 21–2, esp. at p. 21 (trans.);
cf. also the English trans. by Pearse, www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodore_syncellus_01_
homily.htm. For an analysis of the incident see M. Leontsini, ‘Wonders of Nature and
Heroism in the Narratives of Herakleios’ Campaigns Against Persia’, in Narratives Across
Space and Time. Transmissions and Adaptations Proceedings of the 15th Congress of the
International Society for Folk Narrative Research, June 21–27, 2009 Athens (Athens, 2014), pp.
337–56; I.G. Telelis, Μετεωρολογικὰ φαινόμενα καὶ κλίμα στὸ Βυζ άντιο, Πονήματα.
Συμβολὲς στὴν Ἔρευνα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς καὶ Λατινικῆς Γ ραμματείας (Athens, 2004), pp.
295–6.

Returning to Constantinople (629)
Another movement connected to Heraclius is his triumphant return to

Constantinople after nearly five years’ absence (since 624). The senior
emperor carefully planned his arrival in 629 after the victorious
outcome of his campaign against the Persians and the subsequent
restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem.36 The late eighth/early ninth
century Chronicle of Theophanes states that the triumphal entry was
staged at Hiereia, an Asiatic suburb of Constantinople.37 The populace
gathered there were holding lights and olive branches, eagerly waiting
to welcome Heraclius. The co-emperor Heraclius Constantine III
accompanied by the patriarch led the welcoming committee and
performed proskynesis, falling at Heraclius’ feet and embracing him.38
Both father and son are said to have shed tears on the ground. As a
standard part of public displays of joy, humility, and repentance,
shedding tears on this occasion played an important role in the public
image of Emperor Heraclius. It seems that contemporaries were aware
that emotional expressions were controllable, and tears could be used to
suit the situation. Besides his joy at being reunited with his son and
returning home, Heraclius’ weeping is to be interpreted here as a
symbolic act of repentance (e.g., for the sin that Heraclius had
committed by marrying Martina) and a strong desire for future
change.39 The ceremony concluded with the performance of hymns
and thanksgiving before the joyful entry into Constantinople.
36
On the complex issue of the dating of events, see for example Hächler, ‘Heraclius Constantine
III’, p. 98 n. 82; C. Zuckerman, ‘Heraclius and the Return of the Holy Cross’, in
C. Zuckerman (ed.), Constructing the Seventh Century, Travaux et mémoires 17 (Paris, 2013),
pp. 197–218; P. Speck: ‘Zum Datum der Translation der Kreuzesreliquien nach Konstantinopel’;
‘Anhang I. Zwei Stellen bei Theophanes und Nikephoros’, in P. Speck et al. (eds), Varia VII.
Beiträge von Paul Speck sowie zwei Nachträge von Albrecht Berger und Otto Kresten, Poikila
Byzantina 18 (Bonn, 2000), pp. 167–77; Nikephoros, Short History, ed. and trans. Mango,
pp. 184–6; Mango and Scott (eds), The Chronicle, p. 458 n. 3; N.H. Baynes, ‘The
Restoration of the Cross at Jerusalem’, English Historical Review 27.106 (1912), pp. 287–99.
Bernard Flusin gives a summary and a plausible reconstruction of the events. See B. Flusin,
Saint Anastase le Perse et l’histoire de la Palestine au début du VIIe siècle, 2 vols (Paris, 1992),
vol. 2, pp. 293–309. A recent hypothesis, which also seems appealing, is that two ceremonial
restorations of the True Cross happened in Jerusalem; the first in 629 (on 21 March), the
second in 630 (on 30 March), with an intermediate trip to Constantinople (perhaps on
August or September 629). See Zuckerman, ‘Heraclius and the Return of the Holy Cross’,
pp. 197–218, esp. pp. 197, 200–5, 209–10. Regarding the date of the ceremonial restoration
of the True Cross in Jerusalem, cf. also Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War, p. 346
(on 21 March 630).
37
The Chronicle, pp. 457 (trans.).
38
On the ceremony of proskynesis and its various forms and symbolism in Byzantium, see
Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee, pp. 84–94.
39
On the role of crying and shedding tears in public, see for example J. Hagen, Die Tränen der
Mächtigen und die Macht der Tränen, Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolloquium 25 (Stuttgart,

