Chapter CCCLXXXV: Section 7 (13)

"The personal greatness of Theodoric overshadowed Emperor and
Empire; from his palace at Ravenna, by one title or another,
by direct dominion, as guardian, as elder kinsman, as
representative of the Roman power, as head by natural
selection of the whole Teutonic world, he ruled over all the
western lands save one; and even to the conquering Frank he
could say, Thus far shalt thou come and no further. In true
majesty such a position was more than Imperial; moreover there
was nothing in the rule of Theodoric which touched the Roman
life of Italy. … As far as we can see, it was the very
greatness of Theodoric which kept his power from being
lasting.
{2740}
Like so many others of the very greatest of men, he set on
foot a system which he himself could work, but which none but
himself could work. He sought to set up a kingdom of Goths and
Romans, under which the two nations should live side by side,
distinct but friendly, each keeping its own law and doing its
own work. And for one life-time the thing was done. Theodoric
could keep the whole fabric of Roman life untouched, with the
Goth standing by as an armed protector. He could as he said,
leave to the Roman consul the honours of government and take
for the Gothic king only the toils. Smaller men neither could
nor would do this. … It was the necessary result of his
position that he gave Italy one generation of peace and
prosperity such as has no fellow for ages on either side of
it, but that, when he was gone, a fabric which had no
foundation but his personal qualities broke down with a
crash."

_E. A. Freeman,
Chief Periods of European History,
lecture 3._

ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
The Goths at Ravenna
(Historical Essays, volume 3, chapter 4)._

_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapters 6-13 (volume 3)._

_Cassiodorus,
Letters,
translated and edited by T. Hodgkin._

_H. F. Stewart,
Boethius,
chapter 2._

ROME: A. D. 527-565.
The reign of Justinian.

"In the year after the great Theoderic died (526), the most
famous in the time of Eastern emperors, since Constantine,
began his long and eventful reign (527-567). Justinian was
born a Slavonian peasant, near what was then Sardica, and is
now Sofia; his original Slave name, Uprawda, was latinized
into Justinian, when he became an officer in the imperial
guard. Since the death of the second Theodosius (450), the
Eastern emperors had been, as they were continually to be, men
not of Roman or Greek, but of barbarian or half barbarian
origin, whom the imperial city and service attracted,
naturalized, and clothed with civilized names and Roman
character. Justinian's reign, so great and so unhappy, was
marked by magnificent works, the administrative organization
of the empire, the great buildings at Constantinople, the last
and grandest codification of Roman law.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

But it was also marked by domestic shame, by sanguinary
factions, by all the vices and crimes of a rapacious and
ungrateful despotism.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

Yet it seemed for a while like the revival of the power and
fortune of Rome. Justinian rose to the highest ideas of
imperial ambition; and he was served by two great masters of
war, foreigners in origin like himself, Belisarius the
Thracian, and Narses the Armenian, who were able to turn to
full account the resources, still enormous, of the empire, its
immense riches, its technical and mechanical skill, its
supplies of troops, its military traditions, its command of
the sea. Africa was wrested from the Vandals;

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534;

Italy from the successors of Theoderic [see below]; much of
Spain from the West Goths."

_R. W. Church,
The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 6._

"In spite of the brilliant events which have given the reign
of Justinian a prominent place in the annals of mankind, it is
presented to us in a series of isolated and incongruous facts.
Its chief interest is derived from the biographical memorials
of Belisarius, Theodora, and Justinian; and its most
instructive lesson has been drawn from the influence which its
legislation has exercised on foreign nations. The unerring
instinct of mankind has however fixed on this period as one of
the greatest eras in man's annals. The actors may have been
men of ordinary merit, but the events of which they were the
agents effected the mightiest revolutions in society. The
frame of the ancient world was broken to pieces, and men long
looked back with wonder and admiration at the fragments which
remained, to prove the existence of a nobler race than their
own. The Eastern Empire, though too powerful to fear any
external enemy, was withering away from the rapidity with
which the State devoured the resources of the people. … The
life of Belisarius, either in its reality or its romantic
form, has typified his age. In his early youth, the world was
populous and wealthy, the empire rich and powerful. He
conquered extensive realms and mighty nations and led kings
captive to the footstool of Justinian, the lawgiver of
civilisation. Old age arrived; Belisarius sank into the grave
suspected and impoverished by his feeble and ungrateful
master; and the world, from the banks of the Euphrates to
those of the Tagus, presented the awful spectacle of famine
and plague, of ruined cities, and of nations on the brink of
extermination. The impression on the hearts of men was
profound."

_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 3, section 1._

See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.

ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon,
Life of Belisarius._

ROME: A. D. 528-556.
The Persian Wars and the Lazic War of Justinian.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627;
also, LAZICA.

ROME: A. D. 535-553.
Fall of the Gothic kingdom of Theodoric.
Recovery of Italy by the Emperor Justinian.
The long Gothic siege of Rome.
The siege, capture and pillage by Totila.
The forty days of lifeless desolation in the great city.

On the death of the great Theodoric, the Ostrogothic crown
passed, not to his daughter, Amalasuntha, but to her son,
Athalaric, a child of eight or ten years. The boy-king died at
the age of sixteen, and Amalasuntha assumed the regal power
and title, calling one of her cousins, named Theodatus, or
Theodahad, to the throne, to share it with her. She had
powerful enemies in the Gothic court and the ungrateful
Theodatus was soon in conspiracy with them. Amalasuntha and
her partisans were overcome, and the unhappy queen, after a
short imprisonment on a little island in the lake of Bolsena,
was put to death. These dissensions in the Gothic kingdom gave
encouragement to the Eastern emperor, the ambitious Justinian,
to undertake the reconquest of Italy. His great general,
Belisarius, had just vanquished the Vandals and restored
Carthaginian Africa to the imperial domain.

