1. Historical background
When the young emperor Michael III (842-867) was freed from the patronage of his mother Theodora and assumed power alone (856), the change coincided with the intensification of the struggle against the Arabs, a perpetual aim of which was to cause the adversary to weaken and thus to secure control over as many regions of Asia Minor as possible. The beginning of this new period of Byzantine attacks is marked by the victorious campaign of Petronas, uncle of the emperor and strategos of the theme of Thrakesion, in the summer of 856 against the Arabs and their allies, the Paulicians. The formers, due to the persecutions they suffered in the Byzantium, after the final restoration of the icons (March 843) and the strict orthodox policy imposed, were forced to migrate to the region of Upper Euphrates,1 in order to ask for the protection of ‘Amr al-Aqta’, emir of Melitene. The former offered them the area north of Melitene, where they settled, offering in exchange their military services to the Arabs. Although Petronas’ campaign had a positive impact on the moral of the Byzantines, it brought no substantial gains to the empire, since the Arabs continued raiding the Byzantine territories of Asia Minor. Among these military operations, in 863 ‘Amr al-Aqta’ decided to make a new campaign against the Byzantines.
2. The campaign of ‘Amr al-Aqta’ in Asia Minor
2.1. First conflict between the Arabs and the Byzantines
In the summer of 863 ‘Amr al-Aqta’, emir of Melitene, united his forces with Ja’far, probably the emir of Tarsus at that time,2 in order to make a common campaign against the Byzantine empire. The great Arab army,3 which must have also incorporated Paulicians troops under their leader Karbeas,4 left Tarsus and through the Gates of Cilicia passed to Cappadocia, where it made camp in a site called al-Matāmīr by the Arab sources, near Tyana.5 From there the emir of Melitene decided to move independently.6 Thus, he moved with his soldiers towards the north, to an area Arab sources call Marj al-Usquf (The Bishop’s Meadow), near Malakopea, north of Nazianzos, where he met the Byzantine troops under Michael III. In the following battle, the Byzantines destroyed a large part of the Arab army; they also suffered, however, grave losses, which forced them to retreat without managing to cut the advance of the Arabs. Next, ‘Amr al-Aqta’ moved even more to the north and, pillaging the theme of Armeniakon, reached the coasts of the Black Sea, where he occupied the important harbour of Amissos (present-day Samsun, Turkey).
2.2. Defeat and death of ‘Amr al-Aqta’
Right after Michael III learned of the capture of Amissos, he gathered a large military force7 and appointed the strategos of the theme of Thrakesion Petronas in command,8 setting as his immediate goal to drive the Arabs out of the territory of the empire. While ‘Amr al-Aqta’ was still in Amissos, the news of the mobilization of the Byzantines against him reached him. Notwithstanding the warnings of his officers to avoid conflict,9 ‘Amr al-Aqta’ moved towards the west, in order to face the troops of Petronas. On 3rd September 863, at the borders of the themes of Armeniakon and Paphlagonia, and more specifically at the site of Poson, near the river Lalakaon,10 the Arab army suffered a total defeat by the Byzantines and was almost totally annihilated. ‘Amr himself was killed too, whereas the leader of the Paulicians Karbeas most probably lost his life at the battle.11
3. Consequences
The campaign of ‘Amr al-Aqta’ not only did it not manage to succeed its goal, which was the weakening of the Byzantine dominance over Asia Minor, but led to a crashing defeat, resulting in a decimation of the Arab army and the death of the emir himself. Above any obvious short-term consequences such a great defeat had, negative for the moral and the war power of the Arabs, positive for the Byzantines, from which it was considered a revenge for the fall of Amorion (this can be seen in the appearance of this event in the Byzantine hagiological texts, the epic poetry and the songs of the demoi of Constantinople), is at the same time an important turn in the history of the fight between the Arabs and the Byzantines: whereas since that time the effort of the Byzantines was limited initially to a struggle of survival and then to a defensive war against the Arabs, from now on the empire passes into the counterattack, which progressively intensifies, it is peaked in the second half of the 10th century, eventually assuring the Byzantine dominance over the area of Asia Minor. Already right after their victory at Lalakaon the Byzantines advanced even more to the east, over Euphrates and attacked Armenia and the Arab emir Alī ibn Yahya.12 In a more personal level, Petronas returned victorious to Constantinople and, after organizing an illustrious triumph,13 was honoured for his success by the emperor Michael III with the title of the magistros.14