At this point, Heraclius’ association with the King David of the Old
Testament becomes apparent, an association that operates on several
levels. On a personal level, both David and Heraclius received public
condemnation for their marital choices. David had an adulterous
alliance with Bathsheba, a married woman who later became his wife
and gave birth to Solomon, while Heraclius’ second marriage was
considered incestuous.40 For this, both rulers were seen on occasions to
perform publicly as penitents – for example, when Emperor Heraclius
shed tears upon his return to Constantinople, specifically during the
ceremony performed at Hiereia in 629 discussed above. This act of
weeping to demonstrate repentance also connected Heraclius with the
great biblical king: David as a penitent and humble ruler strongly
influenced the image of the emperor in this regard as well.41 But most
importantly, both David and Heraclius were divinely chosen to rule
and did not inherit the throne through dynastic succession.
The location of Heraclius’ welcome, Hiereia, was significant for
further reasons that have hitherto escaped the attention of modern
scholars. First, Eudocia-Epiphania, Emperor Heraclius’ eldest child and
Heraclius Constantine III’s sister, was born in the palace of Hiereia.42
Therefore, this place held a unique position in the hearts of both father
and son, reminding everyone present of the potential for better,
peaceful days under the new and flourishing dynasty. Second, the lack
of a military character surrounding his adventus, even though Heraclius
was seen as an undisputed victor, is reinforced by the location: military
triumphs proceed from the Strategion and through the Golden Gate.43
0
2017); M. Grünbart, ‘Der Kaiser weint: Anmerkungen zur imperialen Inszenierung von
Emotionen in Byzanz’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 42 (2008), pp. 89–108; M. Hinterberger,
‘Tränen in der byzantinischen Literatur: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Emotionen’,
Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 56 (2006), pp. 27–51; cf. A. Giannouli, ‘Die
Tränen der Zerknirschung: zur katanyktischen Kirchendichtung als Heilmittel’, in
P. Odorico, P. Agapitos and M. Hinterberger (eds), ‘Doux remède . . .’. Poésie et poétique à
Byzance. Actes du IVe colloque international philologique ‘ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ’, Paris, 23–24–25 février
2006, organisé par l’E. H. E. S. S. et l’Université de Chypre sous la direction de Paolo Odorico,
Panagiotis A. Agapitos, Martin Hinterberger (Paris, 2009), pp. 141–56.
40
Cf. Spain Alexander, ‘David Plates’, pp. 217–37, at p. 230.
41
On the influence King David had on the image of the repentant emperor in Byzantium, see
Grünbart, ‘Der Kaiser weint’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 42 (2008), pp. 89–108. The idea
that royal authority and legitimacy were enhanced by atonement is also found among
medieval rulers of western Europe. Cf. for example Emperor Louis the Pious (r. 814–40), the
son of Charlemagne, who performed a public act of self-debasement in a time of crisis. Cf.
M. De Jong, The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious,
814–840 (New York, 2009).
42
Eudocia-Epiphania was born on 7 July 611 and soon afterwards crowned augusta. See for
example Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, vol. 1, p. 702, ll. 10–13 (text); Whitby and Whitby
(eds), Chronicon Paschale, p. 154 (trans.), with further bibliography.
43
On the situation of Strategion, see M. Cyril. ‘The Triumphal Way of Constantinople and the
Golden Gate’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000), pp. 173–88, at pp. 187–8.

Practical reasons, too, might have led Heraclius to choose the route via
Hiereia since he approached Constantinople from Asia Minor. Passing
by the Strategion and through the Golden Gate would make more sense
for triumphal entries from the west/Thrace. Using Hiereia as a base
meant that ships must have been involved rather than large numbers of
foot soldiers in a parade. Instead, his return was performed and presented
as an act of thanksgiving to God.44 From the angle of political ideology,
Heraclius probably wished to promote the idea that the events unfolded
according to divine will and that he and his dynasty enjoyed divine
support.
The Short History of Patriarch Nicephorus (d. 828), composed in the
ninth century, offers further information.45 It claims that the True
Cross, or at least pieces of it, had been sent to Constantinople after
being certified as authentic by the patriarch of Jerusalem, Modestos,
and his clergy.46 Patriarch Sergius received them in procession at the
Blachernae Church and then brought them to the Great Church of
Hagia Sophia, where he exalted them. The reader is informed that,
soon after, Heraclius also arrived in the capital, and the inhabitants
received him with great acclamation. For the triumphal procession, he
brought four elephants, which he paraded at the hippodrome contests
to the delight of the citizens. Additionally, he distributed largesse to
everyone.47 The Short History is the only source to describe these
events, and there is much debate on their truthfulness or accuracy.48 In
any case, Heraclius’ imperial virtues of philanthropy and generosity
towards the citizens shone through his well-planned celebrations. If
true, these events, at least in the memory propagated by this
ninth-century author, would further reinforce the idea that Heraclius’
campaign owned its success to the divine plan.
44
The Chronicle, pp. 457 (trans.). Cf. M. McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in
Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 70–2.
45
On the date of composition of the Short History, see Nikephoros, Short History, ed. and trans.
Mango, pp. 8–12 (introduction). See also C. Mango, ‘The Breviarium of the Patriarch
Nikephoros’, in Byzance: Hommage à André N. Stratos, 2 vols (Athens, 1986), vol. 2, pp. 539–52.
46
Nikephoros, Short History, ed. and trans. Mango, p. 66, c. 18, ll. 8–17 (text); p. 67 (trans). On
Patriarch Modestos, see Zuckerman, ‘Heraclius and the Return of the Holy Cross’, pp. 204 and
210, with further bibliography and commentary on the dating of the events.
47
Nikephoros, Short History, ed. and trans. Mango, p. 66, c. 18, ll. 8–21; p. 66, c. 19, ll. 1–8; p. 68,
c. 19, ll. 9–11 (text); pp. 67 and 69 (trans.); see also the comments on pp. 184–6. Cf.
McCormick, Eternal Victory, pp. 70–2.
48
The Short History of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople (c.758–828), covers the period
602–769. The author was not an eyewitness to the events he describes, and thus he relied
on earlier sources, now lost to us. See also Nikephoros, Short History, ed. and trans. Mango,
pp. 1–22 (on Patriarch Nicephorus and the Short History) and pp. 184–6 (on the dating of
the events relevant to the restoration of the True Cross). Cf. Zuckerman, ‘Heraclius and the
Return of the Holy Cross’, pp. 197–218.

The restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem
Not only did Heraclius return safely to Constantinople, but also the
‘True Cross’ was eventually delivered to Jerusalem through divine
intervention.49 Heraclius, accompanied by his wife Martina, entered
Jerusalem and restored the True Cross to its rightful place in 629/30,
almost two decades after it had been captured by the Sasanians and
subsequently transferred to their capital, Ctesiphon. On a personal
level, the transfer of the relic becomes a significant part of Heraclius’
propaganda campaign, as at that time Heraclius was primarily
concerned with his public image. Although Heraclius was afraid of the
clergy’s reaction regarding Martina and their uncanonical marriage, he
took advantage of the relic’s return to silence his opposition and
advertise his moral authority.50 Moreover, one must bear in mind that
of all military losses to that point, the Byzantines deemed the Sasanian
sack of Jerusalem and the capture of the True Cross in 614 as especially
humiliating. Therefore, Heraclius ensured that at least pieces of the
True Cross were also transferred to Constantinople to increase
the morale and hope of the population. For the same reasons and to
restore the imperial image, two other religious objects were brought
to the Byzantine capital at some point after the capture of Jerusalem by
the Persians in June 614: the Holy Sponge (14 September) and the
Holy Lance (28 October).51 On a political-ideological level, the True
49
The murder of the Persian king Khusro II in a coup initiated by his son played a crucial role in
the recovery and restoration of the True Cross. For a summary of the events leading up to the
restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem, see Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War,
pp. 336–53; Whittow, Orthodox Byzantium, pp. 69–82. For the Latin tradition concerning the
restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem, see, for example, the discussion in A. Sirotenko,
‘Forgetting the Heretic: The Emperor Heraclius in the Byzantine Liturgical Tradition’,
Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 67 (2017), pp. 239–48; S. Borgehammar,
‘Heraclius Learns Humility: Two Early Latin Accounts Composed for the Celebration of
“Exaltatio Crucis”’, Millennium-Jahrbuch 6 (2009), pp. 145–202; A. Sommerlechner,
‘Kaiser Herakleios und die Rückkehr des Heiligen Kreuzes nach Jerusalem. Überlegungen
zu Stoff-und Motivgeschichte’, in R. Bösel and H. Fillitz (eds), Römische Historische
Mitteilungen 45 (Vienna, 2003), pp. 319–60.
50
The monk Antiochos Strategos in his account of the events, indicates that Heraclius was afraid
that the high priests would rebuke him because of his incestuous relationship with Martina.
Spain Alexander, ‘David Plates’, pp. 217–37, at p. 225; A. Frolow, ‘La Vraie Croix et les
expéditions d’Héraclius en Perse’, Revue des études byzantines 11.1 (1953), pp. 88–105, at
pp. 101–5; Stratos, Byzantium, p. 252. This deliberation appears only in the Gregorian version
of the text. See Hächler, ‘Heraclius Constantine III’, p. 76 n. 18, with further bibliography. On
the return of the True Cross and Heraclius’ marriage to Martina, see also Mango, ‘Deux Études’,
pp. 105–18, at p. 114. Cf. Herrin, The Formation of Christendom, p. 193.
51
See Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, vol. 1, p. 705, ll. 3–14. The objects’ arrival in
Constantinople, either in 614 or after 628, is debated. For the relevant discussion, see
Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War, p. 93; Zuckerman, ‘Heraclius and the Return of the
Holy Cross’, pp. 198–207; H.A. Klein, ‘Niketas und das wahre Kreuz’, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 94 (2001), pp. 580–7.

Cross was a solemn symbol of the imperial ideology of Byzantium and

was connected to the first Christian ruler and founder of the East
Roman Empire, Constantine the Great. Thus, the restoration of the
True Cross to Jerusalem allowed Heraclius and his panegyrist, George
of Pisidia, to build his image as an ideal leader and to model him as a
second Constantine, by ‘re-inventing’ the True Cross.52
For George of Pisidia and his imperial patron, taking Emperor
Constantine the Great as a model was fundamental to promoting
Byzantine imperial ideology.53 Heraclius was presented as a great leader
and a man of military skills, a victor and triumphator like Alexander the
Great and Constantine the Great before him. The multiple facts
connecting Heraclius with Constantine the Great have to do with
Heraclius’ military campaign and the restoration of the True Cross.
Heraclius made the Holy Land safe again, just as Constantine had
made the Roman Empire safe for Christians in the past. Also,
Heraclius ‘re-discovered’ the True Cross and brought it to Jerusalem
and to the Holy Sepulchre, a shrine Constantine erected after he and
his mother, Empress Helena, had initially discovered the Cross.54
Another method of association with Emperor Constantine was achieved
by employing his name. True, Heraclius was not acclaimed a ‘new
Constantine’ nor did he join his name with that of Constantine as
previous Byzantine emperors had done. For example, Emperor
52
See Georgios Pisides, In restitutionem S. Crucis, ed. A. Pertusi, Giorgio di Pisidia. Poemi. I.
Panegirici epici, Studia Patristica et Byzantina 7 (Ettal, 1959), pp. 225–30, esp. pp. 227–8. On
the restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem and deliberations on Heraclius’ portrayal in
analogy to Emperor Constantine I based on George of Pisidia’s poem In restitutionem S.
Crucis, see, for example, Viermann, Herakleios, pp. 261–300; Raum, Szenen eines
Überlebenskampfes, pp. 199–217; Cf. also the J.W. Drijvers, ‘Heraclius and the Restitutio
Crucis. Notes on Symbolism and Ideology’, in G.J. Reinink and B. Stolte (eds), The Reign of
Heraclius (610–641). Crisis and Confrontation (Leuven, 2002), pp. 175–90; Whitby, ‘Defender
of the Cross’, pp. 247–73; Frolow, ‘La Vraie Croix’, pp. 101–5. Heraclius is connected to
Constantine the Great also through his ‘imperial art’ production. See M.M. Mango,
‘Imperial Art in the Seventh Century’, in P. Magdalino (ed.), New Constantines. The Rhythm
of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th Centuries. Papers from the Twenty-Sixth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St Andrews, March 1992 (Aldershot, 1994), pp. 109–38. The
theme of the True Cross is to be found also on the coinage produced during Heraclius’
reign. See for example Hächler, ‘Heraclius Constantine III’, pp. 80, 95, 101, 103, with further
commentary and bibliography. George of Pisidia had a successful career in Constantinople’s
ecclesiastical environment in Patriarch Sergius’ service. He wrote works with a solid religious
focus as well as encomiastic poems about Heraclius and his political and military
achievements. On George of Pisidia, his work and its setting, see for example Whitby,
‘Defender of the Cross’, pp. 247–52.
53
Cf. Whitby, ‘A New Image for a New Age’, p. 205. Emperor Constantine I the Great was the
ideal leader, concurrently political and religious. See C. Rapp, ‘Comparison, Paradigm and
the Case of Moses in Panegyric and Hagiography’, in Whitby (ed.), The Propaganda of
Power, pp. 277–98, esp. pp. 292–7.
54
See Georgios Pisides, In restitutionem S. Crucis, ed. Pertusi, pp. 227–8. Cf. Spain Alexander,
‘David Plates’, p. 225.

