Johannes Koder, Ioannis Stouraitis (HRSG.

BYZANTINE WAR IDEOLOGY Between Roman Imperial

Concept and Christian Religion
Akten des Internationalen Symposiums
(Wien, 19.–21. Mai 2011)
ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN
PHILOSOPHISCH-HISTORISCHE KLASSE
Denkschriften, 452. BAND

VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN ZUR
BYZANZFORSCHUNG

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON
PETER SOUSTAL und CHRISTIAN GASTGEBER

BAND XXX
ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN
PHILOSOPHISCH-HISTORISCHE KLASSE
Denkschriften, 452. BAND

VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN ZUR BYZANZFORSCHUNG

BAND XXX

BYZANTINE WAR IDEOLOGY Between

Roman Imperial Concept and Christian
Religion

Akten des Internationalen Symposiums

(Wien, 19.–21. Mai 2011)

Edited by / Herausgegeben von

Johannes Koder und Ioannis Stouraitis
 Vorgelegt von w. M. Johannes Koder in der Sitzung am 15. Juni 2012

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Mit Beschluss der philosophisch-historischen Klasse in der Sitzung vom 23. März 2006
wurde die Reihe Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik in
Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung umbenannt;
die bisherige Zählung wird dabei fortgeführt.

Umschlagbild:
Thomas the Slav negotiates with the Saracens
Scylitzes Matritensis fol. 31r.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data

A Catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library

Die verwendete Papiersorte ist aus chlorfrei gebleichtem Zellstoff hergestellt,

frei von säurebildenden Bestandteilen und alterungsbeständig.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten

ISBN 978-3-7001-7307-6
Copyright © 2012 by
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften
Wien
Satz: Crossdesign Weitzer GmbH, A-8042 Graz
Druck und Bindung: Prime Rate kft., Budapest
http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/7307-6
http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at
Printed and bound in the EU
 Table of Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Johannes Koder – Ioannis Stouraitis, Byzantine Approaches to Warfare (6th – 12th centuries).
An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Walter E. Kaegi, The Heraclians and Holy War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Panagiotis Antonopoulos, Emperor Constans II’s Intervention in Italy and its Ideological
Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Warren Treadgold, Opposition to Iconoclasm as Grounds for Civil War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Olof Heilo, The Holiness of the Warrior: Physical and Spiritual Power in the Borderland
between Byzantium and Islam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Athanasios Markopoulos, The Ideology of War in the Military Harangues
of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Stergios Laitsos, War and Nation-building in Widukind of Corvey’s Deeds of the Saxons . . . . . . . . . 57
Ioannis Stouraitis, Conceptions of War and Peace in Anna Comnena’s Alexiad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Evangelos Chrysos, 1176 – A Byzantine Crusade? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Theodora Papadopoulou, Niketas Choniates and the Image of the Enemy after the Latin Capture
of Constantinople . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Efstratia Synkellou, Reflections on Byzantine War Ideology in Late Byzantium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Christos G. Makrypoulias, Civilians as Combatants in Byzantium: Ideological versus
Practical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Athina Kolia-Dermitzaki, “Holy War” In Byzantium Twenty Years Later: A Question
of Term Definition and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Verzeichnis der Autoren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

 Athanasios Markopoulos

The Ideology of War in the Military Harangues

of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos

The two harangues that bear the name of the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (945–959) are
clearly texts of prime importance for the light they shed on the ideological context in which the Byzantine-
Arab wars were fought in the latter half of the tenth century1. It is generally accepted that the ideological
component is a conditio sine qua non for understanding, and primarily for interpreting, the works included
in the Porphyrogennetos’ voluminous corpus; though Constantine VII’s narrative is not especially difficult,
its copious use of symbolisms coupled with its selective use of historical material imposes multiple readings
while the conclusions drawn are not always certain. This is largely true of the two harangues discussed in
this paper.
The two orations, which have been published – albeit somewhat problematically – by R. Vári2 and H.
Ahrweiler3 respectively, come from a single codex, the well-known Ambrosianus gr. 139 (B 119 sup.), which
is in turn closely linked to the celebrated Laurentianus 55, 4. Both manuscripts are products of the imperial
scriptorium and display all the features of those codices which contain the large collections of works attrib-
uted to what is known as the Porphyrogennetos’ circle4. The Ambrosianus is comprised of 347 parchment
295×225mm folios, and includes four different types of work: i) a collection of Strategika; ii) the Taktika of
Leo VI the Wise (886–912); iii) military harangues and iv) the corpus of the Naumachika5. The last of the
works in the latter corpus has been attributed to a well-known personage, Basil Lecapenus6, in the light of

1
For the military harangues in general, see H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner 2. Munich 1978,
327ff.; also, very recently, K. G. Karaple, Κατευόδωσις στρατού. Η οργάνωση και η ψυχολογική προετοιμασία του βυζαντινού
στρατού πριν από τον πόλεμο (610–1081). 1. Athens 2010, 36ff., 139ff., 233ff. See also the notes below.
2
R. Vári, Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos. BZ 17 (1908) 75–85.
3
H. Ahrweiler, Un discours inédit de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète. TM 2 (1967) 393–404. Corrections and improvements have
already been proposed for both texts, making a new edition a virtual necessity. Extremely useful is the study by E. McGeer, who
annotates the works and translates both into English with the requisite care: idem, Two Military Orations of Constantine VII, in:
Byzantine Authors. Literary Activities and Preoccupations. Texts and Translations dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikono-
mides, ed. J. W. Nesbitt. Leiden – Boston 2003, 111–135. Cf. also the unpublished MA dissertation by P. K. Koutouvalas, Οι
αποδιδόμενες στον Κωνσταντίνο Ζ΄ Πορφυρογέννητο δημηγορίες. University of Athens. Athens 2004, as well as Karaple,
Κατευόδωσις στρατού 41, 207–211. The older bibliography is dominated by C. M. Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimo-
menos (cod. Ambr. B 119 sup.). Aevum 52 (1978) 267–316, esp. 276ff. and passim; cf. also Α. Kolia-Dermitzaki, Η ιδέα
του ‘ιερού πολέμου’ στο Βυζάντιο κατά τον 10ο αιώνα. Η μαρτυρία των τακτικών και των δημηγοριών, in: Constantine VII Por-
phyrogenitus and his Age, ed. A. Markopoulos. Athens 1989, 39–55, esp. 49–53; Eadem, Ο βυζαντινός ‘ιερός πόλεμος’. Athens
1991, 243–248 and passim; I. Ševčenko, Re-reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in: Byzantine Diplomacy, ed. J. Shepard – S.
Franklin. Aldershot 1992, 167–195, esp. 186–187 and n. 49.
4
See the classic paper by J. Irigoin, Pour une étude des centres de copie byzantins II. Script 13 (1959), 177–209, esp. 177–181.
5
A. Martini – D. Bassi, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae 1. Milan 1906, 157–160; A. Dain – J.-A. de
Foucault, Les stratégistes byzantins. TM 2 (1967) 317–392, esp. 385; Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos 276–278,
282–284, 310–316 and passim; G. T. Dennis ed. – E. Gamillscheg, Das Strategikon des Maurikios (CFHB 17). Vienna 1981,
21–22; Ph. Rance, The Date of the Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister (formerly the Sixth-Century Anonymus Byzan-
tinus). BZ 100 (2007) 701–737, esp. 733–736; A. Németh, Imperial Systematization of the Past. Emperor Constantine VII and
His Historical Excerpts. PhD dissertation, Central European University. Budapest 2010, 172–177 and passim (unpublished); cf.
also G. Greatrex – H. Elton – R. Burgess, Urbicius’ Epitedeuma: an Edition, Translation and Commentary. BZ 98 (2005) 35–74,
esp. 44–45 and G. T. Dennis ed., The Taktika of Leo VI (CFHB 49). Dumbarton Oaks 2010, xi.
6
On Basil Lekapenos and his career, see W. G. Brokkaar, Basil Lacapenus. Byzantium in the tenth century, in: Studia Byzantina
et Neohellenica Neerlandica, ed. W. F. Bakker et al. Leiden 1972, 199–234 and Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos
passim; see also L. Boura, Ο Βασίλειος Λεκαπηνός παραγγελιοδότης έργων τέχνης, in: Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and His
Age 397–434; J. Koder, Ο Κωνσταντίνος Πορφυρογέννητος και η Σταυροθήκη του Λίμπουργκ, ibid. 165–184, esp. 176ff.; N. P.
48 Athanasios Markopoulos

