| Part of a series on the |
| Byzantine army |
|---|
 |
| Structural history |
| Campaign history |
| Lists ofwars,revolts and civil wars, andbattles (Constantinople) |
| Strategy and tactics |
Thethemes orthémata (Greek:θέματα,thémata,singular:θέμα,théma) were the main military andadministrative divisions of the middleByzantine Empire. They were established in the mid-7th century in the aftermath of theSlavic migrations to Southeastern Europe andMuslim conquests of parts of Byzantine territory, and replaced the earlierprovincial system established byDiocletian andConstantine the Great. In their origin, the first themes were created from the areas of encampment of the field armies of theEast Roman army, and their names corresponded to the military units that had existed in those areas. The theme system reached its apogee in the 9th and 10th centuries, as older themes were split up and the conquest of territory resulted in the creation of new ones. The original theme system underwent significant changes in the 11th and 12th centuries, but the term remained in use as a provincial and financial circumscription until the very end of the Empire.
During the late 6th and early 7th centuries, theByzantine Empire was under frequent attack from all sides. TheSassanid Empire was pressing from the east onSyria,Egypt, andAnatolia.Slavs andAvars raided Thrace, Macedonia, Illyricum, and southern Greece and settled in theBalkans. TheLombards occupied northernItaly, largely unopposed. In order to face the mounting pressure, in the more distant provinces of the West, recently regained byJustinian I (r. 527–565), EmperorMaurice (r. 582–602) combined supreme civil and military authority in the person of anexarch, aviceroy, forming the exarchates ofRavenna andAfrica.[1] These developments overturned the strict division of civil and military offices, which had been one of the cornerstones of the reforms ofDiocletian (r. 284–305). Said administrative restructurings also found a precedent in Justinian's broad reorganization in the western conquests, denoting combined powers to the newly establishedPraetorian prefects of Africa (Eparchos tes Afrikís) andItaly (Eparchos tes Italías) respectively.[2]
Justinian also endowed governors (eparchs,stratelates) of the eastern provinces plagued by brigandage and foreign invasions with military and administrative powers, formally abolishing the empire'sdioceses, Diocletian's main administrative structure, but more importantly, he had also created the exceptional combined military-civilian circumscription of thequaestura exercitus and following the norm, abolished theDiocese of Egypt putting adux (Greek:stratelates) with combined authority at the head of each of its old provinces instead.[3][4] The empire maintained this precedent structure until the 640s, when the eastern part of the Empire faced theonslaught of the MuslimCaliphate. The rapid Muslim conquest of Syria and Egypt and consequent Byzantine losses in manpower and territory meant that the Empire found itself struggling for survival.
In order to respond to this unprecedented crisis, the Empire was drastically reorganized. As established byHellenistic political practice,philosophies andOrthodox doctrines, power had been concentrated in military leadersstrategoi who acted asviceroys in their respective "théma", being appointed by the emperor alone. Their main function around each was the collection of taxes from the different communities "chora", "komai" and from the different states "proasteion" as well as the management of fast and flexible provincial armies.[5] The remaining imperial territory inAsia Minor was divided into four large themes, and although some elements of the earlier civil administration survived, they were subordinated to the governing general orstratēgos.[6]
The origin and early nature of the themes has been heavily disputed amongst scholars. The very namethéma is of uncertain etymology, but most scholars followConstantine Porphyrogennetos, who records that it originates from Greekthesis ("placement").[7][8] The date of their creation is also uncertain. For most of the 20th century, the establishment of the themes was attributed to the EmperorHeraclius (r. 610–641), during thelast of theByzantine–Sassanid Wars.[9] Most notable amongst the supporters of this thesis wasGeorge Ostrogorsky who based this opinion on an extract from the chronicle ofTheophanes the Confessor mentioning the arrival of Heraclius "in the lands of the themes" for the year 622. According to Ostrogorsky, this "shows that the process of establishing troops (themes) in specific areas of Asia Minor has already begun at this time."[10] This view has been objected to by other historians however, and more recent scholarship dates their creation later, to the period from the 640s to the 660s, underConstans II (r. 641–668).[11] It has further been shown that, contrary to Ostrogorsky's conception of thethémata being established from the outset as distinct, well-defined regions where astratēgos held joint military and civil authority, the termthéma originally seems to have referred exclusively to the armies themselves, and only in the later 7th or early 8th centuries did it come to be transferred to the districts where these armies were encamped as well.[12]
