Byzantine Diplomacy 600-1100

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

A couple of questions for you guys:

1) Was there any single guiding principal behind Byzantine diplomacy in all its guises during this period?

2) During Constantine VII's reign what diplomatic events occurred? I already have Ogla/Helena's visit and conversion, peace with and the conversion of the Magyars, peace and trade rights with the Rus in 954 and also the exchanging of prisoners with Ali Saif ad-Dauda. Just need a couple more.

Just that my brother's a bit stuck with some Uni work and he needs some input ASAP, he'd appreciate anything you can give. Thanks in advance.

[King Henry V]

I think the guiding principle was either to dazzle future enemies with gold and the wonders of Constantinople or to avoid combat as much as possible, bribing princelings and generals to rebel or attempt to take power for themselves against the aforesiad enemies.

[edyzmedieval]

One of my favourite topics. ~:)

So to answer your questions BKB.

1.)There was no diplomatic "guide" though they followed some rules. One of the rules which the Emperors used was to ally with someone to destroy your enemy, then the empire would destroy their ally.

Ex: Byzantines allied with the Pechenegs against the Rus. Then, the Byzantines destroyed the Rus. After that, they crushed the Pechenegs.

2.) Constantine VII Phorpyrogennetos was a very inactive man. He rezumed his reign to the writing of 2 books. Apart from those you enumerated, not much is to say about him.

If you want, I can give you the names of the books. ~:)

~:cheers:

[Meneldil]

That sounds simple. Either they allied with everyone, or they ended up toasted.

In the 800's, I think the Byzantine Empire wasn't considered as a real superpower anymore, and had serious problems dealing with the surrounding people/nations. Dyplomacy was the only way to survive.

And I disagree with Edyz, some of the Byzantines' allies were quite trusted. Once they converted to Christianism, the Rus weren't considered as real opponents. And the Khazar Khagnate stayed allied with the Empire for quite a long time. In fact, I've never heard of a Byzantine/Khazar conflict.

[edyzmedieval]

And I disagree with Edyz, some of the Byzantines' allies were quite trusted. Once they converted to Christianism, the Rus weren't considered as real opponents. And the Khazar Khagnate stayed allied with the Empire for quite a long time. In fact, I've never heard of a Byzantine/Khazar conflict.

No...They weren't dangerous at all...
They just tried to conquer Constantinople, tiny thing.... ~;)

The Khazars haven't had any serious conflicts because they were far....
But the Pechenegs...Different story...

[Knight Templar]

1) Was there any single guiding principal behind Byzantine diplomacy in all its guises during this period?

2) During Constantine VII's reign what diplomatic events occurred? I already have Ogla/Helena's visit and conversion, peace with and the conversion of the Magyars, peace and trade rights with the Rus in 954 and also the exchanging of prisoners with Ali Saif ad-Dauda. Just need a couple more.

1) Well, as Meneldil said, Byz had one loyal ally (especially during the 7th and 8th century)- The Khazar Khagnate. They helped the Empire in their war against Arabs.
In the Balkan, the Empire was looking for the allies against Bulgarians. So they found the Hungarians, the Croatians, the Russians and the Pechenegs, but most of these alliances lasted as long as the war against the Bulgaians.
Also, wise emperors (like Alexius I) knew how to use the Cumans and the Pechenegs against each other.
Since 11th century, I think Empire didn't have loyal allies, if their ex-allies attacked them, they would just ally with former enemy against their ex-ally. Example: (again) Alexius I used the crusaders to re-gain western Lesser Asia from the Sultanate of Rum (one of the Seljuk states). When Bohemond of Otranto, one of the crusade leaders, later attacked the Empire, the called the same Seljuks for help (and won).
2) As far as I know, that would be all.


Ex: Byzantines allied with the Pechenegs against the Rus. Then, the Byzantines destroyed the Rus. After that, they crushed the Pechenegs. I don't think the Empire ever initiated the war against the Pechenegs, they just defended themselves whan attacked.

edit: grammar

[edyzmedieval]

Templar is right on some things.

The Khazar Khaganate was the only trusted ally of the Byzantines.

[Vykke]

A lot of things happened to the Empire during that time. In the earlier part of that period their policies were largely geared toward dealing with the threat posed by the Arabs, though after they stopped making serious attempts to take Constantinople their main enemy became the Bulgars. Later still it was the Normans, then the Turks, and then the Crusaders, then the Turks again, etc. Usually there was one major enemy that posed the clearest threat, and the Empire tried to ally with anyone else around them who could help deal with that threat, even if they were former enemies. They liked to turn enemies into allies, or just turn enemies against each other. This didn't always work, of course, and the Empire frequently found itself facing enemies on multiple sides, but that was rarely through lack of trying.

As Henry V mentioned, when war did break out they frequently tried to deal with the generals or officers in charge of the enemy troops through bribery or other means rather than defeating their army in battle. Of course, the abundance of battles they fought in across the centuries shows that they weren't too averse to resolving problems on the battlefield, either. It just depended on who was in charge at the moment and the amount and type of resources at their disposal.

When threatened by pagans, they often tried to convert them, hoping either or pacify them or make them into allies, or both (ex: Bulgars, Kievans, Alans, Magyars [unsuccessfully]). That tactic was hardly isolated to the Byzantines, though.

Also, the Byzantines' ability to deal effectively with outside threats was very cyclical. They would go through a period of effective leadership, drive away their enemies and restore some of their strength, then the aristocracy or generals would start bickering among themselves and the empire would sink into a period of self-absorption, usually accompanied by corruption and civil war. The empire would weaken and their enemies would rise again or new ones would come, until someone capable rose to the top, did away with all the infighting, and defeated the new threat, beginning another period of capable leadership that gradually rebuilt the empire again (usually a bit less strong than before, though). Repeat until 1453. I think these cycles are one of the reasons why the Byzantines seem to have the dual reputations, almost contradictory, of being both ridiculously pompous and tradition-bound, as well as pragmatic and savvy.

[kataphraktoi]

What does Kataphraktoi have to say about this?

Kataphraktoi says the guiding principle of Byzantine diplomacy was consistently based on the need to achieve peace by any means. There is a reason why Byzantines have often been portrayed as "defensive" in its history.

Kataphraktoi says that Christianity was the major driver behind the principle of "any means to achieve the ends of peace". Early Church fathers like Basil of Caesarea looked down upon taking a man's life but accepted it as unnecessary for the protection of the state. However, penance had to be paid for as a soldier who takes lives. The Byzantine state accepted all conflicts as essential "just" and "holy" as opposed to the idea of an official "Holy War". The understanding was the underlying Christian duty of defending Christian lands in all conflicts and as such any actions undertaken were endowed with an unspoken knowledge or meaning of a just war.

As a consequence, the duplicitous and cunning character of Byzantine diplomacy was born. The end justifies the means. IN reference to Christianity again, this was seen as preferable since diplomacy saved Byzantine Christian lives (at the expense of others hehehehehehe..bwahahahahhaahahaha..mehehehehe)

But Byzantines were pragmatic realists as well as mystics. Diplomacy offset the huge imbalance of its resources compared to their numerous and sometimes larger enemies.

This is all Kataphraktoi has to say for now. Kataphraktoi likes Byzantium very much. And he hates Seljuk Turks. ~D