the prefatory epigram dedicated to him7, and can be dated with relative precision to 958, a year which thus
becomes a terminus post quem for the compiling of the Ambrosianus; furthermore, as Mazzucchi has dem-
onstrated, the codex must have been composed under the direct supervision of Basil Lecapenus, who in-
tended it to strengthen his candidature for leadership of the expeditionary force that was already being as-
sembled for the Cretan campaign8.
Scholars have researched both the composition and the contents of the Ambrosianus, a hugely impressive
and genuinely encyclopaedic collection of texts on military strategy9. However, both K. K. Müller and later
Vári have argued that the two harangues under examination in this paper were included in the lost section
Περὶ δημηγοριῶν of the vast Porphyrogennetos’ collection conventionally labelled the Excerpta10. Subsequent
research has either not taken a position on the matter or rejected any relationship between the Ambrosianus
and the Excerpta11. For his part, Mazzucchi, who cites convincing arguments in support of his opinion that
the individual who compiled the Milan codex had used material assembled in the imperial archive, went on
to conclude that the Ambrosianus was unrelated to the Excerpta; this view was largely derived from the fact
that this huge collection did not include authors who featured in the Milan codex, chief among them Xeno-
phon, who is included in both the Excerpta and the Ambrosianus, and Herodianus, who only features in the
latter manuscript12.
If I may, I would note at this point that I have long held the view that a parallel study of the compilation
of the Excerpta is the key to understanding the manner in which the Ambrosianus was composed; and, indeed,
a recently completed research project has confirmed that the excerpts included in the Milan manuscript were
compiled applying the same modus operandi used to incorporate the texts in the Excerpta: namely, the authors
were copied, with frequent stylistic changes, into separate gatherings whose blank parts and leaves were
subsequently removed13. This insight emphatically underscores that the Ambrosianus and the Excerpta are
more closely linked than was previously accepted. As a result, we can no longer exclude the possibility of
the Milan codex having been compiled to serve as one of the manuscripts of the Excerpta – which it may not
ultimately have done – or assembled to include material from the Excerpta, which now seems more likely.
Moreover, Mazzucchi’s arguments are not as convincing as they appear at first sight: as we know, a large part
of the Excerpta has been lost, so there is no reason to assume that the missing sections did not include excerpts
from authors who are now only included in the Ambrosianus.
The two harangues do not seem to present any dating problems. Researchers agree that the harangue
published by Ahrweiler (hereafter Harangue I) precedes the oration published by Vári (hereafter Harangue
II). Although the publisher of Harangue I dated it to 952–953 on the basis of arguments relating to the work’s
historical context14, this date has since been revised, and rightly so, by Mazzucchi, who has argued, largely
in the light of the Arab sources, that the harangue was composed late in 95015. Turning to Harangue II, its

Ševčenko, The Limburg Staurothek and its Relics, in: Θυμίαμα στη μνήμη της Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα. Athens 1994, 289–294; J.
H. Pryor – E. M. Jeffreys, The Age of the ΔΡΟΜΩΝ. The Byzantine Navy ca 500–1204. Leiden–Boston 2006, 183–187 and
passim; Németh, Imperial Systematization of the Past 94ff. and very recently J. M. Featherstone, Theophanes Continuatus VI
and De Cerimoniis I, 96. BZ 109 (2011) 115–123.
7
See the recent edition by Pryor – Jeffreys, The Age of the ΔΡΟΜΩΝ 521–545, esp. 522
8
Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos 292–310; his view is generally accepted; see, for example, S. Cosentino, The
Syrianos’s ‘Strategikon’: a 9th century source? Bizantinistica 2 (2000) 243–280, esp. 245; Rance, The Date of the Military Com-
pendium 734; Németh, Imperial Systematization of the Past 173.
9
Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos 282ff.; Rance, The Date of the Military Compendium 734–735.
10
K. K. Müller, Eine griechische Schrift über Seekrieg. Würzburg 1882, 26–27; Vári, Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke 77.
11
Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos 290 (and n. 69) –292 and passim; cf. also B. Flusin, Les Excerpta Constanti-
niens. Logique d’une anti-histoire, in: Fragments d’historiens grecs. Autour de Denys d’Halicarnasse, ed. S. Pittia. Rome 2002,
537–559, esp. 553 and n. 57.
12
Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos passim.
13
Németh, Imperial Systematization of the Past 174–175.
14
Ahrweiler, Discours inédit 402. See also G. Dagron, Byzance et le modèle islamique au Xe siècle. A propos des Constitutions
tactiques de l’empereur Léon VI. Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’année 127/2 (1983)
219–243, esp. 231 n. 57.
15
Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos 298 and n. 95. The date is widely accepted; cf., for example, McGeer, Two
Military Orations 116. See also below p. 54.
 The Ideology of War in the Military Harangues of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 49

publisher’s initial dating to the mid-tenth century16 has since been challenged by Ahrweiler, who has narrowed
the date down to 958 on the basis of well-founded arguments17.
Neither oration has escaped the fate reserved for the majority of Byzantine texts: being studied almost
exclusively as receptacles of historical data – in this case, for information relating to the empire’s military
operations against the Arabs during the reign of Constantine VII18; any ‘literary’ criticism – in the broadest
sense of the word – has focused, at best, on noting the relationship between the two harangues on the one
hand and the Rhetorica militaris of the Anonymous Byzantinus on the other, whose recent identification with
the Syrianus Magister is now widely accepted19. However, as is usually the case with texts which either bear
the Porphyrogennetos’ signature or are attributed to him, the two works have certain distinct features which
allow them to be approached or viewed in a manner which differs from the norm.