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

With far smaller forces than that achievement demanded,
Belisarius was now sent against the Goths. He landed, first,
in Sicily (A. D. 535), and the whole island was surrendered to
him, almost without a blow. The following spring (having
crossed to Carthage meantime and quelled a formidable revolt),
he passed the straits from Messina and landed his small army
in Italy. Marching northwards, he encountered his first
opposition at Neapolis—modern Naples—where he was detained
for twenty days by the stout resistance of the city.
{2741}
It was surprised, at length, by a storming party which crept
through one of the aqueducts of the town, and it suffered
fearfully from the barbarians of the Roman army before
Belisarius could recover control of his savage troops. Pausing
for a few months to organize his easy conquest of southern
Italy, he received, before he marched to Rome, the practical
surrender of the capital. On the 9th of December, 536, he
entered the city and the Gothic garrison marched out. The
Goths, meantime, had deposed the cowardly Theodatus and raised
to the throne their most trusty warrior, Witigis. They
employed the winter of 537 in gathering all their available
forces at Ravenna, and in the spring they returned to Rome,
150,000 strong, to expel the Byzantine invader. Belisarius had
busily improved the intervening months, and the long-neglected
fortifications of the city were wonderfully restored and
improved. At the beginning of March, the Goths were thundering
at the gates of Rome; and then began the long siege, which
endured for a year and nine days, and which ended in the
discomfiture of the huge army of the besiegers. Their retreat
was a flight and great numbers were slain by the pursuing
Romans. "The numbers and prowess of the Goths were rendered
useless by the utter incapacity of their commander. Ignorant
how to assault, ignorant how to blockade, he allowed even the
sword of Hunger to be wrested from him and used against his
army by Belisarius. He suffered the flower of the Gothic
nation to perish, not so much by the weapons of the Romans as
by the deadly dews of the Campagna." After the retreat of the
Goths from Rome, the conquest of Italy would have been quickly
completed, no doubt, if the jealousy of Justinian had not
hampered Belisarius, by sending the eunuch Narses—who proved
to be a remarkable soldier, in the end—to divide the command
with him. As it was, the surrender to Belisarius of the Gothic
capital, Ravenna, by the Gothic king, Witigis, in the spring
of 540, seemed to make the conquest an accomplished fact. The
unconquered Gothic warriors then held but two important
cities—Verona and Pavia. Milan they had retaken after losing
it, and had practically destroyed, massacring the inhabitants.

See MILAN: A. D. 539.

But now they chose a new king, Ildibad, who reigned
promisingly for a year and was slain; then another, who wore
the crown but five months; and, lastly, they found a true
royal chief in the knightly young warrior Baduila, or Totila,
by whose energy and valor the Gothic cause was revived.
Belisarius had been recalled by his jealous master, and the
quarrels of eleven generals who divided his authority gave
every opportunity to the youthful king. Defeating the Roman
armies in two battles, at Faenza and in the valley of Mugello,
near Florence, he crossed the Apennines, passed by Rome,
besieged and took Naples and Cumæ and overran all the southern
provinces of Italy, in 542 and 543, finding everywhere much
friendliness among the people, whom the tax-gatherers of
Justinian had alienated by their merciless rapacity. In 544,
Belisarius, restored to favor and command only because of the
desperate need of his services, came back to Italy to recover
what his successors had lost; but he came almost alone.
Without adequate troops, he could only watch, from Ravenna,
and circumscribe a little, the successes of his enterprising
antagonist. The latter, having strengthened his position well,
in central as well as in southern Italy, applied himself to
the capture of Rome. In May, 546, the Gothic lines were drawn
around the city and a blockade established which soon produced
famine and despair. An attempt by Belisarius to break the
leaguer came to naught, and Rome was betrayed to Totila on the
17th of December following. He stayed the swords of his
followers when they began to slay, but gave them full license
to plunder. When the great city had been stripped and most of
its inhabitants had fled, he resolved to destroy it utterly;
but he was dissuaded from that most barbarous design by a
letter of remonstrance from Belisarius. Contenting himself,
then, with throwing down a great part of the walls, he
withdrew his whole army—having no troops to spare for an
adequate garrison—and took with him every single surviving
inhabitant (so the historians of the time declare), so that
Rome, for the space of six weeks or more (January and
February, 547), was a totally deserted and silent city. At the
end of that time, Belisarius threw his army inside of the
broken walls, and repaired them with such celerity that Totila
was baffled when he hastened back to expel the intruders.
Three times the Goths attacked and were repulsed; the best of
their warriors were slain; the prestige of their leader was
lost. But, once more, jealousies and enmities at
Constantinople recalled Belisarius and the Goths recovered
ground. In 549 they again invested Rome and it was betrayed to
them, as before, by a part of the garrison. Totila now made
the great city—great even in its ruins—his capital, and
exerted himself to restore its former glories. His arms for a
time were everywhere successful. Sicily was invaded and
stripped of its portable wealth. Sardinia and Corsica were
occupied; the shores of Greece were threatened. But in 552 the
tide of fortune was turned once more in favor of
Justinian,—this time by his second great general, the eunuch
Narses. In one decisive battle fought that year, in July, at a
point on the Flaminian Way where it crosses the Apennines, the
army of the Goths was broken and their king was slain. The
remnant which survived crowned another king, Teias; but, he,
too, perished, the following March, in a battle fought at the
foot of Mount Vesuvius, and the Ostrogothic kingdom was at an
end. Rome was already recovered—the fifth change of masters it
had undergone during the war—and one by one, all the strong
places in the hands of the Goths were given up. The
restoration of Italy to the Empire was complete.

