| Leo V the Armenian | |
|---|---|
| Emperor of the Romans | |
 Depiction of Leo from the 12th centuryMadrid Skylitzes. | |
| Byzantine emperor | |
| Reign | 12 July 813 – 25 December 820 |
| Coronation | 12 July 813[1] |
| Predecessor | Michael I |
| Successor | Michael II |
| Co-emperor | Constantine |
| Born | c. 775 |
| Died | 25 December 820 (agedc. 45) |
| Consort | Theodosia |
| Issue | Constantine Basil Gregory Theodosios Anna |
| Father | Bardas |
Leo V the Armenian (Greek:Λέων ὁ Ἀρμένιος,Léōn ho Arménios;c. 775 – 25 December 820) was theByzantine emperor from 813 to 820. He is chiefly remembered for ending the decade-long war with theBulgars, as well as initiating the second period ofByzantine iconoclasm.
A senior general of Armenian origin, Leo distinguished himself underNikephoros I andMichael I Rhangabe, eventually becoming thestratēgos of theAnatolic Theme. Taking advantage of Michael's defeat at theBattle of Versinikia, he forced the emperor to abdicate in his favour. He was able to withhold theblockade of Constantinople byKrum of Bulgaria and, after Krum's death, concluded a30-year peace with his successorOmurtag.
In 815, Leo deposed PatriarchNikephoros and reinstituted iconoclasm. He was assassinated by supporters ofMichael the Amorian, one of his most trusted generals, who succeeded him on the throne in 820.
Leo was bornc. 775 in UmayyadArminiya,[2]: 431, 438 the son of the patrician Bardas, who was ofArmenian descent. According toTheophanes Continuatus, Leo was also of Assyrian/Syrian descent.[3][4][5] In his youth he fled with his family to theByzantine Empire and enrolled in the army of theAnatolic Theme. In 802, the generalBardanes Tourkos took over the theme and married one of his daughters to Leo. When Bardanes rebelled, Leo deserted to EmperorNikephoros I who promoted him to the position ofstratēgos of theArmeniac Theme. In 811, when Nikephoros was planning his major campaign against theBulgars (which was to end disastrously),Arab raiders captured and destroyed the city ofEuchaita in the Armeniac Theme—a humiliating defeat in which the salaries of the thematic units were also lost. Nikephoros blamed this on Leo and exiled him.[2]: 428, 431 [6][7] Punishment also included deprivation of his military rank, beating and hair cutting.[8] However, a modern scholar suggests this "Leo" mentioned in the contemporary sources as being punished by Nikephoros was not the same as the later Emperor Leo.[9]
Recalled byMichael I Rhangabe in 811, Leo became governor of theAnatolic Theme and conducted himself well in a war against theArabs in 812, defeating the forces of the Cilicianthughur underThabit ibn Nasr. Leo survived theBattle of Versinikia in 813 by abandoning the battlefield, but nevertheless took advantage of this defeat to force the abdication of Michael I in his favor on 11 July 813. It was at this time that people assembled at the tomb ofConstantine V, an emperor who was victorious against the Bulgars, and cried out to it: "Arise and help the state which is perishing!"[10]: 257
In a diplomatic move, Leo wrote a letter toPatriarch Nikephoros in order to reassure him of his orthodoxy (Nikephoros being obviously afraid of a possibleiconoclast revival).[11] A further step in preventing future usurpations was the castration of Michael I's sons.[12] One month later, during his entrance to the Palace quarter, he kneeled before theicon ofChrist at theChalke Gate, which was erected by EmpressIrene.[13][14]: 131
Leo inherited a precarious situation. Within a week of his coronation, KhanKrum of Bulgaria blockaded bothAdrianople andConstantinople by land. He agreed to negotiate in person with Krum but used the opportunity to attempt to have him assassinated. The stratagem failed, enraging Krum who sacked the suburbs of Constantinople and towns in southernThrace. However, he abandoned hissiege of the capital, and withdrew tocapture and depopulate Adrianople. With this moment of respite, Leo divorced his allegedly adulterous wife and married the daughter of thepatrikiosArsaber, the well-regarded Armenian noblewomanTheodosia, crowning her first son, the ten-year-oldSymbatios, co-emperor, and renaming him Constantine, recalling the militarily successfuliconoclast emperors of the eighth century,Leo III the Isaurian andConstantine V. In 814, Krum sackedArcadiopolis and other Thracian towns, and planned a full-scale siege ofConstantinople, but died of astroke before he could begin, causing the Bulgar threat to finally recede.[2]: 431–432 [10]: 272