Tied to the question of chronology is also the issue of a corresponding social and military transformation. The traditional view, championed by Ostrogorsky, holds that the establishment of the themes also meant the creation of a new type of army. In his view, instead of the old force, heavily reliant on foreign mercenaries, the new Byzantine army was based on native farmer-soldiers living on state-leased military estates (compare the organization of the Sasanianaswārān).[7][13] More recent scholars however have posited that the formation of the themes did not constitute a radical break with the past, but rather a logical extension of pre-existing, 6th-century trends, and that its direct social impact was minimal.[7]
What is clear is that at some point in the mid-7th century, probably in the late 630s and 640s, the Empire's field armies were withdrawn to Anatolia, the last major contiguous territory remaining to the Empire, and assigned to the districts that became known as the themes. Territorially, each of the new themes encompassed several of the older provinces, and with a few exceptions, seems to have followed the old provincial boundaries.[14] The first four themes were those of the Armeniacs, Anatolics and Thracesians, and the Opsician theme. TheArmeniac Theme (Θέμα Ἀρμενιακῶν,Théma Armeniakōn), first mentioned in 667, was the successor of the Army of Armenia. It occupied the old areas of thePontus,Armenia Minor and northernCappadocia, with its capital atAmasea.[15][16] TheAnatolic Theme (Θέμα Ἀνατολικῶν,Anatolikōn), first mentioned in 669, was the successor of the Army of theEast (Aνατολῆ,Anatolē). It covered southern central Asia Minor, and its capital wasAmorium.[17][18] Together, these two themes formed the first tier of defence of Byzantine Anatolia, bordering Muslim Armenia and Syria respectively. TheThracesian Theme (Θέμα Θρᾳκησίων,Théma Thrakēsiōn), first mentioned clearly as late as c. 740, was the successor of the Army ofThrace, and covered the central western coast of Asia Minor (Ionia,Lydia andCaria), with its capital most likely atChonae.[19] TheOpsician Theme (Θέμα Ὀψικίου,Théma Opsikiou), first mentioned in 680, was constituted from the imperial retinue (inLatinObsequium). It covered northwestern Asia Minor (Bithynia,Paphlagonia and parts ofGalatia), and was based atNicaea. Uniquely, its commander retained his title ofkómēs (κόμης, "count").[20]
In addition, the great naval division of the Carabisians orKarabisianoi (Kαραβισιάνοι, "people of theκᾱ́ρᾰβοι [ships]"), first mentioned in 680, was probably formed of the remains of the Army of theIllyricum or, more likely, the oldquaestura exercitus. It never formed a theme proper, but occupied parts of the southern coast of Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands, with itsstratēgos seat most likely atSamos. It provided the bulk of theByzantine navy facing the new Arab fleets, which after theBattle of the Masts contested control of the Mediterranean with the Empire.[21] In the event, the Carabisians would prove unsatisfactory in that role, and by 720 they had been disbanded in favour of a fully fledged naval theme, that of theCibyrrhaeots (Θέμα Κιβυρραιωτῶν,Thema Kibyrrhaiotōn), which encompassed the southern coasts of Asia Minor and theAegean islands.[22][23]
The part of the region ofThrace under Byzantine control was probably constituted as a theme at about 680, as a response to theBulgar threat, although for a time the command over Thrace appears to have been exercised by the Count of theOpsikion.[24][25][26] Successive campaigns by the emperors of theHeraclian dynasty in Greece also led to the recovery of control ofCentral Greece fromSlavic invaders, and to the establishment of the theme ofHellas there between 687 and 695.[27]Sicily too was formed as a theme by the end of the 7th century, but the imperial possessions in mainlandItaly remained under the exarch of Ravenna or the localdoukes, as didByzantine Africa until the fall ofCarthage in 698. At the same time,Crete and the imperial exclave ofCherson in theCrimea formed independentarchontiai.[25][28]
Thus, by the turning of the century, the themes had become the dominant feature of imperial administration. Their large size and power however made their generals prone to revolt, as had been evidenced in the turbulent period 695–715, and would again during the great revolt ofArtabasdos in 741–742.[29] The suppression of Artabasdos' revolt heralded the first significant changes in the Anatolian themes: the over-mightyOpsikion was broken up with the creation of two new themes, theBucellarian Theme and theOptimates, while the role of imperial guard was assumed by a new type of professional force, the imperialtagmata.[30]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fwikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(May 2008) |
Despite the prominence of the themes, it was some time before they became the basic unit of the imperial administrative system. Although they had become associated with specific regions by the early 8th century, it took until the end of the 8th century for the civil fiscal administration to begin being organized around them, instead of following the old provincial system.[31] This process, resulting in unified control over both military and civil affairs of each theme by itsstrategos, was complete by the mid-9th century,[32] and is the "classical" thematic model mentioned in such works as theKlētorologion and theDe Administrando Imperio.