_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 16;
book 5, chapters 1-24._

"Of all ages in history the sixth is the one in which the
doctrine that the Roman Empire came to an end at some time in
the fifth sounds most grotesque. Again the Roman armies march
to victory, to more than victory, to conquest, to conquests
more precious than the conquests of Cæsar or of Trajan, to
conquests which gave back Rome herself to her own Augustus. We
may again be met with the argument that we have ourselves used
so often; that the Empire had to win back its lost provinces
does indeed prove that it had lost them; but no one seeks to
prove that the provinces had not been lost; what the world is
loth to understand is that there was still life enough in the
Roman power to win them back again.
{2742}
I say the Roman power; what if I said the Roman commonwealth?
It may startle some to hear that in the sixth century, nay in
the seventh, the most common name for the Empire of Rome is
still 'respublica.' No epithet is needed; there is no Deed to
say that the 'respublica' spoken of is 'respublica Romano.' It
is the Republic which wins back Italy, Africa, and Southern
Spain from their Teutonic masters. … The point of the
employment of the word lies in this, that it marks the
unbroken being of the Roman state; in the eyes of the men of
the sixth century the power which won back the African
province in their own day was the same power which had first
won it well-nigh seven hundred years before. The consul
Belisarius was the true successor of the consul Scipio."

_E. A. Freeman,
The Chief Periods of European History,
lecture 4._

ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 41 and 43._

_J. B. Bury,
History of the Later Roman Empire,
book 4, chapters 5-7 (volume 1)._

_R. H. Wrightson,
The Sancta Respublica Romana,
chapters 5-7._

_Lord Mahon,
Life of Belisarius._

ROME: A. D. 541.
Extinction of the office of Consul.

See CONSUL, ROMAN.

ROME: A. D. 554-800.
The Exarchate of Ravenna.

On the final overthrow and annihilation of the Gothic monarchy
in Italy by the decisive victories of the eunuch Narses, its
throne at Ravenna was occupied by a line of vice-royal rulers,
named exarchs, who represented the Eastern Roman emperor,
being appointed by him and exercising authority in his name.
"Their jurisdiction was soon reduced to the limits of a narrow
province; but Narses himself, the first and most powerful of
the exarchs, administered above fifteen years the entire
kingdom of Italy. … A duke was stationed for the defence and
military command of each of the principal cities; and the eye
of Narses pervaded the ample prospect from Calabria to the
Alps. The remains of the Gothic nation evacuated the country
or mingled with the people. … The civil state of Italy, after
the agitation of a long tempest, was fixed by a pragmatic
sanction, which the emperor promulgated at the request of the
pope. Justinian introduced his own jurisprudence into the
schools and tribunals of the West. … Under the exarchs of
Ravenna, Rome was degraded to the second rank. Yet the
senators were gratified by the permission of visiting their
estates in Italy, and of approaching without obstacle the
throne of Constantinople: the regulation of weights and
measures was delegated to the pope and senate; and the
salaries of lawyers and physicians, of orators and
grammarians, were destined to preserve or rekindle the light
of science in the ancient capital. … During a period of 200
years Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … Eighteen successive
exarchs were invested, in the decline of the empire, with the
full remains of civil, of military and even of ecclesiastical
power. Their immediate jurisdiction, which was afterwards
consecrated as the patrimony of St. Peter, extended over the
modern Romagna, the marshes or valleys of Ferrara and
Commachio, five maritime cities from Rimini to Ancona, and a
second inland Pentapolis, between the Adriatic coast and the
hills of the Apennine. Three subordinate provinces—of Rome, of
Venice, and of Naples—which were divided by hostile lands from
the palace of Ravenna, acknowledged, both in peace and war,
the supremacy of the exarch. The duchy of Rome appears to have
included the Tuscan, Sabine, and Latin conquests of the first
400 years of the city, and the limits may be distinctly traced
along the coast, from Civita Vecchio, to Terracina, and with
the course of the Tiber from Ameria and Narni to the port of
Ostia. The numerous islands from Grado to Chiozza composed the
infant dominion of Venice; but the more accessible towns on
the continent were overthrown by the Lombards, who beheld with
impotent fury a new capital rising from the waves. The power
of the dukes of Naples was circumscribed by the bay and the
adjacent isles, by the hostile territory of Capua, and by the
Roman colony of Amalphi. … The three islands of Sardinia,
Corsica, and Sicily still adhered to the empire. … Rome was
oppressed by the iron sceptre of the exarchs, and a Greek,
perhaps a eunuch, insulted with impunity the ruins of the
Capitol. But Naples soon acquired the privilege of electing
her own dukes; the independence of Amalphi was the fruit of
commerce; and the voluntary attachment of Venice was finally
ennobled by an equal alliance with the Eastern empire."

E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 43 and 45.

{2742a} {2742b}

[IMAGE: EUROPE AT THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN 565 A. D. EAST ROMAN EMPIRE RACE DIVISIONS CELTIC PEOPLES. SLAVIC PEOPLES. LITHUANIAN PEOPLES. URAL ALTAIC PEOPLES. SCANDINAVIANS. ANGLES, SAXONS, JUTES ETC. THE GERMANIC STATES AND PEOPLES ALL APPEAR IN DIFFERENT SHADES OF PINK.]

ROME: A. D. 565-628.
Decline of the Eastern Empire.
Thickening calamities.
Reigns of Justinus II., Tiberius Constantinus, Maurice,
and Phocas.
Brief brightening of events by Heraclius.
His campaigns against the Persians.