The motives for the second iconoclasm appear to be more straightforward than in the first, and are much less contested among scholars. Like EmperorPhilippikos' (r. 711–713) re-introduction ofmonothelitism in 711, Leo's adoption of iconoclasm was a strategy for imperial survival and a means of bolstering imperial authority (although it is noted that pragmatism and genuine conviction are not mutually exclusive, i.e., Leo may have had genuinely iconoclastic convictions). And just as PatriarchNikephoros I and Theodore the Stoudite opposed imperial intervention in dogmatic matters, so too didMaximos the Confessor oppose the monothelite policies ofConstans II (r. 641–688). In turn, Constans and Leo appealed to the legacy ofConstantine the Great in convoking theFirst Council of Nicaea, and believed their actions were only a re-assertion of this legitimate imperial authority in spiritual matters.[14]: 367–368
Leo informed his advisers of his opinion that recent emperors had suffered defeat because of theirveneration of icons (oriconodulia), unlike the iconoclast emperors Leo III and Constantine V who were victorious against the Arabs and Bulgars. He appointed a theological commission led by the monkJohn the Grammarian (laterPatriarch of Constantinople John VII). When called to comment, the iconodule PatriarchNikephoros I of Constantinople rejected the report and argued that thebiblical passages quoted as condemning iconodulia were not dealing with "holy images" but with idols. Leo asked the commission to produce a more carefully researched document, and enlisted the help of a major bishop,Antony, later Patriarch of Constantinople from 821. In the second document, the commission stated that, since the military blamed their defeats by the Bulgars on iconodulia, a compromise must be sought in which only images hanging low in churches (which are therefore able to be venerated) would be removed, but Nikephoros resisted again. Leo asked Nikephoros to provide biblical proof-texts for iconodulia but he appealed instead to the notion of the long-standing tradition of iconodulia. Leo then proposed a debate with the commission, but Nikephoros refused to participate. While Leo was attempting to present himself as a just arbitrator of a debate, rather than as a tyrant imposing iconoclasm for secular reasons (as was the characterisation of many iconodule accounts), debate among clergy only resulted in a stalemate. Some soldiers of the imperial guard threw stones and mud at theicon ofChrist over the Chalke Gate, shouting iconoclastic slogans, prompting Leo to have it replaced with across.[14]: 131, 369–370 [2]: 432
This caused alarm among the clergy who met in the patriarchal palace on Christmas Eve 814. Patriarch Nikephoros refuted the document produced by the commission and had the clergy sign a pledge to oppose iconoclasm with their lives. The next day, Leo requested the iconodule clergy to engage in a debate with the commission, and kissed a small icon to demonstrate his desire for compromise. The influential iconodule abbot,Theodore the Stoudite, asked the Emperor not to involve himself in theological matters. After several weeks of correspondence and attempts by Leo to persuade clergy of the compromise proposal, Nikephoros remained unwavering in his views. At the beginning ofLent, he once again refused to discuss the issue and was deposed and exiled. Leo appointed the layman iconoclastTheodotos I, who held a synod to overturn theSecond Council of Nicaea (787) and reaffirm theCouncil of Hieria (754) as the seventhecumenical council. TheActs of theCouncil of Constantinople (815) differ from those of Hieria in that they do not charge the iconodules with idolatry, but rather "folly" and "recklessness": "we determine that the making of images is neither venerable nor useful, but we refrain from calling them idols, because even in evil exist different degrees". The central argument was that holy images were unsuitable if placed in areas that would implicitly or explicitly earn them the devotion and adoration which is due toGod alone. EmpressIrene was criticised for introducing the veneration of images, which are said to circumscribe the uncircumscribable and separateChrist's humanity from his divinity. In this sense, images are also called "falsely-named" in that they do not truly represent what they are said to, since they do not share in the essence of the person depicted. Images are also not said to be endowed withdivine grace.[14]: 371–374
Leo's compromise policy resulted in great success, and Theodore of Stoudion reports in a letter that virtually the whole clergy of Constantinople adopted the imperial position, along with many bishops and laymen throughout the Empire. Those who refused to take communion with Patriarch Theodotos were forced into exile, and opponents of iconoclasm were often sentenced toflogging. However, Theodore also refers to "orthodox" churches which commemorated the name of the iconoclast Patriarch but still practiced the veneration of icons.[14]: 376–379 The Emperor seized the properties of iconodules and monasteries, such as the richMonastery of Stoudios, exiling Theodore the Stoudite. He also exiled other bishops that opposed him such asAnthony the Confessor andTheophanes the Confessor.[2]: 432 [10]: 289 [15]