Marcian, Justin I and Justinian were addressed or acclaimed as a new

Constantine, while Emperor Tiberius II had joined the first Christian
emperor’s name to his.55 Instead, Heraclius gave three of his sons his
own name combined with that of Constantine. Thus, Heraclius
Constantine III was already from birth acclaimed co-emperor and was
mentored to succeed his father one day.56
Heraclius’ mobility and victories over the external enemies of the
Byzantine Empire and the restoration of the True Cross inspired his
connection not only to Byzantine traditions but also to various models
from the Old Testament, as contemporary authors pointed out.57 One
of the Old Testament models that Emperor Heraclius and his
panegyrist George of Pisidia chose was Moses. For George of Pisidia,
being a king, archpriest, and lawgiver, Moses embodied the perfect
prototype for the Christian emperor Heraclius.58 Heraclius embarked
on his lengthy Persian campaign against the ‘second Pharaoh’ in
imitation of Moses. The Byzantine emperor became, in a way, a
‘second Moses’ because he was also armed with piety against the
55
See Spain Alexander, ‘David Plates’, pp. 225–6. Cf. C. Rapp, ‘Old Testament Models for
Emperors in Early Byzantium’, in P. Magdalino and R. Nelson (eds), The Old Testament in
Byzantium (Washington, DC, 2010), pp. 175–97; Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und
Reichsidee, pp. 129–35, at p. 189.
56
On Heraclius’ children and their names, see Spain Alexander, ‘David Plates’, pp. 233–4 with
further bibliography. On Heraclius Constantine III, see Hächler, ‘Heraclius Constantine III’,
pp. 69–116.
57
The literary juxtaposition of the emperor and his models could be achieved in two ways in
literary sources: by ‘exemplum’ and ‘comparison’. On the one hand, establishing an
exemplum meant that an emperor was expected to imitate a preceding leadership figure who
served as a positive model for governance, employing those virtues they aspired to achieve.
On the other hand, the so-called comparison method aimed at directly comparing the
emperor with his model. As a result, the author could claim equality between the two or
even the superiority of his subject over the earlier point of reference. In the Christian
context, praise could also take the form of a ‘typology’ connecting the present time with the
biblical past of the Old Testament. Then, an emperor could become a ‘typos’, extending an
established pattern from biblical times into the present and re-enacting it, thus becoming,
for example, a ‘new David’ or a ‘new Moses’ during his lifetime. This extension can be
observed in the case of Heraclius, as well. For more details on this method of writing, along
with examples of conspicuous cases of using paradigm and comparison in Byzantine texts,
see Rapp, ‘Old Testament Models’, pp. 175–97; Rapp, ‘Comparison, Paradigm and the Case
of Moses’, pp. 277–98; C. Rapp, ‘Imperial Ideology in the Making: Eusebius of Caesarea on
Constantine as “Bishop”’, Journal of Theological Studies 49.2 (1998), pp. 685–95. Eusebius
(260–339/40), the bishop of Caesarea, who wrote the Life of Constantine, set an example for
the development of Byzantine imperial ideology by claiming that Constantine had the
privilege of enjoying God’s favour, just as his Old Testament models had. On this topic, see
Rapp, ‘Old Testament Models’, pp. 175–97, at pp. 182–4; Rapp, ‘Comparison, Paradigm and
the Case of Moses’, pp. 277–98, esp. pp. 281, 292–7. See also Rapp, ‘Imperial Ideology in the
Making’, pp. 685–95. On Eusebius of Caesarea, see, for example, A.P. Kazhdan et al. (eds),
The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols (New York and Oxford, 1991), vol. 2, pp. 751–2.
58
See for example, Georgios Pisides, Expeditio Persica, ed. Pertusi, pp. 84–136, at pp. 90–1
(Expeditio Persica I). On Moses and Heraclius, see Rapp, ‘Comparison, Paradigm and the
Case of Moses’, pp. 295–6; Whitby, ‘A New Image for a New Age’, pp. 218–19.