"The thirty years which followed the death of Justinian are
covered by three reigns, those of Justinus II. (565-578),
Tiberius Constantinus (578-582), and Maurice (582-602). These
three emperors were men of much the same character as the
predecessors of Justinian; each of them was an experienced
official of mature age, who was selected by the reigning
emperor as his most worthy successor. … Yet under them the
empire was steadily going down hill: the exhausting effects of
the reign of Justinian were making themselves felt more and
more, and at the end of the reign of Maurice a time of chaos
and disaster was impending, which came to a head under his
successor. … The misfortunes of the Avaric and Slavonic war
[see AVARS] were the cause of the fall of the Emperor Maurice.
… Maurice sealed his fate when, in 602, he issued orders for
the discontented army of the Danube to winter north of the
river, in the waste marshes of the Slavs. The troops refused
to obey the order, and chased away their generals. Then
electing as their captain an obscure centurion, named Phocas,
they marched on Constantinople. Maurice armed the city
factions, the 'Blues' and 'Greens,' and strove to defend
himself. But when he saw that no one would fight for him, he
fled across the Bosphorus with his wife and children, to seck
refuge in the Asiatic provinces, where he was less unpopular
than in Europe. Soon he was pursued by orders of Phocas, whom
the army had now saluted as emperor, and caught at Chalcedon.
The cruel usurper had him executed, along with all his five
sons, the youngest a child of only three years of age. … For
the first time since Constantinople had become the seat of
empire the throne had been won by armed rebellion and the
murder of the legitimate ruler. …
{2743}
Phocas was a mere brutal soldier—cruel, ignorant, suspicious,
and reckless, and in his incapable hands the empire began to
fall to pieces with alarming rapidity. He opened his reign
with a series of cruel executions of his predecessor's
friends, and from that moment his deeds of bloodshed never
ceased. … The moment that Phocas had mounted the throne,
Chosroës of Persia declared war on him, using the hypocritical
pretext that he wished to revenge Maurice, for whom he
professed a warm personal friendship. This war was far
different from the indecisive contests in the reigns of
Justinian and Justin II. In two successive years the Persians
burst into North Syria and ravaged it as far as the sea; but
in the third they turned north and swept over the hitherto
untouched provinces of Asia Minor. In 608 their main army
penetrated across Cappadocia and Galatia right up to the gates
of Chalcedon. The inhabitants of Constantinople could see the
blazing villages across the water on the Asiatic shore. … Plot
after plot was formed in the capital against Phocas, but he
succeeded in putting them all down, and slew the conspirators
with fearful tortures. For eight years his reign continued. …
Africa was the only portion of the Roman Empire which in the
reign of Phocas was suffering neither from civil strife nor
foreign invasion. It was well governed by the aged exarch
Heraclius, who was so well liked in the province that the
emperor had not dared to depose him. Urged by desperate
entreaties from all parties in Constantinople to strike a blow
against the tyrant, and deliver the empire from the yoke of a
monster, Heraclius at last consented." He sent his son—who
bore the same name, Heraclius—with a fleet, to Constantinople.
Phocas was at once abandoned by his troops and was given up to
Heraclius, whose sailors slew him. "Next day the patriarch and
the senate hailed Heraclius [the younger] as emperor, and he
was duly crowned in St. Sophia on October 5, A. D. 610. … Save
Africa and Egypt and the district immediately around the
capital, all the provinces were overrun by the Persian, the
Avar and the Slav. The treasury was empty, and the army had
almost disappeared, owing to repeated and bloody defeats in
Asia Minor. Heraclius seems at first to have almost despaired.
… For the first twelve years of his reign he remained at
Constantinople, endeavouring to reorganize the empire, and to
defend at any rate the frontiers of Thrace and Asia Minor. The
more distant provinces he hardly seems to have hoped to save,
and the chronicle of his early years is filled with the
catalogue of the losses of the empire. … In 614 the Persian
army appeared before the holy city of Jerusalem, took it after
a short resistance and occupied it with a garrison. But the
populace rose and slaughtered the Persian troops, when
Shahrbarz had departed with his main army. This brought him
back in wrath: he stormed the city and put 90,000 Christians
to the sword, only sparing the Jewish inhabitants. Zacharias,
Patriarch of Jerusalem, was carried into captivity, and with
him went what all Christians then regarded as the most
precious thing in the world—the wood of the 'True Cross'. …

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

The horror and rage roused by the loss of the 'True Cross' and
the blasphemies of King Chosroës brought about the first real
outburst of national feeling that we meet in the history of
the Eastern Empire. … Heraclius made no less than six
campaigns (A. D. 622-627) in his gallant and successful
attempt to save the half-ruined empire. He won great and
well-deserved fame, and his name would be reckoned among the
foremost of the world's warrior-kings if it had not been for
the misfortunes which afterwards fell on him in his old age.
His first campaign cleared Asia Minor of the Persian hosts,
not by a direct attack, but by skilful strategy. … In his next
campaigns Heraclius endeavoured to liberate the rest of the
Roman Empire by a similar plan: he resolved to assail Chosroës
at home, and force him to recall the armies he kept in Syria
and Egypt to defend his own Persian provinces. In 623-4 the
Emperor advanced across the Armenian mountains and threw
himself into Media. … Chosroës … fought two desperate battles
to cover Ctesiphon. His generals were defeated in both, but
the Roman army suffered severely. Winter was at hand, and
Heraclius fell back on Armenia. In his next campaign he
recovered Roman Mesopotamia. … But 626 was the decisive year
of the war. The obstinate Chosroës determined on one final
effort to crush Heraclius, by concerting a joint plan of
operations with the Chagan of the Avars. While the main
Persian army watched the emperor in Armenia, a great body
under Shahrbarz slipped south of him into Asia Minor and
marched on the Bosphorus. At the same moment the Chagan of the
Avars, with the whole force of his tribe and of his Slavonic
dependents, burst over the Balkans and beset Constantinople on
the European side. The two barbarian hosts could see each
other across the water, and even contrived to exchange
messages, but the Roman fleet, sailing incessantly up and down
the strait, kept them from joining forces. … In the end of
July 80,000 Avars and Slavs, with all sorts of siege
implements, delivered simultaneous assaults along the land
front of the city, but they were beaten back with great
slaughter." They suffered even more on trying to encounter the
Roman galleys with rafts. "Then the Chagan gave up the siege
in disgust and retired across the Danube." Meantime Heraclius
was wasting Media and Mesopotamia, and next year he ended the
war by a decisive victory near Nineveh, as the result of which
he took the palace of Dastagerd, "and divided among his troops
such a plunder as had never been seen since Alexander the
Great captured Susa. … In March, 628, a glorious peace ended
the 26 years of the Persian war. Heraclius returned to
Constantinople in the summer of the same year with his spoils,
his victorious army, and his great trophy, the 'Holy Wood.' …
The quiet for which he yearned was to be denied him, and the
end of his reign was to be almost as disastrous as the
commencement. The great Saracen invasion was at hand, and it
was at the very moment of Heraclius' triumph that Mahomet sent
out his famous circular letter to the kings of the earth,
inviting them to embrace Islam."