1. Military Rhetoric and Models

Let us embark upon a careful and clear parallel examination of the two harangues presented as the Porphy-
rogennetos’ work20, though we should bear in mind throughout that both orations are essentially also exer-
cises in rhetoric, and successful ones at that21. To begin with, there can be no doubt that both texts are based
on the Syrianus22, a work which was used as a model for later compositions in a similar style – in the same
way that Menander served as a paradigm for imperial panegyrics and other related texts – and which we know
Constantine VII to have studied and listed among the books which should be included in the imperial vestia-
rion in times of war23. As a result, Syrianus’ guidelines are followed in both orations, without this stopping
the author from taking certain liberties when he judges them to be necessary24. In the προοίμιον (Syr. IV 1;
V 1), the Porphyrogennetos declares: Καὶ τὸ πολλάκις ὑμῖν ὁμιλεῖν χωρὶς τινὸς εὐλόγου αἰτίας ἐπιθυμητὸν καὶ
ἐπέραστον...ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ διὰ γλώσσης τὰ τῆς εὐνοίας καὶ ὑπακοῆς ὑμῖν παραινεῖν, ἥδιστον πάντων ἐμοὶ καὶ

16
Vári, Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke 76–77.
17
Ahrweiler, Discours inédit 402. Mazzucchi is in agreement (Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos 299), while Dagron (Byzance
et le modèle islamique 231 and n. 57) appears undecided.
18
See esp. Ahrweiler, Discours inédit 401–404.
19
See the important paper by C. Zuckerman, The Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister. JÖB 40 (1990) 209–224; this is the
dominant viewpoint. Cf. also Cosentino, The Syrianos’s ‘Strategikon’ passim; Pryor – Jeffreys, The Age of the ΔΡΟΜΩΝ
178–181; Rance, The Date of the Military Compendium passim; D. F. Sullivan, Byzantine Military Manuals, in: The Byzantine
World, ed. P. Stephenson. London–New York 2010, 149–161, esp. 151–152. There are no grounds for the recent reservations
expressed by Karaple (Κατευόδωσις στρατού 28, 236). However, the dating of the work remains an issue, with Zuckerman fa-
vouring the late sixth-early seventh century, Cosentino considering the text to date from the reign of the emperor Theophilos
(829–842), and Rance favouring the safer option of the late eighth century. I shall end by noting that Syrianus has come down
to us in both the Laurentianus 55, 4 and the Ambrosianus gr. 139; it should, however, be noted that the section of the military
vademecum of Syrianus covering the war at sea is only contained in the Milan codex, an observation which underscores yet again
the importance of this manuscript in conveying virtually all the texts of a military nature collected and published (?) under the
supervision of the Porphyrogennetos. On the editions of the works of Syrianus, see Zuckerman, Military Compendium 210–211;
Rance, The Date of the Military Compendium 705 and n. 13–14. Cf. also Dagron, Byzance et le modèle islamique 227 and n.
35.
20
McGeer (Two Military Orations 115–116 and 122) provides the narrational sections of both harangues with a view to making it
easier for researchers to approach the works.
21
Dagron, Byzance et le modèle islamique 231. This is generally true of Harangue II, but not of Harangue I, which does not seem
to have been subject to a great deal of editing. A general comparative presentation of the content of the Byzantine harangues is
provided in Karaple, Κατευόδωσις στρατού 235ff.; the analysis of the texts is quite detailed, but the author includes a number
of personal opinions which may disconcert the reader.
22
On the two harangues’ debt to the Rhetorica militaris see Kolia-Dermitzaki, Ο βυζαντινός ‘ιερός πόλεμος’ 243–247; I. Stouraitis,
Krieg und Frieden in der politischen und ideologischen Wahrnehmung in Byzanz (7.–11. Jahrhundert). Vienna 2009, 314ff.;
Karaple, Κατευόδωσις στρατού 207–209, 235ff. A more detailed account can be found in McGeer, Two Military Orations
114–115, 122ff. and still more detail in Koutouvalas, Οι αποδιδόμενες στον Κωνσταντίνο Ζ΄ Πορφυρογέννητο δημηγορίες 28ff.,
59ff., who rightly affords great significance to the text of Syrianos.
23
Constantine Porphyrogentius, Treatise C 198–199 (ed. J. F. Haldon, Constantine Porphyrogenitus: three treatises on imperial
military expeditions [CFHB 28]. Vienna 1990, 106): ...βιβλία ἱστορικά, ἐξαιρέτως δὲ τὸν Πολύαινον καὶ τὸν Συριανόν.
24
One feature of Harangue I and II which should be underscored a priori is that they do not cover all the elements which Syrianos
lists as essential in his manual, just those which are seemingly judged to be imperative.
50 Athanasios Markopoulos

περισπούδαστον...25; Harangue I differs slightly, perhaps because it is earlier, in that Constantine VII ad-
dresses the army using the formal, classical ὦ ἄνδρες, and goes on to state that he wants to laud his soldiers
who showed ...τὴν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μεγίστην εὔκλειαν on the field of battle26. In essence, the content of the pro-
logues to both harangues serve as the προκατάστασις and the προδιήγησις prescribed by Syrianus (IV 1; V
1) for military harangues. Things get very interesting indeed as we proceed into the harangues proper: in
Harangue I, following a short reference to the emperor’s absence from the battlefield27, a subject that will be
returned to later on28 and which scholars have long been aware of, the λαός makes its first appearance as
belonging to the emperor (λαὸς ἐμὸς περιούσιος)29. It is the λαός that will eagerly march against the enemy30.
Harangue II treats this subject in a similar vein, with the emperor using the verbs φιλῶ and ὑπερασπάζομαι
when addressing his soldiers, and describing the λαός as θεοσύλλεκτος 31.
These modes of address clearly create the requisite atmosphere among the assembled troops, as well as
implying that the emperor is planning to ask much of his soldiers on a purely military level.
The κεφάλαιον, the core of the harangues prepared out of the πρόβλημα and primarily out of the προβολή
(VII 1; VIII 1–2), continues to adhere to Syrianus’ guidelines. The model is followed in both Harangue I and
Harangue II; indeed, because the κεφάλαιον is divided into six separate sections (τὸ νόμιμον, τὸ δίκαιον, τὸ
συμφέρον, τὸ δυνατόν, τὸ ἔνδοξον and τὸ ἐκβησόμενον), the structure of both harangues touches upon these
precise sub-categories: the enemy is at the gates and well-armed32, but the Byzantine army has both justice
(τὸ δίκαιον) and legitimacy (τὸ νόμιμον) on its side, and overpowers the Arab army at a decisive moment,
τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν ἐλπίδος33. The religious underpinnings which Syrianus considers a conditio sine qua non for
any military harangue (Ἀπὸ τοῦ ζήλου τῆς πίστεως, X 1–2) are clearly discernible as the axis of the work.
Harangue II does not fall short in this regard, either, though with one very specific difference: it draws paral-
lels between God’s love for Man and the emperor’s love for his soldiers. The author has thus included the
requisite element dealing with Ἀπὸ τοῦ ζήλου τῆς πίστεως, placing it at the start of the text without any
prior references to the opposing power: the Arabs 34.
The feasible (τὸ δυνατόν) (VIII 2) is the element which is to convince the soldiers that what is being asked
of them is not militarily impossible35. The harangues do not describe it in the same way: Harangue I has this
to say of Chamda, the renowned Arab leader Sayf-al-dawla: ... κακότεχνός ἐστι, δύναμιν οὐκ ἔχων βεβαίαν
καὶ σφόδρα τὴν ὑμῶν δεδοικὼς προσβολὴν ... πειρᾶται δόλοις καὶ φαστασίαις τὰς ὑμετέρας ψυχὰς ἐκφοβεῖν36.
Consequently, the worthy soldiers of the Emperor, ἐν Χριστῷ θαρροῦντες37, will defeat the army of their cun-
ning adversaries who, instead of fighting, resort to guile and ruses38. The change in the historic landscape that