enemy. By forging such strong associations with Moses, Heraclius

presented himself as a leadership figure whose responsibility embraced
both the religious and the political spheres.59 Moreover, the fact that
Heraclius is presented as a new Moses may be interpreted as an
implicit and indirect evocation of Constantine the Great, since it was
well-known from Eusebius’ Church History that Constantine was the
new Moses who had liberated the Christians and led them into a new
realm of religious freedom, just as Moses had led the Israelites across
the Red Sea to the promised land.60
The restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem could offer an
excellent opportunity for George of Pisidia to associate Heraclius with
the Old Testament king David.61 Both men successfully led their
armies in wars against infidels, David against the Philistines and
Heraclius against the Persians, who also happened to seize holy
symbols of the two religions: the Philistines apprehended the Ark of
the Covenant, the chest containing the Tablets of Stone on which the
Ten Commandments were inscribed, while the Persians robbed the
True Cross. Both David and Heraclius recaptured the sacred objects
crucial to the spiritual life of their people and re-installed them in
Jerusalem. Interestingly, despite the various analogies between
Heraclius and David, George of Pisidia instead particularly favoured
images linking Heraclius with Heracles and Moses. Indeed, while
George of Pisidia often alludes to or is suggestive of David, the only
explicit reference can be found in the poem Expeditio Persica: in a
59
See Rapp, ‘Comparison, Paradigm and the Case of Moses’, pp. 286–92 (on Moses as a model)
and 295–6 (on Moses as a model for Heraclius). See also Rapp, ‘Old Testament Models’, p. 194;
Rapp, ‘Imperial Ideology in the Making’, pp. 687, 691.
60
For a detailed analysis of Eusebius of Caesarea’s method of writing and invoking of Old
Testament figures, especially Moses, for Constantine the Great, as well as the indirect
connection of Heraclius with Constantine and his Old Testament model, Moses, see Rapp,
‘Old Testament Models’, pp. 175–97, at pp. 182–4; cf. Rapp, ‘Comparison, Paradigm and the
Case of Moses’, p. 293.
61
See Spain Alexander, ‘David Plates’, pp. 217–37. See also Meier, ‘Herakles – Herakleios – Christus’,
p. 187; Rapp, ‘Old Testament Models’, pp. 181, 194–6. The first emperor to be officially linked and
equated with David was Marcian, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. See Rapp, ‘Old Testament
Models’, pp. 189–90; Rapp, ‘Comparison, Paradigm and the Case of Moses’, p. 295. Scholars are
constantly re-evaluating Heraclius’ association with David. For example, see the discussion on this
topic in Viermann, Herakleios, pp. 252–316; cf. Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War, p. 198;
V. Tsamakda, ‘König David als Typos des byzantinischen Kaisers’, in F. Daim and J. Drauschke
(eds), Byzanz – Das Römerreich im Mittelalter, vol. 1: Welt der Ideen, Welt der Dinge (Mainz, 2010),
pp. 23–54; R.E. Leader, ‘The David Plates Revisited: Transforming the Secular in Early Byzan-
tium’, The Art Bulletin 82 (2000), pp. 407–27. On the idea that Heraclius may have seen himself
as the new David, see also Whitby, ‘A New Image for a New Age’, pp. 218–19 n. 107. Ueli Zahnd
discusses the mimesis of David in the West and the connection this phenomenon had with
Heraclius and Byzantium. See U. Zahnd, ‘Novus David – Neos David: zur Frage nach
byzantinischen Vorläufern eines abendländischen Topos’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 42
(2008), pp. 71–87.

speech to the army, Heraclius is presented as paraphrasing a psalm of

David (CXXXVI.9). These observations help justify the view that
Heraclius may have seen himself as the new David. However, the fact
that most mentions in George of Pisidia’s oeuvre are implicit can also
reveal the author’s intention to evade strongly associating Heraclius
with the Old Testament king, in order to focus on the emperor’s
connection with Moses.62
In Byzantine political thought, David represented the prototype of
divinely appointed rulership and imperial victory.63 Davidic language
became part of the repertoire of imperial ideology in Byzantium.64 Part
of traditional scholarship claims that, on Heraclius’ orders, silver plates
with David motifs, the so-called David plates, dated between 613 and
629/30, were manufactured to promulgate the new ideology of his
reign.65 Suzanne Spain Alexander has even proposed that David plates
were probably made shortly after Heraclius’ victory over the Persians
and the restoration of the True Cross in 629/30.66 In this way, the
plates may or may not have been connected to Heraclius’ self-image
and promotion of his political ideology.67 Admittedly, Heraclius’
association with David would strengthen his position as an emperor
who came to power through usurpation, nonetheless with divine
approval, leading the empire to victory against its multiple opponents.
Beyond doubt, the heroic deeds of Emperor Heraclius culminated in
the restoration of the True Cross in Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that,
although Constantinople had been called a ‘second Jerusalem’ since
around 500, it is only during the time of Heraclius’ reign that we can
observe more sustained comparisons between Israel and the Christian
62
See Georgios Pisides, Expeditio Persica, ed. Pertusi, pp. 84–136, at p. 102, ll. 113–15 (Expeditio
Persica II). For this observation and detailed reference to George of Pisidia passages, see
Whitby, ‘A New Image for a New Age’, pp. 218–19 n. 107. Cf. Spain Alexander, ‘David
Plates’, p. 232. Interesting observations on Expeditio Persica are also offered by Leppin,
‘George Pisides’, pp. 293–310. On George of Pisidia, Emperor Heraclius and David, see also
C. Ludwig, ‘Kaiser Herakleios, Georgios Pisides und die Perserkriege’, in W. Brandes et al.
(eds), Varia III. Beiträge von Wolfram Brandes, Sophia Kotzabassi, Claudia Ludwig und Paul
Speck, Poikila Byzantina 11 (Bonn, 1991), pp. 73–128. See also Rapp, ‘Old Testament Models’,
pp. 195–7.
63
Rapp, ‘Comparison, Paradigm and the Case of Moses’, p. 286; Treitinger, Die oströmische
Kaiser- und Reichsidee, p. 13.
64
Cf. Kaegi, Heraclius, p. 114; Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee, pp. 129–35.
65
The David plates are among the finest surviving examples of Byzantine secular art. They were
discovered in 1902 at the site of the acropolis of ancient Lapithos (Byzantine Lambousa) in
Cyprus. They constitute a set of nine silver disks, today divided between the Metropolitan
Museum, New York, and the Archeological Museum, Nicosia, Cyprus. See Spain Alexander,
‘Heraclius’, pp. 217–37. Cf. Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War, pp. 334–6; Kaegi, Heraclius,
pp. 114, 198–9. Mango, ‘Imperial Art’, pp. 122–31.
66
See Spain Alexander, ‘Heraclius’, p. 237.
67
Cf. Kaegi, Heraclius, p. 220.