At the same time, the need to protect the Anatolian heartland of Byzantium from the Arab raids led to the creation, in the later 8th and early 9th centuries, of a series of small frontier districts, thekleisourai orkleisourarchiai ("defiles, enclosures"). The term was previously used to signify strategically important, fortified mountain passages, and was now expanded to entire districts which formed separate commands under akleisourarchēs, tasked with guerrilla warfare and locally countering small to mid-scale incursions and raids. Gradually, most of these were elevated to full themes.[33][34]
With the beginning of the Byzantine offensives in the East and the Balkans in the 10th century, especially under the warrior-emperorsNikephoros II (r. 963–969),John I Tzimiskes (r. 969–976) andBasil II (r. 976–1025), newly gained territories were also incorporated into themes, although these were generally smaller than the original themes established in the 7th and 8th centuries.[35]
At this time, a new class of themes, the so-called "minor" (μικρὰ θέματα) or "Armenian" themes (ἀρμενικὰ θέματα) appear, which Byzantine sources clearly differentiate from the traditional "great" or "Roman" themes (ῥωμαϊκά θέματα). Most consisted merely of a fortress and its surrounding territory, with a juniorstratēgos (calledzirwar by the Arabs andzoravar by the Armenians) as a commander and about 1,000 men, chiefly infantry, as their garrison. As their name reveals, they were mostly populated byArmenians, either indigenous or settled there by the Byzantine authorities. One of their peculiarities was the extremely large number of officers (the theme ofCharpezikion alone counted 22 senior and 47 juniortourmarchai).[32][36][37]
While well suited for defence, the "Armenian" themes were incapable of responding to major invasions or undertake sustained offensive campaigns on their own. Thus, from the 960s, more and more professional regiments, both from the oldtagmata and newly raised formations, were stationed along the border. To command them as well as coordinate the forces of the small frontier themes, a number of large regional commands ("ducates" or "catepanates"), under adoux orkatepano, were set up. In the East, the three original such commands, set up by John Tzimiskes, were those of thedoukes ofAntioch,Chaldia andMesopotamia. As Byzantium expanded intoGreater Armenia in the early 11th century, these were complemented or replaced by the commands ofIberia,Vaspurakan,Edessa andAni.[38][39] In the same vein, the "Armenian" themes seem to have been placed under a singlestrategos in the mid-11th century.[37]
The series of soldier-emperors culminating in Basil II led to a situation where by 1025 Byzantium was more powerful than any of its enemies. At the same time, the mobile, professional forces of thetagmata gained in importance over the old thematic armies (and fleets) of the interior, which soon began to be neglected. Indeed, from the early 11th century military service was increasingly commuted to cash payments. While the frontier ducates were able to meet most local threats, the dissolution of the old theme-based defensive system deprived the Byzantine defensive system of any strategic depth. Coupled with increasing reliance on foreign mercenaries and the forces of allied and vassal states, as well as the revolts and civil wars resulting from the widening rift between the civilian bureaucracy in Constantinople and the land-holding military elites (thedynatoi), by the time of theBattle of Manzikert in 1071, the Byzantine army was already undergoing a severe crisis and collapsed completely in the battle's aftermath.[40]
TheKomnenian era saw a brief restoration of the empire's fortunes as the force now known as the 'Komnenian army' was established byAlexios I Komnenos, marking a decisive break with the thematic system. The new army was highly centralized in the person of the emperor and the ruling dynasty, and provided an element of stability which characterized the Komnenian restoration. It was noticeably more reliant on mercenaries such as theVarangian guard than the previous army, reducing the importance of the themes. Thestrategoi increasingly lost power as the empire centralized. The emperors often appointed relatives to the governorships, reducing their autonomous character and solidifying centralized imperial administration.[41]
