Professor Mark Whittow
For our 200th show I pay tribute to the scholar who has had the most influence on this podcast – Professor Mark Whittow. Sadly Professor Whittow died in 2017 and he is a huge loss to academia and Byzantine Studies in particular. I take you through three articles he wrote about political power in Byzantium to give you a taste of the kind of insights that have shaped the podcast.
For more information on Professor Whittow:
The three articles discussed in today’s episode were:
“Staying on Top in Byzantium” in Mélanges Jean-Claude Cheynet, Eds Béatrice Caseau, Vivien Prigent and Alessio Sopracasa, ACHCByz
“The Second Fall – the place of the 11th century in Roman History” in Byzantium in the 11th Century: Being in Between, Eds Marc D. Lauxtermann and Mark Whittow, Routledge
“How the east was lost: the background to the Komnenian reconquista” in Alexios Komnenos, 2nd Belfast Byzantine international colloquium, Eds Margaret Mullett and Dion Smythe
Download: A Tribute to Professor Mark Whittow
RSS Feed: The History of Byzantium
If you want to send in feedback to the podcast:
– Either comment on this post.
– Or on the facebook page.
– Leave a review on Itunes.
– Follow me on Twitter
The History of Byzantium 
Rest in peace Mr. Whittow. Seems like he was a valuable scholar and a good person altogether.
Robin. This is a wonderful tribute and a very special episode. The insight into the Medieval mind is refreshing and, like so much of your podcast, brings the people of Byzantium to life. It is very fluent and really enjoyable to listen to. Wonderful work! Thank you and best wishes!
🙂
So a stratigos earned 3.6 km^2 of land annually – 50 pounds of gold annually, and were 72 gold coins in a pound, and 1 hectare of land cost 10 gold coins. Very interesting episode.
Thanks so much. He is probably my favorite author on the Byzantine Empire. So succinct. Especially his cool analysis, without any favoritism towards any of the players, of the geopolitics of the region over the centuries.
“..to see the big picture, and draw it clearly for eager students like me.”
Still not that clear to this one. If 90% of roman revenue came from land tax, how are roman elites and state of this period NOT incentivized to hang onto as much on Anatolia as possible? Sure the strategos of Anatolia might earn 50 pounds per anum (which anum, anyway? 1025? Earlier?) But not if his theme no longer exists. And magnates aside, how does the empire pay it’s titled nobility if not from land tax/agricultural revenue? Did they dramatically rework their economic base since the 9th and 10th centuries?
Hey,
Thanks for the questions.
1) the generation who lost Anatolia to the Turks obviously suffered a massive shock. They would have wanted their lands back but were not in a position to do so.
2) the empire had large Balkan possessions by this point which helped offset their losses and keep the aristocracy paid.
3) this allowed the government to continue with the same model of centralization despite the massive loss of territory.
4) did people think ‘i want Anatolia back so we can be richer’? Of course. But they remained dependent on the Emperor to lead that fight. There was no incentive to fight alone from an Anatolian castle because the Turks would wipe you out
5) the argument is one about how state structures shaped behavior. Not about people not caring about the land they lost
Hey,
Thanks for the answers
All which jive, but I guess my objection/confusion started with that line (at 24:30)”in Byzantium, it was imperial service and not the land itself that led to wealth” which contradicts a sentiment you yourself, and numerous historians, have earlier expressed. It seems like imperial service and the wealth and prestige derived from it were nothing new in 1070. In the 8th 9th and early 10th centuries it was still there, but magnates and land owners stood and fought (or ran, hid, ambushed and then stood and fought, sometimes). Isn’t it perhaps a bigger issue that the eastern culture of society may have changed away from thematic strateia? Altho I would think the large landowners that took their place would be just as vested to defend their holdings too, tho I suppose I might be more inclined to just cut losses and just leave the situation if I have a nice place tucked away on the other side on the bosphorus..
1) Obviously land was the literal source of people’s wealth. But mega wealth, the kind that allowed men to be patrons of their clans, came from state service.
It’s also a cultural-structural thing. The Roman state did not allow the build up of private power. They didn’t allow people to build castles or personal armies which nobles in Western Europe did. So men looked to gain state service in order to win the kind of wealth and prestige that they craved.
2) This is not a literal argument for why the Romans failed to reconquer Anatolia. It’s an explanation for why society functioned differently than it did in say Spain. In Spain the native Christian population were able to remain in pockets of hard-to-access land and fought for centuries with the Muslims in the south. In Byzantium no such grass-roots movement developed. Professor Whittow is explaining why that never happened. Why men looked to the court instead to lead any fightback.
3) It’s also worth remembering that the attacks on Anatolia led by the Arabs in the 7th-8th centuries and the Turks in the 11th were quite different. The Arabs did not attempt to settle in Anatolia. So there was every incentive for the native population to organise themselves to defend what they had. Whereas by the time Alexios Komnenos came to power almost all of Anatolia was in Turkic hands. Thematic armies would have made no difference at all at that point. If the central field army abandoned Anatolia then there was zero incentive to fight.
Professor Whittow is examining why, after Alexios retook the West coast, there was no native led insurgency as there was in Spain. And he is exploring the fact that Byzantium had a civilian culture, centred on the court. Rather than a decentralised, militaristic culture as the Latins and Turks did.
Are we talking exclusively about the late 11th century though?
“In Spain the native Christian population were able to remain in pockets of hard-to-access land and fought for centuries with the Muslims in the south. In Byzantium no such grass-roots movement developed..”
Because isn’t that exactly what happened in the 9th and early 10th centuries with the Akritai? (Well, you might not call it grass-roots as it was the state who implemented the theme system, but these thematic troops did protect the frontier largely independently of the emperor and his armies at Konstantinople (particular if the Digenis Akritas is to be believed)Did the Abbasids never attempt to occupy Anatolia? I remember some attempts by Al Rashid and his successors to build or occupy permanent bases north of Cilicia.
And weren’t the Turks initially only interested in raiding, but after the chaos and weak response following Manzikurt, decided to stay, and even them only occupied cities basically after having the red carpet rolled out for them?
I did cover all of this on the podcast.
1) Without the state there would have been no native resistance in Anatolia. All soldiers were paid and organized by the state.
2) Digenis Akritas is a fantasy. It doesn’t reflect the detailed reality of life on the border.
3) Arab attempts to occupy cities in Anatolia were always half hearted. They relied on the attention of an individual Caliph who would always be pulled in another direction. Those forts were always vulnerable in the winter as well – since the mountain passes would be closed to reinforcements.
4) what you said about Turkish settlement is largely true. It’s difficult to reconstruct the motives of individual tribes. But they did come and settle at which point there was no native resistance. Those with the means moved away.
Dunno man, still seems like a 180° turn, what with resistance to raids and invasion being such an ingrained part of life on the eastern Anatolian themes for centuries, only to go limp in the 11th round. As an enthusiastic listener, that explanation sounds contradictory to opinions about land-basis for wealth that other historians and you yourself have espoused, in earlier centuries at least.
Appreciate the back and forth though. But don’t be talking that noise bout my boy Digenis. Dude single-handed beat up the combined forces of the Caliphate with only a stick
🤣