Leo likely realised that it was impossible to force everyone to agree with him, and so, similar to Constans II, was less concerned with convincing his opponents of iconoclasm than with convincing them to compromise and not pursue the matter further. In other words, he was more interested in ecclesiastical unity rather than strict iconoclasm. For example, in theLife ofNicetas of Medikion, it is reported that Patriarch Theodotos gave communion to iconodule monks while they were proclaiming "Anathema to those who do not venerate the icon of Christ". Icons were not tolerated in prominent public spaces but were allowed in private, so long as people recognised the iconoclast Patriarch.[14]: 380
Shortly after the reinstitution of iconoclasm, the new Khan of Bulgaria,Omurtag, executed his Byzantine captives who refused to renounceChristianity, raided Thrace and ignored an imperial embassy, forcing Leo to fight. In theBattle of Mesembria of spring 816, Leo marched to the environs ofMesembria (Nesebar), camping near the Bulgars, pretending to flee and then ambushing them as they pursued him. He decisively defeated the Bulgar army and raided Bulgar territory, then concluding a30-year peace treaty with Omurtag which restored the frontier of 780.[2]: 432–433 According to some sources, Krum participated in the battle and abandoned the battlefield heavily injured.[16][17]
While Leo was successful on the Bulgar front, relations with theFranks and thePapacy were difficult. Theodotos attempted to establish friendly relations withPope Paschal I (817–824) but was rebuffed. Theodore the Stoudite pre-empted these efforts through his correspondence with Paschal beforehand, in which he criticised the iconoclast patriarch and directly appealed to the papacy to restore orthodoxy in the Byzantine Empire.[14]: 381–385 Leo then worked to consolidate the Empire by rebuilding theThracesian andMacedonian Themes. In 817, he sent fleets to raid the weakenedAbbasid Caliphate and led an army to retake the frontier fortress ofKamachon which was lost underConstantine VI. In 818, theRus' raided the Empire for the first time, specifically the northern coast ofAnatolia, which Leo responded to by reinforcing the Armeniac Theme with naval squadrons. There was also mounting underground opposition to Leo's reign and iconoclasm especially among monastic communities, one of the leaders of which was Theodore the Stoudite. In 820, Leo uncovered and punished a conspiracy against him. Nevertheless, it appeared to Leo, his iconoclast supporters and even some iconodules that the Empire was now in God's favour with the reinstitution of iconoclasm, which had coincided with victory over the Bulgars as it had with Constantine V.[2]: 433 [10]: 282 Even sources vehemently hostile to Leo (e.g., Theophanes Continuatus and Patriarch Nikephoros) acknowledge his competence in managing state affairs.[18] Although, as with all iconoclast emperors, his actions and intentions cannot be easily reconstructed due to the extreme bias of the iconodule sources (there are no surviving contemporary iconoclast sources of any kind).[19]
The conspiracy which was to overthrow Leo was led by theDomestic of the Excubitors,Michael the Amorian, who disapproved of Leo's divorce and remarriage (he was married to the sister of the divorcée). In late 820, agents of thePostal Logothete uncovered the plot. Leo imprisoned him and sentenced him todeath by burning, but Empress consort Theodosia arranged a postponement of the execution until after Christmas.[2]: 433 This allowed Michael to organise plotters to carry out theassassination of the Emperor in the palace chapel of St. Stephen onChristmas Eve. Leo was attending thematins service when a group of assassins disguised as members of the choir due to sing in the service suddenly threw off their robes and drew their weapons.[20]
In the dim light they mistook the officiating priest for the Emperor and the confusion allowed Leo to snatch a heavy cross from the altar and defend himself. He called for his guards, but the conspirators had barred the doors and within a few moments a sword stroke had severed his arm, and he fell before the communion-table, where his body was hewed in pieces. His remains were dumped unceremoniously in the snow and the assassins hurried to the dungeons to free Michael.