_C. W. C. Oman,
The Story of the Byzantine Empire,
chapters 9-10._

ALSO IN:
_J. B. Bury,
History of the Later Roman Empire,
book 4, part 2, and book 5, chapters 1-3 (volume 2)._

See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 568-573.
Invasion of the Lombards.
Their conquest of northern Italy.
Their kingdom.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573; and 573-754.

{2744}

ROME: A. D. 590-640.
Increasing influence and importance of the Bishop of Rome.
Circumstances under which his temporal authority grew.

"The fall of the shadowy Empire of the West, and the union of
the Imperial power in the person of the ruler of
Constantinople, brought a fresh accession of dignity and
importance to the Bishop of Rome. The distant Emperor could
exercise no real power over the West. The Ostrogothic kingdom
in Italy scarcely lasted beyond the lifetime of its great
founder Theodoric. The wars of Justinian only served to show
how scanty were the benefits of the Imperial rule. The
invasion of the Lombards united all dwellers in Italy in an
endeavour to escape the lot of servitude and save their land
from barbarism. In this crisis it was found that the Imperial
system had crumbled away, and that the Church alone possessed
a strong organisation. In the decay of the old municipal
aristocracy the people of the towns gathered round their
bishops, whose sacred character inspired some respect in the
barbarians, and whose active charity lightened the calamities
of their flocks. In such a state of things Pope Gregory the
Great raised the Papacy [A. D. 590] to a position of decisive
eminence, and marked out the course of its future policy. The
piety of emperors and nobles had conferred lands on the Roman
Church, not only in Italy, but in Sicily, Corsica, Gaul, and
even in Asia and Africa, until the Bishop of Rome had become
the largest landholder in Italy. To defend his Italian lands
against the incursions of the Lombards was a course suggested
to Gregory by self-interest; to use the resources which came
to him from abroad as a means of relieving the distress of the
suffering people in Rome and Southern Italy was a natural
prompting of his charity. In contrast to this, the distant
Emperor was too feeble to send any effective help against the
Lombards, while the fiscal oppression of his representatives
added to the miseries of the starving people. The practical
wisdom, administrative capacity, and Christian zeal of Gregory
I. led the people of Rome and the neighbouring regions to look
upon the Pope as their head in temporal as well as in
spiritual matters. The Papacy became a national centre to the
Italians, and the attitude of the Popes towards the Emperor
showed a spirit of independence which rapidly passed into
antagonism and revolt. Gregory I. was not daunted by the
difficulties nor absorbed by the cares of his position at
home. When he saw Christianity threatened in Italy by the
heathen Lombards, he boldly pursued a system of religious
colonisation. While dangers were rife at Rome, a band of Roman
missionaries carried Christianity to the distant English, and
in England first was founded a Church which owed its existence
to the zeal of the Roman bishop. Success beyond all that he
could have hoped for attended Gregory's pious enterprise. The
English Church spread and flourished, a dutiful daughter of
her mother-church of Rome. England sent forth missionaries in
her turn, and before the preaching of Willibrod and Winifred
heathenism died away in Friesland, Franconia, and Thuringia.
Under the new name of Boniface, given him by Pope Gregory II.,
Winifred, as Archbishop of Mainz, organised a German Church,
subject to the successor of S. Peter. The course of events in
the East also tended to increase the importance of the See of
Rome. The Mohammedan conquests destroyed the Patriarchates of
Antioch and Jerusalem, which alone could boast of an
apostolical foundation. Constantinople alone remained as a
rival to Rome; but under the shadow of the Imperial despotism
it was impossible for the Patriarch of Constantinople to lay
claim to spiritual independence. The settlement of Islam in
its eastern provinces involved the Empire in a desperate
struggle for its existence. Henceforth its object no longer
was to reassert its supremacy over the West, but to hold its
ground against watchful foes in the East. Italy could hope for
no help from the Emperor, and the Pope saw that a breach with
the Empire would give greater independence to his own
position, and enable him to seek new allies elsewhere."

_M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_T. W. Allies,
The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
chapter 5._

See, also,
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800;
and PAPACY: A. D. 461-604, and after.

ROME: A. D. 632-709.
The Eastern Empire.
Its first conflicts with Islam.
Loss of Syria, Egypt, and Africa.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639, to 647-709.

ROME: A. D. 641-717.
The Eastern Empire.

The period between the death of Heraclius and the advent of
Leo III. (the Isaurian) is covered, in the Eastern Empire, by
the following reigns:

Constantine III. and Heracleonas (641);
Constans II. (641-668);
Constantine IV. (668-685);
Justinian II. (685-711);
Leontius and Absimarus (usurpers, who interrupted the reign
of Justinian II. from 695 to 698 and from 698 to 704);
Philippicus (711-713);
Anastasius II. (713-716);
Theodosius III. (716-717).

ROME: A. D. 717-800.
The Eastern Roman Empire: should it take
the name of the Byzantine Empire?—and when?