people, or Jerusalem and Constantinople.68 Nowadays, scholars have

begun to shift away from the idea of Heraclius’ association with the
David plates and the Old Testament king.69 In any case, the impact on
Byzantine political thought of the restoration of the True Cross is better
traced in the empire’s legal jargon.
Especially after returning the Cross to Jerusalem, Heraclius was styled
as a pious emperor closely connected to Christ, which is also evident in a
significant change in the manifestation of the imperial titulature and
political ideology. In 629, Heraclius adopted the formula πιστὸς ἐν
Χριστῷ βασιλεὺς/pistos en Christo basileus (‘faithful emperor in Christ’)
as his official title, instead of Imperator Augustus.70 The formula and
the title basileus replaced the previous Roman dynastic titles of the
emperors, such as caesar and augustus. This change can be regarded as
the final step in the replacement of Latin with Greek in terms relating
to state affairs. The adoption of basileus during the reign of Heraclius
and its continued use for his successors may have been inspired by
biblical models and messianic notions. The formula pistos en Christo
basileus is appropriate for the ruler of an empire with a Christo- or
biblio-centric culture.
The majestic sea-crossing on horseback (638)
Emperor Heraclius’ return to Constantinople in 629 after his victorious

expedition against the Persians would not last long. A few years later, a
68
See P. Magdalino and R. Nelson, ‘Introduction’, in Magdalino and Nelson (eds), The Old
Testament in Byzantium, pp. 1–38, at pp. 13–14. On the ideological significance of Jerusalem
for Orthodox Christianity, see J. Pahlitzsch, ‘Zur ideologischen Bedeutung Jerusalems für
das orthodoxe Christentum’, in Th. Pratsch (ed.), Konflikt und Bewältigung: Die Zerstörung
der Grabeskirche zu Jerusalem im Jahre 1009 (Berlin, 2011), pp. 239–56.
69
For example, contrary to older studies viewing the David plates as vehicles of imperial
self-representation, Ruth E. Leader offers an alternative interpretation. She argues that they
may have had a domestic use as expensive display pieces of tableware. See Leader, ‘The
David Plates Revisited’, pp. 407–27. Recent discussions, re-evaluating Heraclius’ association
with David, also with references to further bibliography, are included in Viermann,
Herakleios, pp. 252–316; Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War, p. 198; Tsamakda, ‘König
David’, pp. 23–54, esp. pp. 30–2; Zahnd, ‘Novus David’, pp. 71–87.
70
See I.M. Konidaris, ‘Die Novellen des Kaisers Herakleios’, in D. Simon (ed.), Fontes Minores 5,
Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 8 (Frankfurt am Main, 1982), pp. 33–106, at
p. 84. Cf. C. Zuckerman, ‘On the Titles and Office of the Byzantine Basileus’, Travaux et
Mémoires 16 (2010), pp. 865–90; O. Kresten, ‘Herakleios und der Titel βασιλεύς’, in Speck
et al. (eds), Varia VII, pp. 178–9; L. Bréhier, ‘L’origine des titres impériaux à Byzance.
Βασιλεὺς et δεσπότης’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 15 (1906), pp. 161–78; I. Shahîd, ‘Heraclius
ΠΙΣΤΟΣ ΕΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34/5 (1980), pp. 225–37;
E.K. Chrysos, ‘The Title Βασιλεύς in Early Byzantine International Relations’, Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 32 (1978), pp. 29–75; Spain Alexander, ‘David Plates’, pp. 232–3; I. Shahi̇d, ‘The
Iranian Factor in Byzantium during the Reign of Heraclius’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26
(1972), pp. 293–320, at pp. 302, 315 and 318–19. Cf. Meier, ‘Herakles – Herakleios – Christus’,
p. 187, with further bibliography.