TheKomnenian restoration required a new system to manage the severely weakened themes ofAnatolia due to the catastrophe ofManzikert. The themes followed the Kommenian era trend of greater imperial centralization with the governors being members of the imperial family, owing their allegiance solely to the emperor. This eroded the old independent character of the once large Anatolian themes. The new military governors (calledDoux orKatepanos indiscriminately) assumed strongly centralized roles on the emperor's behalf so that the influx of landedpronoia foreigners in military service could be regulated and counteracted in cases of uprising. The governorships were specifically reserved for relatives of the Komnenian family alone and though efficient emergency measures, it successfully turned the empire into a dependency on foreign mercenaries, yielding the mass of native Greeks and making it unprecedentedly subordinate to the will of its European counterparts.[42]
Each Theme was overseen by aKatepanos orDoux, whose authorities was both military and civil, subdivided intoKatepanakias encompassing the oldTourmas, now each ruled by aPraktor instead of aTourmarches fulfilling the same civic and military roles now widely in the hands ofpronoiars. The pronoiars became the bulk of the imperial tagmata's reserves, slowly taking their place side by side with the totally lawless landed monasteries and thedynatoi, who after Alexios's tax reforms could formalize the various illegally acquired towns and communes as long as they could secure the full taxation of their new domains by the fisc, a process worse fueled by the extensivechrysobulas of different institutions granted by the monarch.[43][44]
TheByzantine army of the Komnenian era never managed to field the manpower of the themes in their heyday, and the new system proved more expensive to maintain in the long run. It also relied on a succession of strong soldier-emperors to be effective. With the death ofManuel I Komnenos in 1180, a new period of decline set in.
| This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(January 2012) |
The neglect under theAngeloi dynasty and the weakening of central authority made the themes increasingly irrelevant in the late 12th century. Regional civil authorities such as the 'despotates' grew in power as central authority collapsed, rendering the themes moribund by the onset of thePalaiologos dynasty's rule.
The now irrelevant micro provinces under imperial control were organized directly intokatepanakias orkephalatikion each also ruled by aKatepan orKephale with military and civic powers centered around forts and major passes, relegating all minor tasks to deputies.[45]
The termthema was ambiguous, referring both to a form of military tenure and to an administrative division. A theme was an arrangement of plots of land given for farming to the soldiers "stratiotai" coexisting with different villages and towns, "Komai", "Chora" which were taxed for rapid and continuous revenue for the state with an easy and simple handling for a more direct control of the empire by the emperor alone or hisviceroys, which ultimately, was a simplifiedHellenistic and fiscal administrative principle adapted for war times.[46] The soldiers were still technically a military unit, under the command of astrategos, they did not own the land they worked as it was still controlled by the state. Therefore, for its use the soldiers' pay was reduced. By accepting this proposition, the participants agreed that their descendants would also serve in the military and work in a theme, thus simultaneously reducing the need for unpopularconscription as well as cheaply maintaining the military. It also allowed for the settling of conquered lands, as there was always a substantial addition made to public lands "proasteion" during a conquest.