"The precise date at which the eastern Roman empire ceased to
exist has been variously fixed. Gibbon remarks, 'that Tiberius
[A. D. 578-582] by the Arabs, and Maurice [A. D. 582-602] by
the Italians, are distinguished as the first of the Greek
Cæsars, as the founders of a new dynasty and empire.' But if
manners, language, and religion are to decide concerning the
commencement of the Byzantine empire, the preceding pages have
shown that its origin must be carried back to an earlier
period; while, if the administrative peculiarities in the form
of government be taken as the ground of decision, the Roman
empire may be considered as indefinitely prolonged with the
existence of the title of Roman emperor, which the sovereigns
of Constantinople continued to retain as long as
Constantinople was ruled by Christian princes. … The period …
at which the Roman empire of the East terminated is decided by
the events which confined the authority of the imperial
government to those provinces where the Greeks formed the
majority of the population; and it is marked by the adoption
of Greek as the language of the government, by the prevalence
of Greek civilisation, and by the identification of the
nationality of the people, and the policy of the emperors with
the Greek church. For, when the Saracen conquests had severed
from the empire all those provinces which possessed a native
population distinct from the Greeks, by language, literature,
and religion, the central government of Constantinople was
gradually compelled to fall back on the interests and passions
of the remaining inhabitants, who were chiefly Greeks. …
{2745}
Yet, as it was by no means identified with the interests and
feelings of the native inhabitants of Hellas, it ought
correctly to be termed Byzantine, and the empire is,
consequently, justly called the Byzantine empire. … Even the
final loss of Egypt, Syria, and Africa only reveals the
transformation of the Roman empire, when the consequences of
the change begin to produce visible effects on the internal
government. The Roman empire seems, therefore, really to have
terminated with the anarchy which followed the murder of
Justinian II. [A. D. 711], the last sovereign of the family of
Heraclius; and Leo III., or the Isaurian [A. D. 717-741], who
identified the imperial administration with ecclesiastical
forms and questions, must be ranked as the first of the
Byzantine monarchs, though neither the emperor, the clergy,
nor the people perceived at the time the moral change in their
position, which makes the establishment of this new era
historically correct. Under the sway of the Heraclian family
[A. D. 610-711], the extent of the empire was circumscribed
nearly within the bounds which it continued to occupy during
many subsequent centuries. … The geographical extent of the
empire at the time of its transition from the Roman to the
Byzantine empire affords evidence of the influence which the
territorial changes produced by the Saracen conquests
exercised in conferring political importance on the Greek
race. The frontier towards the Saracens of Syria commenced at
Mopsuestia in Cilicia, the last fortress of the Arab power. It
ran along the chains of Mounts Amanus and Taurus to the
mountainous district to the north of Edessa and Nisibis,
called, after the time of Justinian, the Fourth Armenia, of
which Martyropolis was the capital. It then followed nearly
the ancient limits of the empire until it reached the Black
Sea, a short distance to the east of Trebizond. … In Europe,
Mount Hæmus [the Balkans] formed the barrier against the
Bulgarians, while the mountainous ranges which bound Macedonia
to the north-west, and encircle the territory of Dyrrachium,
were regarded as the limits of the free Sclavonian states. …
Istria, Venice, and the cities on the Dalmatian coast, still
acknowledged the supremacy of the empire. … In the centre of
Italy, the exarchate of Ravenna still held Rome in subjection,
but the people of Italy were entirely alienated. … The cities
of Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, and Sorento, the district of
Otranto, and the peninsula to the south of the ancient
Sybaris, now called Calabria, were the only parts [of southern
Italy] which remained under the Byzantine government. Sicily,
though it had begun to suffer from the incursions of the
Saracens, was still populous and wealthy."

_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 5, sections 1 and 7._

Dissenting from the view presented above, Professor Freeman
says: "There is no kind of visible break, such as is suggested
by the change of name, between the Empire before Leo and the
Empire after him. The Emperor of the Romans reigned over the
land of Romania after him as well as before him. … Down to the
fall of Constantinople in the East, down to the abdication of
Francis II. in the West, there was no change of title; the
Emperor of the Romans remained Emperor of the Romans, however
shifting might be the extent of his dominions. But from 800 to
1453 there were commonly two, sometimes more, claimants of the
title. The two Empires must be distinguished in some way; and,
from 800 to 1204, 'Eastern' and 'Western' seem the simplest
forms of distinction. But for 'Eastern' it is just as easy,
and sometimes more expressive, to say 'Byzantine'; only it is
well not to begin the use of either name as long as the Empire
keeps even its nominal unity. With the coronation of Charles
the Great [800] that nominal unity comes to an end. The Old
Rome passes away from even the nominal dominion of the prince
who reigns in the New."

_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Essays, series 3,
page 244._

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

ROME: A. D. 728-733.
Beginnings of Papal Sovereignty.
The Iconoclastic controversy.
Rupture with the Byzantine Emperor.
Practical independence assumed by the Pope.

See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774;
and ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

ROME: A. D. 751.
Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.

See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ROME: A. D. 754-774.
Struggle of the Popes against the Lombards.
Their deliverance by Pippin and Charlemagne.
Fall of the Lombard kingdom.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;
also, PAPACY: A. D. 728-774, and 755-774.

ROME: A. D. 800.
Coronation of Charlemagne.
The Empire revived.

See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;
and GERMANY: A. D. 800.

ROME: A. D. 843-951.
The breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire
and founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

See ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
FRANKS: A. D. 814-962;
and GERMANY: A. D. 814-843, to 936-973.

ROME: A. D. 846-849.
Attack by the Saracens.