25
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 78 I 1–10 (Vári).
26
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 397 1 (Ahrweiler).
27
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 397 4–6 (Ahrweiler): ...Ἐκεῖνοι γάρ μοι κατεμήνυσαν ἀκριβῶς, ἐκεῖνοι τὴν ὑμῶν
ἀρετὴν φιλαλήθως ἐγνώρισαν, πόσην μὲν τὴν ἀνδρείαν, πόσην δὲ τὴν ὁρμήν, πόσην δὲ τὴν κατὰ τῶν πολεμίων ἐπεδείξασθε
γενναιότητα.
28
See below 51f.
29
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 398 19 (Ahrweiler). A reference to the Old Testament (Exod. 19:5): ...λαὸς περιούσιος
ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν. See also McGeer, Two Military Orations 118 and n. 30 and below p. 53–534.
30
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 398 19–21 (Ahrweiler).
31
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 78 I 6; 79 I 24; 80 IV 2 (Vári). Cf. also
Theophanes Continuatus V 94 (340, 20 Bekker).
32
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 397, 8–10 (Ahrweiler).
33
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 398, 11 (Ahrweiler).
34
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, I 78,16–79,24 (Vári). On the religious underpinnings of Harangue I and II, see
below p. 52f.
35
Elsewhere in the text, Syrianus returns to the category of the δυνατόν, which he subdivides into χαλεπόν and ῥάδιον (XVI 1).
The Porphyrogennetos does not make an analogous distinction in the two harangues under examination in this paper.
36
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 398, 49–399, 51 (Ahrweiler). Sayf-al-dawla is described as ἀλαζὼν and ἄθεος in a
Váriation of the Chronicle of Symeon Logothete; see A. Markopoulos, Le témoignage du Vaticanus gr. 163 pour la période entre
945–963. Symm 3 (1979) 83–119, esp. 11, 9 (p. 94), 20, 9–10 (p. 99), 22, 6–7, 18 (p. 99–100), 23, 13 (p. 100) ( = A. Markopou-
los, History and Literature of Byzantium in the 9th–10th Centuries. Aldershot 2004, III).
37
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 399, 67 (Ahrweiler)
38
See G. Dagron, ‘Ceux d’en face’. Les peuples étrangers dans les traités militaires byzantins. TM 10 (1987) 207–232, esp. 221–224,
who studies Leo the Wise alone and does not include in his research the Porphyrogennetos.
 The Ideology of War in the Military Harangues of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 51

had already been wrought by Byzantium’s victorious expeditions against the Arabs in 95839, when Harangue
II came to be written, shapes a new approach in the later oration. To begin with, these military successes,
which have clearly dispelled the myth of invincibility hitherto enjoyed by the Arab army, are recalled in
Harangue II, and in high-flown language at that40, while the author also declares expressis verbis to his soldiers
that the entire Oecumene now knows of their valour41. On the other hand, the text has already noted that the
Byzantine army consists of the κρείττονας τῶν θεραπόντων, εὐνουστάτους, πιστοτάτους, ἀξιολογωτάτους,
φρονήσει καὶ πείρᾳ διαπρέποντας καὶ πλείω τῶν ἄλλων παρ’ ἡμῶν τιμωμένους42, and that it enjoys the assist-
ance of ἐθνικῶν (scil. foreign mercenary units), which are taking part in the campaign alongside the regular
Byzantine army (82.6,1–17)43; everything would thus seem to support the argument that ...καιρὸς ἥκει τὴν
ὑμῶν ἀνδρείαν φανερωθῆναι, τὴν ὑμῶν εὐτολμίαν διαγνωσθῆναι, τὸ ἐπαινετὸν θάρσος πᾶσι δῆλον γενέσθαι
(80.4, 2–4).
The emperor’s presence on campaign, formerly a prerequisite of the Roman tradition of the ideal leader
who had also to be a model soldier44, is not among the core elements detailed by Syrianus, who includes it
among the πλαστά – short, conventional sketches in which ...πλάττων ὁ στρατηγὸς λέγοι εἰρηκέναι πρὸς τὸν
βασιλέα ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ... εἴ τις ἐκ βασιλέως πλάττει πρὸς τὸν στρατηγὸν γράμματα προτρεπόμενα αὐτοὺς εἰς
τὸν προκείμενον πόλεμον (XIX f.). The πλαστόν in question notes ...καὶ γὰρ διὰ τὸν πόθον ὑμῶν φιλῶ καὶ
αὐτὸς στρατιώτης καλεῖσθαι, ἵν’ ὑμῖν συστρατιώτης κληθῶ (ΧΧΙΙ 4)45. Towards the end of Harangue I, the
Porphyrogennetos returns to the issue of his fighting with the army on the battlefield; departing considerably
from his paradigm, he describes a new and highly specific framework and stresses that he would prefer
...ἐνδῦναι θώρακα καὶ τὴν περικεφαλαίαν ἐπιθεῖναι τῇ κεφαλῇ, καὶ δόρυ διασεῖσαι τῇ δεξιᾷ καὶ σάλπιγγος
ἀκοῦσαι συγκαλούσης πρὸς τὸν ἀγῶνα (scil. to be the soldier in the passage from Syrianus quoted above),
than διάδημα καὶ πορφύραν περιβαλέσθαι...καὶ βασιλικῶν ἀκοῦσαι ἐπευφημιῶν46. However, because this does
not appear to be possible at that moment in time, he asks his officers to swear to show him ...καθὼς ἕκαστος
ἀρετῆς ἔχει καὶ προθυμίας47 in order to receive their due reward48. There are two strange elements here: the
concept of the oath, which only very rarely appears in strategika or related texts, and that of the reward. Much
has already been written about the oath – whose swearing clearly transcends the norm and which has, more-
over, been condemned by the Church –, and I do not intend to return to it, though it is obviously requested
as a sign of devotion to the throne and the Macedonian dynasty49. It should be noted that the Syrianus, at least
in the version that has come down to us, makes no mention of rewarding the army after the fighting, save in
one clearly passing reference to the emperor declaring to his general that ...ἂν... ὁ ὑπὸ σοὶ στρατὸς διὰ τῶν
ἔργων δείξῃ τὴν πρόθεσιν, καὶ ἡμεῖς τὰ εἰς αὐτοὺς μεγαλοπρεπῶς δείξομεν (ΧΧ 4)50. However, the Porphyro-
gennetos is clearly adopting the advice of Leo the Wise at this point, who refers specifically to the rewarding
of troops after a battle in his Taktika: ...τίμησον αὐτοὺς δωρεαῖς καὶ τιμαῖς ταῖς ἑκάστῳ πρεπούσαις”51. Con-
stantine VII ends Harangue I with a passage in which he clearly departs from the model and breaks new
ground in promising never to be absent from a military operation again: ...οὐθ’ ὑμᾶς, οὔτε τινὰς ἄλλους
39
For a brief account see Kolia-Dermitzaki, Ο βυζαντινός ‘ιερός πόλεμος’ 243 n. 69; McGeer, Two Military Orations 123.
40
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 81 V 7–22 (Vári).
41
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II VI, 82 VI 1f. (Vári).
42
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 79 II 2–5 (Vári). Cf. Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos 301. The
selection of the most battle-ready troops is also discussed in Leo VI; see Dagron, Byzance et le modèle islamique 233–234.
43
See the comments by Ahrweiler, Discours inédit 402.
44
On the Byzantine emperor’s participation in the campaign, see A. Markopoulos, Constantine the Great in Macedonian Historio­
graphy: Models and Approaches, in: New Constantines, ed. P. Magdalino. Aldershot 1994, 159–170, esp. 165 ( = A. Markopou-
los, History and Literature of Byzantium in the 9th–10th Centuries XV).
45
On the term, see Stouraitis, Krieg und Frieden 313–314.
46
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 399, 73–76 (Ahrweiler).
47
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I,399, 84–85 (Ahrweiler).
48
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 399, 93 (Ahrweiler): ...ἄξιον ἀπολαβεῖν τὸν μισθόν.
49
Ahrweiler, Discours inédit 403; N.-C. Koutrakou, La propagande impériale byzantine. Persuasion et réaction (VIIIe–Xe siècles).
Athens 1994, 352–353; Koutouvalas, Οι αποδιδόμενες στον Κωνσταντίνο Ζ΄ Πορφυρογέννητο δημηγορίες 55–56.
50
Cf. also Karaple, Κατευόδωσις στρατού 332–351, though here the imperial reward is mixed up with everything of divine origin
offered to the troops.
51
Dennis, The Taktika of Leo VI 16, 3. I cannot agree with Dagron’s views on Leo VI’s study of Syrianus (Byzance et le modèle
islamique 227 and n. 35).
52 Athanasios Markopoulos