new threat arose. Arabs raided Byzantine territory, and Heraclius had to
return to the battlefield. Heraclius failed to coordinate the defence
against this new enemy, and the Byzantines suffered a significant loss in
a battle on the banks of the river Yarmouk in August 636.71 The defeat
paved the way for further Arab expansion, substantially reducing the
empire’s reach. When Heraclius returned from this unsuccessful
expedition, he settled in Hiereia. Over time, he hesitated to visit the
capital and even sent his sons to the city to represent him on festive
days.72 One cannot exclude the possibility that he was ashamed of the
failure of his last campaign. However, his unwillingness to leave the
Hiereia palace is often associated with an unsuccessful assassination
attempt in 637.73 Yet, the Short History of Patriarch Nicephorus, the
only existing account focusing on Heraclius’ return to the capital,
reports a ‘fear of water’ that Heraclius had developed.74 Eventually, in
638, the citizens constructed a bridge consisting of boats, so that the
emperor could safely cross the water.75 Nicephorus, writing more than
two centuries after the event, paints a picture of a mentally fragile
Heraclius. Assessing the consequences of Heraclius’ military loss,
scholar Nadine Viermann argues that Nicephorus did so as a form of
political satire, motivated by the emperor’s failure to cope with the
damaging consequences of imperial defeat.76 Whether the event took
place or not, for the current paper, it is interesting to observe how
Heraclius’ staged movement aimed to influence his contemporaries
positively. The triumphal parade on the bridge of boats would have
made a lasting impression, especially if one considers that Heraclius
crossed ‘the sea on horseback as if it were dry land’.77 Probably,
Heraclius sought to gain the admiration of the spectators and their
benevolence. In addition, the delay of his entry into Constantinople
must have increased the excitement of the people who would gather to
welcome him. Nonetheless, Patriarch Nicephorus’ retrospective view
71
For the Battle of Yarmouk, see for example, Viermann, Herakleios, pp. 304–16; Kaegi, Heraclius,
pp. 239–44.
72
Nikephoros, Short History, ed. Mango, p. 72, c. 24, ll. 1–8 (text).
73
See Nikephoros, Short History, ed. Mango, p. 72, c. 24, ll. 8–18 (text). For a summary of the
assassination attempt against Heraclius and recent commentary, see for example: Hächler,
‘Heraclius Constantine III’, pp. 104–5; Viermann, Herakleios, pp. 304–16.
74
On the events surrounding the ceremony of 639, see Nikephoros, Short History, ed. Mango,
p. 72, c. 25, ll. 1–3; p. 74, c. 25, ll. 4–11 (text).
75
Similar installations were also built in the past, for example, during the time of the Roman
emperor Caligula (CE) or the Persian king of kings Xerxes (480 BCE). Cf. Viermann, ‘The
Battle of Yarmouk’, pp. 56–7, with further bibliography.
76
See the thorough analysis of Viermann, ‘The Battle of Yarmouk’, pp. 241–66, along with
further bibliography and commentary on the political aftermath of Yarmouk’s battle.
77
See Nikephoros, Short History, ed. Mango, p. 74, c. 25, l. 7 (text). For this idea, see Viermann,
‘The Battle of Yarmouk’, p. 257.

and inclusion of this event as a satirical element in his story show that not
everyone was pleased with Heraclius’ actions. However, one can
anticipate that the parade would have at least entertained those present,
offering them a unique experience that eclipsed, even if only
temporarily, Heraclius’ failure against the Arabs.
Summary and conclusion
To summarize and conclude, all six strategic movements examined in this

paper, whether they involved people or relics, were chosen because they
reveal different aspects of seventh-century imperial propaganda. In a
way, they contributed to the legitimization of Heraclius’ accession.
These movements were integral to his political and military activities
against Byzantium’s rivals, here the Avars, the Persians, and the Arabs.
Last but not least, they were employed to extol Heraclius’
achievements, establish him as a Christian emperor, and promote the
political ideal of the divine providence of imperial authority.
Heraclius’ arrival in Constantinople in 610 enabled him to seize the
throne and form his dynasty. The ritual accession revealed the support
he enjoyed from the senatorial elite and the church, despite the fact
that he had assassinated his predecessor Phocas. As part of his plan to
further establish his position and consolidate his dynasty, he made
preparations for his infant son to be acclaimed soon after his birth. The
ceremony involved many movements on behalf of the main
participants. The senior and junior co-emperor moved from the palace
to the hippodrome and then to the church, ensuring that all the
necessary steps would be appropriately performed.
Nevertheless, when Heraclius’ first wife Fabia-Eudokia, who was also
crowned augusta, died, the next bride he chose was his niece, Martina,
and the marriage was condemned as incestuous. Fearing internal
instability and feuds when he was forced to abandon the capital to
continue his military expedition against the Persians, he took Martina
along. Martina even accompanied him when he returned the True
Cross to Jerusalem, an act that can be interpreted as seeking
redemption. Managing the travels, or lack thereof, for the rest of his
household manifests Heraclius’ strategic aim to create a sense of
stability for the empire’s citizens. For example, every time he left the
capital, he ensured that his son Heraclius Constantine III, his crowned
co-emperor and designated successor, remained there as a representative
of the authority of his father. Despite the boy’s youth, he embodied
that ideal for the capital’s residents. Of course, Heraclius left excellent
regents from the ecclesiastical and secular spheres, namely Patriarch
Sergius and the statesman Bonus, which allowed state affairs to run as
smoothly as possible.
In critical times Heraclius was summoned back to the capital: during
the attacks of the Avars in 623 and also during the simultaneous siege of
Constantinople in 626 by the Avars, Slavs, and Persians. The first time he
came, but the second time, although the threat was greater than before,
he chose to remain away to avoid losing the strategic advantages he had
gained over the years of fighting against the Sasanians. However, he
sent instructions for the city’s defence and a supportive garrison. His
military leadership skills allowed him to make strategic decisions with
positive outcomes. He ordered the tripartite division and movement of
the army, and the troops led by his brother, Theodorus, also by divine
intervention managed to prevail over Byzantines’ enemies.
The mobility of religious objects, namely the icon of the Mother of
God (or that of Christ) carried around the city walls by Patriarch
Sergius in 623 and the True Cross returned to its rightful sacred place
in Jerusalem in 630, reveal a great deal about seventh-century political
ideology and thought. The first played a role in enhancing the morale
of the Constantinopolitans in the face of grave danger. Subsequently,
after the siege by the Avars had lifted, it gradually strengthened the cult
of the Mother of God in the capital. The second movement, the
restoration of the True Cross, allowed Heraclius to evoke an association
with the founder of the Byzantine Empire, Constantine the Great, and
also with Old Testament leadership models, such as Moses and,
partially, David. The use of Davidic language and the ideal of divinely
appointed rulership was consolidated, subsequently becoming a
standard component of the repertoire of imperial ideology in
Byzantium across the ages.
The two triumphal entries of Heraclius into cities – Jerusalem and
Hiereia – took the form of a thanksgiving procession to God, allowing
Heraclius to promote the idea of a pious emperor. The pious emperor
Heraclius also employed the formulation pistos en Christo basileus in his
titulature. Adopting this political terminology is interpreted as a further
step into the process of Hellenization of the empire. This change was
another ideological element initiated by Heraclius that remained in the
imperial phraseology until the fall of Constantinople in 1435.
Examining at least two occasions when Heraclius went on a failed
military campaign has proved fruitful. It has demonstrated not only the
resilient personality of the emperor towards hardships but also the
mobility strategies that assisted him on both occasions. The first defeat
was at the hands of the Sasanians at the beginning of his reign, in 613;
the second was near the end, in 636, against the Arabs. The first years
of Heraclius’ rule faced unmitigated disasters, including the Sasanian
conquest of Jerusalem in 614 and the seizure of the True Cross as a