"A fleet of Saracens from the African coast presumed to enter
the mouth of the Tiber, and to approach a city which even yet,
in her fallen state, was revered as the metropolis of the
Christian world. The gates and ramparts were guarded by a
trembling people; but the tombs and temples of St. Peter and
St. Paul were left exposed in the suburbs of the Vatican and
of the Ostian Way. Their invisible sanctity had protected them
against the Goths, the Vandals, and the Lombards; but the
Arabs disdained both the Gospel and the legend; and their
rapacious spirit was approved and animated by the precepts of
the Koran. The Christian idols were stripped of their costly
offerings. … In their course along the Appian Way, they
pillaged Fundi and besieged Gaeta." The diversion produced by
the siege of Gaeta gave Rome a fortunate respite. In the
interval, a vacancy occurred on the papal throne, and Pope Leo
IV. by unanimous election, was raised to the place. His energy
as a temporal prince saved the great city. He repaired its
walls, constructed new towers and barred the Tiber by an iron
chain. He formed an alliance with the cities of Gaeta, Naples,
and Amalfi, still vassals of the Greek empire, and brought
their galleys to his aid. When, therefore, in 849, the
Saracens from Africa returned to the attack, they met with a
terrible repulse. An opportune storm assisted the Christians
in the destruction of their fleet, and most of the small
number who escaped death remained captives in the hands of the
Romans and their allies.

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52._

{2746}

ROME: A. D. 903-964.
The reign of the courtesans and their brood.
Interference of Otho the Great.
His revival of the Empire.

"During these changes [in the breaking up of the empire of
Charlemagne], Rome became a sort of theocratic democracy,
governed by women and priests; a state of things which, in the
barbarism of the middle ages, was only possible at Rome.
Theodora, a woman of patrician descent, equally celebrated for
her beauty and her daring, obtained great power in Rome, which
she prolonged by the charms of her two daughters. The city of
Saint Peter was ruled by this trio of courtesans. The mother,
Theodora, by her familiar commerce with several of the Roman
barons, had obtained possession of the castle of Saint Angelo,
at the entrance of Rome, on one of the principal bridges over
the Tiber; and she had made it an abode of pleasure and a
fortress, whence she corrupted and oppressed the Church. Her
daughters, Marozia and Theodora, disposed of the pontificate
by their own arts, or through their lovers, and occasionally
bestowed it on the lovers themselves. Sergius III., after a
contested election and seven years' exile, was recalled to the
see of Rome by the interest of Marozia, by whom he had had a
son, who afterwards became Pope. The younger Theodora was no
less ambitious and influential than her sister. She loved a
young clerk of the Roman Church, for whom she had first
obtained the bishopric of Bologna, and then the archbishopric
of Ravenna. Finding it irksome to be separated from him by a
distance of 200 miles, she procured his nomination to the
papacy, in order to have him near her; and he was elected Pope
in 912, under the title of John X. … After a pontificate of
fourteen years, John was displaced by the same means to which
he owed his elevation." Marozia, who had married Guy, Duke of
Tuscany, conspired with her husband against the Pope and he
was put out of the way. That accomplished, "Marozia allowed
the election of two Popes successively, whose pontificate was
obscure and short; and then she raised to the papal see a
natural son of hers, it is said, by Pope Sergius III., her
former lover. This young man took the name of John XI., and
Marozia, his mother, having soon after lost her husband, Guy,
was sought in marriage by Hugh, King of Italy, and his brother
by the mother's side. But it would appear that the people of
Rome were growing weary of the tyranny of this shameless and
cruel woman." King Hugh was driven from Rome by a revolt, in
which another son of Marozia, named Alberic, took the lead.
"Alberic, the leader of this popular rising, was proclaimed
consul by the Romans, who still clung to the traditions of the
republic; he threw his mother, Marozia, into prison, and set a
guard over his brother, Pope John; and thus, invested with the
popular power, he prepared to defend the independence of Rome
against the pretensions of Hugh and the forces of Lombardy.
Alberic, master of Rome under the title of patrice and
senator, exercised, during twenty-three years, all the rights
of sovereignty. The money was coined with his image, with two
sceptres across; he made war and peace, appointed magistrates
and disposed of the election and of the power of the Popes,
who, in that interval, filled the See of Rome, John XI., Leo
VII., Stephen IX., Martin III., and Agapetus II. The name of
this subject and imprisoned papacy was none the less revered
beyond the limits of Rome. … Alberic died lord of Rome, and
had bequeathed his power to his son Octavian; who, two years
afterwards, on the death of Agapetus II., caused himself,
young as he was, to be named Pope by those who already
acknowledged him as patrice."

_A. F. Villemain,
Life of Gregory VII.,
introduction, period 6._

"He [Octavian] was elected Pope on the 23d of March, A. D.
956. His promotion was a disgraceful calamity. He brought to
the chair of St. Peter only the vices and dissolute morals of
a young debauchee; and though Luitprand must have exaggerated
the disorders of this Pope, yet there remains enough of truth
in the account to have brought down the scandal of the
pontificate through succeeding ages, like a loud blasphemy,
which makes angels weep and hell exult. Octavian assumed the
name of John XII. This first example of a change of name on
ascending the pontifical chair has since passed into a custom
with all the Sovereign Pontiffs."

_Abbé J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 4, chapter 7._

Finding it hard to defend his independence against the king of
Italy, Pope John XII. made the mistake, fatal to himself, of
soliciting help from the German king Otho the Great. Otho
came, made himself master of Italy, revived the empire of
Charlemagne, was crowned with the imperial crown of Rome, by
the Pope, and then purged the Roman See by causing the bestial
young pope who crowned him to be deposed.

See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY;
and GERMANY; A. D. 936-973.

John was subsequently reinstated by the Romans, but died soon
after, A. D. 964.

_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 5, chapter 12._

The state of things at Rome described in the above has been
fitly styled by some writers "a pornocracy."

ROME: A. D. 962-1057.
Futile attempts of the German Emperors to reform the Papacy.
Chronic disorganization of the city.