μάρτυρας τῶν τοιούτων, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἡμετέρους μόνους ὀφθαλμοὺς ἕξομεν, καὶ αὐτοὶ παρόντες, αὐτοὶ τὴν
ἑκάστου βλέποντες ἀρετήν, αὐτοὶ καὶ τὰ βραβεῖα τοῖς ἀγωνιζομένοις παρέξομεν52.
The emperor’s presence on campaign against the Arabs is also commented on in Harangue II. However,
the atmosphere has clearly changed a good deal since Harangue Ι was written; as noted above, the victorious
campaigns fought by the Byzantine army in 958 have raised the morale of the army and its commanders and
this is reflected in the text53. It is indicative that in his speech, Constantine VII stresses his intention – and
does so using the rhetorical devices of alliteratio and homoioteleuton – to participate, along with the heir to
the throne, his son Romanus, in the upcoming campaign as a συνιππότης, συνοπλίτης and συστρατιώτης54.
I would say, by way of a first, partial conclusion, that the Porphyrogennetos carefully structured both
speeches, following Syrianus – though not slavishly – and focusing on certain points: the soldiers’ bravery,
the justice (δίκαιον) and legitimacy (νόμιμον) of the war against the Arabs, the calibre of the Byzantine of-
ficers and men, and the rewards they will receive from the emperor himself in the event of a victory being
won. However, the religious element clearly transcends all the rest, making its way into both texts – but es-
pecially into Harangue II55 – imbuing the Byzantine soldier with an unassailable sense of superiority which
the author cultivates with delicacy and assiduity.