1. Hild, F. – Restle, M., Tabula Imperii Byzantini 2: Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos) (Wien 1981), p. 79. 2. See Huxley, G., “The Emperor Michael III and the Battle of Bishop's Meadow (A.D. 863)”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16 (1975), p. 448 , and Belke, K., Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honorias (Wien 1996), p. 77, who accept the earlier view of Bury, J. B., A History of the Eastern Roman Empire (London 1912), p. 283. 3. According to the Theophanes Continuatus, Χρονογραφία, ed. I. Bekker, Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn 1838), p. 179, 14 and Josef Genesios, Βασιλείαι, ed. A. Lesmüller-Werner – I. Thurn, Iosephi Genesii Regum Libri Quattuor (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 14, Berlin-New York 1978), p. 67, 67, the military force of the emir of Melitene numbered 40,000 men. 4. On Karbeas, who was probably killed in the same battle with emir Amr al-Acta, see n. 11. 5. Huxley, G., “The Emperor Michael III and the Battle of Bishop's Meadow (A.D. 863)”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16 (1975), p. 448. 6. According to Treadgold, W. T., A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford 1997), p. 452, the caliph al-Musta῾in was the one who ordered a raid against Cappadocia and after the main body of the Arab army left the Byzantine territory then it was ‘Amr who continued the raid with his own troops. 7. According to the Arab historian al-Tabari, Barth, J. et al. (ed.), Ta'rikh al-Rusul wa-l-Muluk (Leiden 1879-1901), it numbered 50,000 men. 8. According to the Arab historian al-Tabari, emperor Michael III himself was in charge of this campaign. Vasiliev, A. A., Byzance et les Arabes 1: La dynastie d’Amorium (820- 867) (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae 1, Bruxelles 1968), p. 253, believes such a version might correspond to the real course of events, but is ignored by the Byzantine historians and chroniclers due to the negative light under which they portray Michael III. 9. Huxley, G., “The Emperor Michael III and the Battle of Bishop's Meadow (A.D. 863)”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16 (1975), p. 449; Belke, K., Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honorias (Wien 1996), p. 77. 10. Neither the area of Poson neither the river Lalakaon can be safely identified. Gregoire, H., “Etudes sur le neuvieme siecle”, Byzantion 8 (1933), p. 534-539, suggests that Lalakaon should be identified with the river Almyros, an identification which is, however, rejected by Vasiliev, A. A., Byzance et les Arabes 1: La dynastie d’Amorium (820- 867) (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae 1, Bruxelles 1968), p. 253, and Huxley, G., “The Emperor Michael III and the Battle of Bishop's Meadow (A.D. 863)”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16 (1975), p. 445. Most of the scholars believe that it is an area near the river Alys, either to its north, as believed by Belke, K., Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honorias (Wien 1996), 77, either to its west, as believed by Χριστοφιλοπούλου Αικατερίνη, Βυζαντινή Ιστορία 2: 610-867 (2Θεσσαλονίκη 1993), p. 216, either between the river and Lalakaon, its affluent, according to Jenkins, R. J. H., Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries (AD 610-1071) (London 1966), p. 162. Haldon, J. F., The Byzantine Wars (Stroud 2001), p. 84, believes that the river Lalakaon is identified with the modern Sehirmeydan? Cay?. 11. Such a possibility is considered credible by Vasiliev, A. A., Byzance et les Arabes 1: La dynastie d’Amorium (820-867) (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae 1, Bruxelles 1968), p. 256, since 863 is reported as the year of Karbeas’ death. See also Jenkins, R. J. H., Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries (AD 610-1071) (London 1966), p. 162, Hild, F. – Restle, M., Tabula Imperii Byzantini 2: Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos) (Wien 1981), p. 80, and Hild, F. - Hellenkemper, H., Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5: Kilikien und Isaurien (Wien 1990), p. 51. Treadgold, W. T., A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford 1997), p. 452, considers equally plausible the possibility that he was killed right after the battle, in the battle between the Byzantines and the emir Ali ibn Yahya. On the other hand, Lemerle, P., “L’ histoire des Pauliciens d’ Asie Mineure d’ apres les sources grecques”, Travaux et Memoires 5 (1973), p. 92-96, suggests that neither Karbeas, neither the Paulicians took part in the campaign of the emir of Melitene in 863 and he believes that, if indeed the leader of the Paulicians died in this year, then his death must have been caused by natural causes. 12. During the battle, which took part between the 18th and the 16th November 863, the Arab army was defeated, whereas Ali himself was also killed. 13. If we accept the view of the Arab historian al-Tabari (see n. 8), then along with Petronas the emperor Michael III came back. 14. Χριστοφιλοπούλου Αικατερίνη, Βυζαντινή Ιστορία 2: 610-867 (2Θεσσαλονίκη 1993), p. 217, reports that Petronas was appointed domestikos. |