trophy. Heraclius retreated to the capital, took the time to train his
soldiers and waited patiently, to finally launch an offensive against the
empire’s enemies. Whenever possible, the transfer of religious objects,
such as the True Cross, the Holy Sponge, and the Holy Lance, whether
to Constantinople or Jerusalem, or the personal visits (along with his
wife) to such important locations, increased the morale and assisted in
projecting his public image. Again, the same applies in 639 if we accept
the events described by Patriarch Nicephorus as accurate. Heraclius first
took a sedentary break at Hieria, planning his majestic, mechanically
demanding travel ‘over the sea’, which would draw attention to his
positive achievements rather than failures.
Overall, Heraclius’ mobility provided him with opportunities that
would not have existed had he remained in Constantinople throughout
his entire reign. Most importantly, he was able to assert his authority
across the full extent of the empire due to his long years on campaign.
In fact, he was the first emperor to stay away from Constantinople
with his troops for so long, with nearly five years of absence (624–629/
30). His decision to lead the Byzantine army personally allowed him to
take strategic decisions on site that ultimately led to victory. In
addition, being away from the capital helped Heraclius escape the lack
of acceptance for his second marriage. By moving Martina, the couple
avoided the wrath of people, clergy, or imperial officials who wished
them harm. Heraclius’ imperial authority was further enhanced after he
visited Jerusalem to restore the True Cross. The visit served a dual role:
to ask for repentance for his sins and to perform thanksgiving to God.
Furthermore, the political couple, like a second Constantine and his
mother, Helena, was able to reinvent the story of the True Cross and
restore this holy relic to Jerusalem. By making Jerusalem the focal
point of his activities, Heraclius made it easier to draw associations
between himself and Christ and Constantine the Great. He became a
pious emperor who enjoyed divine providence. Heraclius emphasizes
his dependence on divine providence by choosing to celebrate his
return to the capital not in a traditional triumphal procession with foot
soldiers, but from a location (Hiereia) that had dynastic associations.
Thus, Hiereia (like Jerusalem) was the ideal place where he could
perform being a penitential ruler (again, like David), dependent on
God’s grace.
This paper has shown that each of these movements of people or relics
and the subsequent ideological manifestations had a long-lasting impact
on Heraclius’ reign and the history of the Byzantine Empire. It
constitutes a small contribution to the ongoing exploration of the
theme of mobility. The political thought and ideology promoted by
Emperor Heraclius continued to drive developments throughout the

centuries, and thus it is vital to research the historical phenomena that
promulgated them. This look at the mobility of people and relics in
the seventh century has, I hope, provided a more nuanced
understanding of the complex ideological transformations of
seventh-century Byzantium and can serve as an impetus for further
explorations.
University of Cyprus


Early Medieval Europe - 2023 - Sykopetritou

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Medieval Europe - 2023 - Sykopetritou

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mobility in seventh-century Byzantium:

analysing Emperor Heraclius’ political

* I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr Claudia Rapp (University of Vienna/Austrian

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3) 405–429

became increasingly undisciplined and thus ineffective in protecting

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

paper hopes to contribute to the ongoing research on Heraclius by

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

manufactured bridge of boats in 638, to counteract the negative

Arriving in Constantinople (610)

Heraclius, son of the exarch of Carthage Heraclius the Elder, came to

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Leading the army in person (613)

After having consolidated his authority and dynastic succession,

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

stability. In 613, he took a risk by departing from Constantinople and

Engaging in an offensive war (622)

Heraclius’ life combined rotating periods of immobility and extensive

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Rushing back to Constantinople – facing the Avars’ threat (623–4)

Heraclius’ initial confrontations with the Persians were interrupted by the

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

authority.29 By following her husband, Martina could be cast as a caring

Continuing the offensive war (626)

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Returning to Constantinople (629)

Another movement connected to Heraclius is his triumphant return to

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

The restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Cross was a solemn symbol of the imperial ideology of Byzantium and

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Marcian, Justin I and Justinian were addressed or acclaimed as a new

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

enemy. By forging such strong associations with Moses, Heraclius

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

speech to the army, Heraclius is presented as paraphrasing a psalm of

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

people, or Jerusalem and Constantinople.68 Nowadays, scholars have

The majestic sea-crossing on horseback (638)

Emperor Heraclius’ return to Constantinople in 629 after his victorious

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

Summary and conclusion

To summarize and conclude, all six strategic movements examined in this

conquest of Jerusalem in 614 and the seizure of the True Cross as a

Emperor Heraclius continued to drive developments throughout the

Early Medieval Europe 2023 31 (3)

You might also like