2. Religious Underpinnings and Sacred Texts

The religious element – which, as is well known, was systematically cultivated in the Byzantine army in line
with a highly specific ritual56 – will undoubtedly be the common denominator in any reading attempted here
of the harangues in question. The soldiers would thus prepare themselves in a special way before battle in a
manner prescribed in detail in the strategika57; moreover, according to the Taktika of Leo the Wise, the heralds
were obliged to impress upon to the soldiers that they would be fighting ...ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τῶν ὁμοπίστων,
εἰ τύχοι, καὶ ὑπὲρ γυναικῶν καὶ τέκνων καὶ πατρίδος...ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐλευθερίας καὶ ὅτι κατὰ τῶν τοῦ
Θεοῦ ἐχθρῶν ὁ τοσοῦτος ἀγών58. However, Constantine VII did not write a taktikon like his father Leo, choos-
ing instead harangues, whose composition was governed by rules diametrically opposed to those of the tak-
tikon. A return to the model for the harangues confirms that Syrianus affords great significance to the cultivat-
ing of religious sentiment among the troops; part X of his work, which is fittingly entitled Ἀπὸ τοῦ ζήλου
τῆς πίστεως, stresses that: Οἱ πολεμοῦντες ἡμῖν βάρβαροι διὰ τὴν πίστιν ἡμῖν πολεμοῦσιν· εἰ γὰρ ὁμόπιστοι
ἐκείνοις ἦμεν, οὐκ ἂν ὑπ’ ἐκείνων ἐπολεμούμεθα. And, later, that ...ὁ Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν πλευρὰν τέτρωται,
καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ ἐκεῖνον οὐ τὰς πληγὰς καρτερήσομεν; (Χ 1). Elsewhere, in the section commenting on the
πλαστά59, Syrianus notes that the war against the enemies of the Empire should not be endlessly postponed,
and that the Empire’s soldiers fight ...εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ, εἰς καύχημα βασιλέως, εἰς σωτηρίαν τῶν ὁμοφύλων (ΧΧ
3). As a consequence, the concept of Christian faith, combined with devotion to the emperor and defending
the lives of the Empire’s subjects, are the factors that distinguish the Byzantine soldier from his adversary on
52
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 399, 94–96.
53
See above p. 48–49, 50–51.
54
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 81 V 2–3 (Vári). The Porphyrogennetos sought persistenly and from early on to
promote Romanus; by way of illustration, see Proem of DAI, 31–45 (ed. Gy. Moravcsik – R. J. H. Jenkins, Constantine Porphy-
rogenitus, De Administrando Imperio [CFHB 1]. Dumbarton Oaks 1967, 46) as well as the first inscription on the celebrated
staurothek of Limburg, where it is written: Θεὸς μὲν ἐξέτεινε χεῖρας ἐν ξύλῳ//ζωῆς δι’ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐνεργείας βρύων·// Κωνσταντῖνος
δὲ καὶ Ῥωμανὸς δεσπόται // λίθων διαυγῶν συνθέσει καὶ μαργάρων//ἔδειξαν αὐτὸ θαύματος πεπλησμένον... (Koder, Ο Κωνσταντίνος
Πορφυρογέννητος και η σταυροθήκη του Λίμπουργκ 171); see also Boura, Ο Βασίλειος Λεκαπηνός παραγγελιοδότης έργων τέχνης
416–419 as well as Ševčenko, The Limburg Staurothek 289. On the staurothek of Limburg, see also below p. 54–55f.
55
Kolia-Dermitzaki, Ο βυζαντινός ‘ιερός πόλεμος’ 244; McGeer, Two Military Orations 123 ff.; Koutouvalas, Οι αποδιδόμενες
στον Κωνσταντίνο Ζ΄ Πορφυρογέννητο δημηγορίες 72. See also below pp. 53–54.
56
Dagron, Byzance et le modèle islamique 225ff.; Karaple, Κατευόδωσις στρατού 50ff.
57
See e.g. Dennis, The Taktika of Leo VI, 14, 1; E. McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century.
Washington D.C. 1995, 58 (= Presentation and Composition on Warfare of the Emperor Nikephoros, VI, 33–48), 140 ( = The
Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos [chapters 56 through 65], 62, 111–127). See also M. McCormick, Eternal Victory. Cambridge –
Paris 1986, 249–250 and passim.
58
Dennis, The Taktika of Leo VI 12, 57. For a detailed account, see Dagron, Byzance et le modèle islamique 225–226; Koutra-
kou, Propagande impériale 371ff. and Stouraitis, Krieg und Frieden 314ff.
59
See above p. 51.
 The Ideology of War in the Military Harangues of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 53

the field of battle, and which mobilize him in the struggle against the adherents of other faiths, and Muslims
in particular60. Two more sections in Syrianus’ work, the eloquently titled Ἀπὸ τῆς πατρίδος (ΧΙ) and Ἀπὸ
τῆς πρὸς τοὺς ὁμοφύλους ἀγάπης (ΧΙΙ), complement his prescriptions on faith and religiosity (scil. Ἀπὸ τοῦ
ζήλου τῆς πίστεως).
The above amply testifies to the importance Syrianus ascribes to preparing the army in religious terms
prior to battle. Consequently, the Porphyrogennetos, who was familiar with Syrianus as well as the older
strategic texts, was not breaking new ground in ascribing a fundamental role to the religious underpinnings
of his harangues. On the other hand, the comparative study of the two harangues made it clear that the em-
peror had no qualms about outstripping his model in pointedly stressing the issue of religion to bolster his
troops’ morale. Indicatively, in Harangue I, Jesus Christ is ...βοηθός...μόνος καὶ δυνατὸς ἐν πολέμοις...ὃς
συντρίβει τόξα...καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑπερηφάνων ταπεινοῖ, and the troops look to Him for victory in battle61. I
should also like to include three quotes from Harangue II, in which, as has rightly been noted62, the elevated
religious tone far surpasses Syrianus’ guidelines: Constantine VII informs his soldiers that he has entreated
the monks who are ...ἐν ὄρεσι καὶ σπηλαίοις καὶ ταῖς ὀπαῖς τῆς γῆς to pray for them, and commanded the
priests and monks in the churches and monasteries of Constantinople to do the same63. However, he goes
further still when he says that he will kiss the bodies of his soldiers wounded διὰ Χριστὸν as he would the
sacred relics of martyrs64, referring to the perception, widespread at the time, that men who fell in battle
against unbelievers should be considered martyrs to their faith65, while he also took care to have the army
blessed with holy water hallowed with the numerous sacred relics now kept in Constantinople and despatched
to them66.
While the religious subtext of the two harangues is made immediately clear by their appeals to God and
their extensive references, a second reading of the works leads us to conclude that the texts of Constantine
VII, and Harangue II in particular, are primarily imbued and informed by the Old Testament, and only sec-
ondarily by the New Testament and the texts of the Church Fathers67. The scholarly research has noted some
of these debts, but has yet to proceed with a more profound analysis68. In my personal opinion, the extensive
use of the Old Testament in particular was deliberate, and intended to put both the harangues and their author
in a purely biblical ideological context. It is clearly no accident that the vast majority of these references
relate to the army’s morale, which has to be kept high by its leader, on whom the speeches’ narrative gradu-
ally imparts the prestige of the leader in whom Christian faith is combined with the strength required to lead
the army – even if indirectly and from afar – on the battlefield. But the supreme leader who protects the army
with His presence and His guidance is none other than Christ himself, and it is fascinating that the Porphy-
rogennetos attributed to Jesus characteristics which He clearly did not have: those of the punisher. The fol-

60
See H. Ahrweiler, L’idéologie politique de l’empire byzantin. Paris 1975, 35–36, who points out, quite correctly, that in Byzan-
tium patriotism and faith in Orthodoxy came together; see also Syrianus XXXVI 7ff.
61
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 398, 34–40 (Ahrweiler). See below pp. 54.
62
See above p. 50.
63
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 80 III 13–18 (Vári). The Porphyrogennetos’ appeal to the monks is confirmed in
two letters written by Symeon Logothete during roughly the same period; see Kolia-Dermitzaki, Ο βυζαντινός ‘ιερός πόλεμος’
247–248; McGeer, Two Military Orations 124 and n. 59; Koutouvalas, Οι αποδιδόμενες στον Κωνσταντίνο Ζ΄ Πορφυρογέννητο
δημηγορίες 62.
64
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 82–83 VIII 17–18 (Vári). McGeer (Two Military Orations 124 and n. 84) links the
Porphyrogennetos to Constantine the Great at this point, rightly so in my opinion. See below p. 55f.
65
On the extended discussion to which this important issue has given rise, see the detailed account in Kolia-Dermitzaki, Ο βυζαντινός
‘ιερός πόλεμος’ 130–141, 251ff. and passim, with full bibliography on the subject; cf. recently Stouraitis, Krieg und Frieden
338–339, 342ff., 374 and passim; Karaple, Κατευόδωσις στρατού 341ff.
66
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 82 VIII 24–31) (Vári). Cf. Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos 301
and n. 103. On the collection of holy relics in Constantinople, generally at the behest of the Porphyrogennetos himself, see below
p. 55 and n. 85.
67
On the Church Fathers, in particular, see Koutouvalas, Οι αποδιδόμενες στον Κωνσταντίνο Ζ΄ Πορφυρογέννητο δημηγορίες 48ff.,
50ff., 60ff., 63ff., 66ff., 70.
68
Ahrweiler, Discours inédit 398; Kolia-Dermitzaki, Ο βυζαντινός ‘ιερός πόλεμος’ 246; McGeer, Two Military Orations 118, 128,
133–134; Koutouvalas, Οι αποδιδόμενες στον Κωνσταντίνο Ζ΄ Πορφυρογέννητο δημηγορίες 48 ff., 59 ff. It should, however,
be pointed out that Ahrweiler, Idéologie politique 51, uses the term référence biblique to denote the Church’s cultivation of the
concept of the Byzantines as God’s chosen people.
54 Athanasios Markopoulos