Unfortunately for them Leo had hidden the key on his person, and since it was too early in the morning to find a blacksmith, Michael was hastilycrowned as emperor with the iron clasps still around his legs. Leo's family (including his mother and his wife, Theodosia) was exiled to monasteries on thePrinces' Islands. His four sons (including ex co-emperor Symbatios) were castrated, a procedure so brutally carried out that one of them died during the "operation".[21]
While the Byzantine bureaucracy preferred the new emperorMichael II (r. 820–829) to Leo, who reinitiated theiconoclast controversy, Leo was popular with the army due to his military victories. Upon news of his assassination, theAnatolic Theme proclaimedThomas the Slav, who had served with Leo and Michael underBardanes Tourkos, rightful emperor and avenger of Leo. TheBucellarian,Paphlagonian andCibyrrhaeot Themes immediately sided with the Anatolics, leading to the outbreak of civil war in 821.[2]: 434 Despite overthrowing Leo, Michael continued his iconoclast policies.[10]: 289
The second Byzantine iconoclasm was more moderate than the first. Images that were not actively venerated were permitted and iconodules were not accused ofidolatry. There is no substantial evidence that Leo was a fierce persecutor of iconodules as some accounts claim. And further, it is most likely that the second iconoclasm was a genuine reflection of anxiety in the military and the Constantinopolitan population. The military especially was clearly inspired by the heroic image of the iconoclastConstantine V. Leo found more allies in the clergy, especially the learned figure ofJohn VII of Constantinople, his appointee. By the reign ofTheophilos (r. 829–842),Theodore the Stoudite and most iconodule bishops had died. However, iconoclasm never had a strong base in the Church, and was easily abolished after Theophilos' death by Empress regentTheodora. John VII was replaced by the iconoduleMethodios I. After the institution of the liturgicalFeast of Orthodoxy on 11 March 843, now a symbol of theEastern Orthodox faith, iconoclasm was very rarely defended by any Byzantine clergy. The efforts of the church to affirm its autonomy against imperial authority permanently excluded the Byzantine emperors from ruling on matters of dogma and established thePatriarch of Constantinople as the uncontested head of the church.[10]: 289–291 [2]: 553 [14]: 382–383
Leo resembled the emperors ofIsaurian dynasty in ways besides his iconoclasm. By later chroniclers, he was given the reputation of beingpopulist and eager to both pursue justice and undo injustices carried out by the Byzantine bureaucracy.[10]: 275 He was a particularly active military leader, going on campaign almost every year.[10]: 273
Nicholas Adontz, in his bookThe age and origins of the emperor Basil I (1933), expressed a theory that Leo V and Theodosia were ancestors ofBasil I. The theory was partly based on the account of his ancestry given byConstantine VII, a grandson of Basil I, as well as the accounts given by Theophanes Continuatus.[22] Basil I, according to these accounts, was a son of peasants. His mother is named by Constantine VII as "Pankalo". The name of his father was not recorded, but the names Symbatios (Smbat) and Constantine have been suggested; both were names used by the eldest sons of Basil, with eldest sons of Byzantines typically named after their grandfathers.[22] The paternal grandfather of Basil is named as Maiactes (or Hmayeak in Armenian). Basil's paternal grandmother was not named but was identified as a daughter of "Leo", a citizen ofConstantinople. Adontz identified this Leo as Leo V, which would make Leo V and Theodosia great-grandparents of Basil I.[22]
The scholar Chris Bennett has hypothesised that, for this theory to be true, Leo's daughter would have to have been of marriageable age between the years 780 to 797, which given the ages of her brothers (all born after 800) is unlikely. However, as a counter-argument Bennett has also suggested that Constantine VII may have made a mistake when determining the years separating Maiactes and Basil, and that the latter may have been born at least 20 years after his reported birth date ofc. 811.[22] This would indicate that it was Basil's father, rather than Basil himself, who was born at this time and had witnessed the wars withKrum of Bulgaria, and that Leo's daughter could therefore have been born (rather than married) in the 790s, which would make Adontz' theory possible.[22][a]
Adontz' theory has been accepted by several genealogists, includingChristian Settipani in his search fordescent from antiquity. The name "Anna" has been suggested for the daughter of Leo V and Theodosia, because it was given to daughters ofBasil I,Leo VI the Wise,Constantine VII andRomanos II – almost every emperor that would claim descent from this woman.[22]
All known children of Leo V are traditionally attributed to his wifeTheodosia, a daughter of the patrician Arsaber.[22] Genesius records four sons:
The existence of a daughter has been debated by historians and genealogists. The tentative name "Anna" has been suggested (see above). She married Hmayeak, aMamikonian prince (died c. 797), by whom she had Konstantinos, an officer at the court of Emperor Michael III.[23][24]
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Leo (emperors)".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 16 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 439–440.
| Regnal titles | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | Byzantine Emperor 12 July 813 – 25 December 820 withSymbatios Constantine | Succeeded by |
| Political offices | ||
| Preceded by Nikephoros I in 803, then lapsed | Roman consul 814 | Succeeded by Lapsed, Michael II in 821 |
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| People | |
| Other | |