"It had not been within the power of the Emperor Otto I. to
establish a permanent reformation in Rome. … The previous
scandalous scenes were renewed, and a slight amelioration of
things under the Popes Gregory V. and Silvester II., whom Otto
III. placed on the papal throne [A. D. 997-1003], was but
transitory. … For the third time it became necessary for an
emperor, in this instance Henry III., to constitute himself
the preserver and purifier of the papacy, first at Sutri and
afterwards at Rome. At that period the papal chair was
occupied within twelve years by five German popes [Clement II.
to Victor II.—A. D. 1046-1057], since amongst the Roman clergy
no fitting candidate could be found. These popes, with one
exception, died almost immediately, poisoned by the unhealthy
atmosphere of Rome; one only, Leo IX., under Hildebrand's
guidance, left any lasting trace of his pontificate, and laid
the foundation of that Gregorian system which resulted in
papal supremacy. … Rome was assuming more and more the
character of a sacerdotal city; the old wealthy patrician
families had either disappeared or migrated to Constantinople;
and as the seat of government was either at Constantinople or
Ravenna, there was no class of state officials in Rome. But
the clergy had become rich upon the revenues of the vast
possessions of St. Peter. … Without manufactures, trade, or
industry of their own, the people of Rome were induced to rely
upon exactions levied upon the foreigner, and upon profits
derived from ecclesiastical institutions. … Hence the
unvarying sameness in the political history of Rome from the
5th to the 15th century."

_J. I. von Döllinger,
Studies in European History,
chapter. 3._

See PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.

{2746a}

NINTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D. 801. Conquest of Barcelona from the Moors by the Franks.

805. Charlemagne's subjugation of the Avars.
Creation of the Austrian march.

806. Division of the Empire by Charlemagne
between his sons formally planned.

809. Death of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid.

812. Civil war between the sons of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid;
siege of Bagdad.

814. Death of Charlemagne, and accession of Louis the Pious,
his only surviving son.

816. Death of Pope Leo III.;
election of Stephen IV.

817. Partition of the Empire of the Franks by Louis the Pious.

826. Grant of a county between the Rhine and Moselle
to Harold of Jutland, by the Emperor.

821. Beginning of Moslem conquest of Sicily.

830. First rebellion of the sons of the Emperor Louis the Pious.

833. Second rebellion of the Emperor's sons;
the "Field of Lies";
deposition of the Emperor Louis the Pious.
Death of the Caliph Mamun, son of Haroun al Raschid.

834. Restoration of Louis the Pious.

835. Invasion of the Netherlands and sacking of Utrecht
by the Northmen.

836. Burning of Antwerp and ravaging of Flanders by the Northmen.
Death of Ecgberht, the first king of all the English.

837. First expedition of the Northmen up the Rhine.

838. Asia Minor invaded by the Caliph Motassem;
the Amorian War.

840. Third rebellion of the sons of the Frankish Emperor
Louis the Pious; his death; civil war.

841. Expedition of the Northmen up the Seine;
their capture of Rouen.

842. The Oath of Strasburg.

843. Conquest by the Mahometans of Messina in Sicily.
Partition Treaty of Verdun between the sons of the
Emperor Louis the Pious; formation of the realms of
Louis the German and Charles the Bald,
which grew into the kingdoms of Germany and France.

845. First attack of the Northmen on Paris;
their destruction of Hamburg.

846. Rome attacked by the Moslems.

847. Siege and capture of Bordeaux by the Northmen.

849. Birth of Alfred the Great (d. 901).

852. Revolt against the Moslems in Armenia.

854. Ravages of the Northmen on the Loire checked at Orleans.

855. Death of Lothaire, Emperor of the Franks, and civil war
between his sons.
First footing of the Danes established in England.

851. Deposition of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
and elevation of Photius.

860. Discovery of Iceland by the Northmen. [Uncertain date.]

861. Formation of the Duchy of France;
origin of the House of Capet.
Paris surprised by the Northmen.

863. Papal decree against the Eastern Patriarch, Photius.
Creation of the County of Flanders by Charles the Bald.

864. Mission of Cyril and Methodius to the Slavonians.

865. First Varangian or Russian attack on Constantinople.

866. Beginning of the permanent conquests of the Danes in England.

871. Moslem fortress of Bari, in southern Italy,
surrendered to the Franks and Greeks.
Accession of Alfred the Great to the throne of Wessex.

815. Death of Louis II., Emperor of the Franks and king of Italy;
imperial coronation of Charles the Bald.

876. The Seine entered by the Northmen under Rollo.

817. Death of the Emperor, Charles the Bald,
and accession of Louis the Stammerer.
Founding of the kingdom of Provence by Count Boso.

878. Capture by the Moslems of Syracuse in Sicily.

880. Ravages of the Northmen in Germany;
battles of the Ardennes and Ebbsdorf.
Defeat of the Danes by the English King Alfred at Ethandun;
Peace of Wedmore. [Uncertain date.]

881. Accession of Charles the Fat, king of Germany and Italy.

884. Temporary reunion of the Empire of the Franks
under Charles the Fat.

885. Siege of Paris by the Northmen under Rollo.

881. Deposition of the Emperor, Charles the Fat.

888. Death of Charles the Fat and final disruption of the
Empire of the Franks;
founding of the kingdom of Transjurane Burgundy.
The crown of France in dispute between Eudes, Count of
Paris, and the Caroling heir, Charles the Simple.

889. Second siege of Paris by Rollo.

890. Third siege of Paris and siege of Bayeux by Rollo.

891. Defeat of the Danes at Louvain by King Arnulf.

894. Arnulf of Germany made Emperor.

890. Rome taken by the Emperor Arnulf.

898. Death of Eudes, leaving Charles the Simple sole
king of France.

899. Death of the Emperor Arnulf;
accession of Louis the Child to the German throne.

900. Italy ravaged in the north by the Hungarians.

{2746b}

TENTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
901. Death of the English king, Alfred the Great, and accession
of his son, Edward the Elder.
Founding of the Samanide dynasty in Khorassan.

904. Sergius III. made Pope;
beginning of the rule of the courtesans at Rome.

909. Founding of the Fatimite caliphate in Africa.

910. Founding of the monastery of Clugny in France.