lowing examples are purely indicative: from Harangue I, the army, being the περιούσιος λαός of Christ, be-
comes the shield which protects the state against the unbelievers69, and Jesus is ...κραταιός, μόνος καὶ δυνατὸς
ἐν πολέμοις70 and his knife ...παροξύνεται κατὰ τὴν ἀστραπὴν71, while Christ Himself destroys the enemy’s
arms and razes walled cities to the ground72, teaches all those who place their hopes in Him that their hands
are ready to wage war73 and ...τίθησι δὲ τόξον χαλκοῦν τοὺς βραχίονας, δίδωσι δὲ αὐτοῖς ὑπερασπισμὸν
σωτηρίας74. The Byzantine leader mediates between God and his soldiers, as we have seen, so the latter can
fight their adversaries without fear75. Harangue II displays the same mindset, though on a considerably
larger scale and from a different viewpoint, since Jesus, the conquering commander-in-chief, is absent: the
λαός is θεοσύλλεκτος76 as well as σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας κυρίου τὸ κράτιστον77, which directly references the
Old Testament78. The second harangue differs from the first, too, in directly referencing its sources, as in
passage 78.1,16-18 = John 3:16, in which the author, taking his cue from the Gospels which he has just
quoted (οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ δέδωκεν εἰς θάνατον)
proceeds to construct an image by which he identifies himself with his troops as flesh and bone; the same is
true of another passage in the text which references the Psalms79. The image of God the Punisher, familiar
from Harangue I80, returns at the end of Harangue II where Constantine VII combines a host of quotations
from the Old Testament, primarily from the Psalms: ...ὁ περιζωννύων ῥομφαίαν τοῖς δυνατοῖς ἐν πολέμῳ, ὁ
ὑπερηφάνως ἀντιτασσόμενος, ταπεινῶν δὲ ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἕως γῆς, ὁ διδάσκων χεῖρας εἰς πόλεμον...καὶ λεπτύνων
αὐτοὺς ὡσεὶ χνοῦν κατὰ πρόσωπον ἀνέμου81.
Special mention must be made, too, of an indirect biblical reference made, with slightly amendments, in
both harangues; thus, in Harangue I, the Porphyrogennetos calls his soldiers’ attention to the fact that they
have roundly defeated Chamda’s forces and ...κατὰ τοὺς πρόπαλαι Αἰγυπτίους, ὕδατι παρεδώκατε82, while in
Harangue II, Jesus is praised for sending Pharaoh’s army to the bottom of the sea and saving a λαὸν ταπεινόν83.
It would seem indubitable that both passages are references to Exod. 14:15ff., i.e. to the flight of the Hebrews,
led by Moses, across the Red Sea, and to the fate that consequently befell Pharaoh’s army.

3. Harangues, Imperial Ideology and Models

Taking everything we have noted about the two harangues into account, we could argue that they are the
products of a specific plan which took shape over time. They have obvious points in common: similarly
sectioned, both employ Syrianus as their model, and both seek to gird the soldiers prior to battle with direct
references to earlier victories over the Arabs, to whom the Byzantine soldiers are rendered superior by their
Christian faith. Drawing primarily on the Old Testament, the Porphyrogennetos far exceeds his model, reveal-
ing that he commands the army as the supreme victorious leader on earth – in Harangue II, in particular –
whom the Lord protects with His munificence and transforms into a scourge of the unbelievers. The em-
peror, God’s chosen one, carefully bolsters this image and the elements of which it consists and on which it
69
See above p. 50.
70
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 398 35 (Ahrweiler) = Ps. 23:8.
71
Ibid. 398 35–36 (Ahrweiler) = Deut. 32:41.
72
Ibid. 398 37 (Ahrweiler) = Ps. 75:4 and Is. 25:2.
73
Ibid. 398 38–39 (Ahrweiler) = Ps. 17:35.
74
Ibid. 398 38–40 (Ahrweiler) = Ps.17:35–36.
75
See above pp. 49–50.
76
See above p. 50.
77
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 78 I 67 (Vári).
78
Deut. 32:9; Ps. 104:11
79
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 79 I 28–31 (Vári) = Ps. 15:9.
80
See above pp. 50–51.
81
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 83 VIII 42–50 (Vári) = Ps. 44:4; Prov. 3:34; Ps. 17:33; 17:35; 17:42. On the quo-
tations, see McGeer, Two Military Orations 134 and n. 100–108 as well as Koutouvalas, Οι αποδιδόμενες στον Κωνσταντίνο Ζ΄
Πορφυρογέννητο δημηγορίες 70.
82
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue I, 398 42–43 (Ahrweiler). Mazzucchi (Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos 298 and
n. 95) dates Harangue I to 950 on the basis of this reference, noting that the final ‘act’ of the Byzantine campaign against the
Arabs unfolded on the banks of Lake al-Hadat; see above pp. 48–49.
83
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Harangue II, 83 VIII 40–41 (Vári).
 The Ideology of War in the Military Harangues of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 55

is based. His assembling of a large number of sacred relics in Constantinople for example84 for use inter alia
on campaign – as was most likely the case with the staurothek of Limburg85 – and for hallowing the holy
water he dispatches to his soldiers in the field86 is clearly intended to enhance his image as a modern leader
– exemplum to the army, the chief addressee of his orations, but also to his subjects in general87. Following
in the footsteps of Constantine the Great, the Porphyrogennetos also deliberately parallels himself in both
harangues with his soldiers, who are both martyrs and heroes. If Constantine VII presents himself as an exem-
plum, which is virtually self-evident since the phenomenon of Constantinism was cultivated with singular
zeal during the period in which he ruled the empire alone88, Constantine the Great is clearly the ultimate
exemplum of the two orations: it was to this leader that the emperors of Byzantium looked, since it was in
him that all the features of the image of the ideal Christian princeps – and the ideal Roman soldier – came
together89. Judging from the numerous lives written in his honour, Constantine would be transformed during
this period into a near legendary, saintly figure90. Finally, were one to seek the ideal typos projected by the
two harangues, this would clearly derive from the Old Testament in line with the extant ritual91, and could be
none other than Moses. If will be recalled that it was Eusebius who first drew parallels between Constantine
and Moses in his Vita Constantini: both distanced themselves from the ruling dynasty (Pharaoh, Diocletian),
Moses led his people to the Red Sea and Constantine allowed them to freely perform their religion obligations
and, finally, Pharaoh’s army was lost following divine intervention in the Red Sea, while the forces of Max-

84
Ibid., 83 VIII 23–28.
85
The working hypothesis proposed by Ševčenko (The Limburg Staurothek 292–294) is most probably correct. It is known that the
Porphyrogennetos assigned great importance to the issue, considering the possession of sacred relics to confer enormous prestige
on both himself and his dynasty by linking them to God, Who clearly smiles on such activities. Moreover, the linking of the
Macedonian dynasty with the divine would form a key element of the Constantinism which was being most cultivated assidu-
ously at this time. On this important issue, see esp. I. Kalavrezou, Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial Ceremonies and the
Cult of Relics at the Byzantine Court, in: Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. H. Maguire. Dumbarton Oaks 1997,
53–79, with a full bibliography on the subject. See also B. Flusin, Le Panégyrique de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète pour la
translation des reliques de Grégoire le Théologien (BHG 728). REB 57 (1999) 5–97; Idem, Les reliques de la Sainte-Chapelle et
leur passé impérial à Constantinople, in: Le trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle. Paris 2001, 20–31, esp. 26–27; M. Guscin, The Image
of Edessa. Leiden – Boston 2009 (a somewhat problematic study); Karaple, Κατευόδωσις στρατού 102ff. From the older bibli-
ography, see Kolia-Dermitzaki, Ο βυζαντινός ‘ιερός πόλεμος’ 275–285; N. Oikonomides, The Concept of ‘Holy War’ and Two
Tenth-century Byzantine Ivories, in: Peace and War in Byzantium, ed. T. S. Miller – J. Nesbitt. Washington, D. C. 1995, 62–86
and Markopoulos, Constantine the Great 165–166, 168. I have included the extract that follows from the speech delivered by
Constantine VII to mark the removal of the relics of Gregory of Nazianzos to Constantinople, since it reveals the Porphyrogen-
netos’ great interest in transferring sacred relics to the Byzantine capital, as well as his association with Constantine the Great:
...Ἄρτι δὲ τῶν Ῥωμαϊκῶν σκήπτρων ὑπὸ βασιλεῖ πιστῷ καὶ θεοσεβεῖ καὶ τοῦ πρώτου βασιλεύσαντος ὁμωνύμῳ καὶ ὁμοζήλῳ καὶ
πλεῖστον ὅσον τὸν ἄνδρα τιμῶντι καθισταμένων, πολλήν τε περὶ τοὺς αὐτοῦ λόγους μελέτην καὶ φιλοπονίαν ἐπιδεικνυμένῳ καὶ
θαυμάζοντι...διανίσταται πρὸς τὴν ζήτησιν καὶ τὸ βούλευμα ἱεροῖς καὶ τὰ θεῖα πεπαιδευμένοις ἀνδράσιν ἀνατίθησιν...πείθεται ταῖς
ἀγαθαῖς αὐτῶν εἰσηγήσεσι καὶ τρόπον ἕτερον τῷ μεγάλῳ συναμιλλᾶται Προδρόμῳ, ἑτοιμαστὴς καὶ οὗτος τῶν τρίβων τοῦ μεγάλου
θεολόγου καὶ ἀρχιποιμένος γενόμενος, ὡς ἐκεῖνός ποτε τοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς διὰ σαρκὸς ἐνδημήσαντος Ἰησοῦ... (Flusin, Le Panégyrique
de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète 55, 246–261).
86
See above p. 53f.
87
On the terms exemplum and typos, which will be discussed directly, see very recently Cl. Rapp, Old Testament Models for Em-
perors in Early Byzantium, in: The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. P. Magdalino – R. Nelson. Dumbarton Oaks 2010, 175–197,
esp. 177–182.
88
Markopoulos, Constantine the Great 162ff.; G. Dagron, Empereur et prêtre. Paris 1996, 206–210.
89
Cf. T. R. Van Dam, The Roman Revolution of Constantine. Cambridge 2007, 329; also Markopoulos, Constantine the Great
164ff.
90
See F. Winkelmann, Das hagiographische Bild Konstantins I. in mittelbyzantinischer Zeit, in: Beiträge zur byzantinischen Ge-
schichte im 9.–11. Jahrhundert, ed. V. Vavřínek. Prague 1978, 179–203, esp. 181f; A. P. Kazhdan, ‘Constantin imaginaire’.
Byzantine Legends of the Ninth Century about Constantine the Great. Byz 57 (1987) 196–250; S. N. C. Lieu, From History to
Legend and Legend to History. The Medieval and Byzantine Transformation of Constantine’s Vita, in: Constantine. History,
Historiography and Legend, ed. S. N. C. Lieu – D. Monserrat. London – New York 1998, 136–176; Idem, Constantine in Legen-
dary Literature, in: The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, ed. N. Lenski. Cambridge 2006, 298–321. Cf. also the
classic paper by A. Linder, The Myth of Constantine the Great in the West: Sources and Hagiographic Commemoration. Studi
Medievali 16 (1975) 43–95 and recently A. Panagopoulou, Ο Μέγας Κωνσταντίνος και ο μύθος του: σύμβολο και πηγή εξουσίας
σε Βυζάντιο και Δύση το 10ο αιώνα. Peri Istorias 5 (2007) 35–58, which unfortunately adds little to the debate.
91
Rapp, Old Testament Models 179–180.
56 Athanasios Markopoulos

entius met an equivalent fate at the Bridge of Mulvia (312)92. It will be recalled that both of the Porphyrogen-
netos’ harangues expressly reference the destruction of Pharaoh’s forces, which could hardly be put down to
chance, given the comparisons drawn between the Porphyrogennetos, Constantine the Great and Moses93.
To sum up, Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos’ harangues are more than “...two speeches...of greater his-
torical interest than has usually been supposed”, the phrase with which McGeer brings his memorable study
to a close94. Texts of singular literary and, above all, ideological interest, they represent another, and clearly
fascinating, side of the Porphyrogennetos’ activities: that of the military leader and emperor chosen by God95.
We are clearly observing the process which transferred Constantine the Great, step by step, from the fourth
to the tenth century.

92
Ibid. 182–183. Cf. also N. Staubach, In hoc signo vinces. Wundererklärung und Wunderkritik im vormodernen Wissensdiskus.
Frühmittelalterliche Studien 43 (2009) 1–52.
93
See Dagron, Empereur et prêtre 114, 125–127, 234, who underscores Photios’ great interest in Moses; see also above p. 54.
94
McGeer, Two Military Orations 134.
95
“Religiöse Rhetorik” is the term used for text on this sort by Stouraitis, Krieg und Frieden 314.