The commander of a theme, however, did not only command his soldiers. He united the civil and military jurisdictions in the territorial area in question. Thus the division set up byDiocletian between civil governors (praesides etc.) and military commanders (duces etc.) was abolished, and the Empire returned to a system much more similar to that of the Republic or the Principate and directly linkeable to the system ofEparchies andStrategiai set up in the Hellenistic Seleucid and Mithridatric Kingdoms respectively, which were military in origin and organization as well, where provincial governors had also commanded the armies in their area.
The following table illustrates the thematic structure as found in the Thracesian Theme, c. 902-936:
| Structure of theThema Thrakēsiōn | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Number of personnel | Number of subordinate units | Officer in command | |||||||
| Thema | 9,600 | 4 Tourmai | Strategos | |||||||
| Tourma | 2,400 | 6 Droungoi | Tourmarches | |||||||
| Droungos | 400 | 2 Banda | Droungarios | |||||||
| Bandon | 200 | 2 Kentarchiai | Komes | |||||||
| Kentarchia | 100 | 10 Kontoubernia | Kentarches/Hekatontarches | |||||||
| 50 | 5 Kontoubernia | Pentekontarches | ||||||||
| Kontoubernion | 10 | 1 "Vanguard" + 1 "Rear Guard" | Dekarchos | |||||||
| "Vanguard" | 5 | n/a | Pentarches | |||||||
| "Rear Guard" | 4 | n/a | Tetrarches | |||||||
This list includes the large "traditional" themes established in the period from the inception of the theme system in c. 660 to the beginning of the great conquests in c. 930 and the creation of the new, smaller themes.[47]
| Theme (name in Greek) | Date | Established from | Later divisions | Capital | Original territory | Other cities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aegean Sea† (thema Aigaiou Pelàgous, Θέμα τοῦ Αἰγαίου Πελάγους) | by 842/843 | Cibyrrhaeots, raised from independent droungariate | possiblyMytilene orMethymna | Lesbos,Lemnos,Chios,Imbros,Tenedos,Hellespont,Sporades andCyclades | Methymna,Mytilene,Chios,Alexandria Troas,Abydos,Lampsakos,Cyzicus,Sestos,Callipolis | |
| Anatolics (thema Anatolikōn, Θέμα των Ἀνατολικῶν) | by 669/670 | Former Field Army of the East/Syria | Cappadocia§ (830) | Amorium | Phrygia,Pisidia,Isauria | Iconium,Polybotos,Philomelion,Akroinon,Synnada,Sozopolis,Thebasa,Antiochia,Derbe,Laranda,Isaura,Pessinus |
| Armeniacs (thema Armeniakōn,Armeniakoi, Θέμα τῶν Ἀρμενιακῶν) | by 667/668 | Former Field Army of Armenia | Chaldia (by 842), Charsianon§ (863), Koloneia (863), Paphlagonia (by 826) | Amasea | Pontus,Armenia Minor, northernCappadocia | Sinope,Amisus,Euchaita,Comana Pontica |
| Bucellarians (thema Boukellarion,Boukellàrioi, Θέμα τῶν Βουκελλαρίων) | by 767/768 | Opsikion | Paphlagonia (in part), Cappadocia (in part), Charsianon (in part) | Ancyra | Galatia,Paphlagonia | Tios,Heraclea Pontica,Claudiopolis,Cratea,Iuliopolis,Lagania,Gordion |
| Cappadocia§ (thema Kappadokias, Θέμα Καππαδοκίας) | by 830 | Armeniacs, part of the Bucellarians | Koron Fortress, laterTyana | SW Cappadocia | Podandus,Nyssa,Loulon Fortress,Tyana,Nazianzus,Heraclea Cybistra | |
| Cephallenia† (thema Kephallēnias, Θέμα Κεφαλληνίας) | by 809 | Langobardia (by 910), ?Nicopolis (by 899) | Cephallenia | Ionian Islands,Apulia | Corfu,Zakynthos,Leucate | |
| Chaldia (thema Chaldias, Θέμα Χαλδίας) | c. 840 | Armeniacs (originally atourma) | Duchy ofChaldia | Trebizond | Pontic coast | Rhizus,Cerasous,Polemonion,Paiperta |
| Charsianon§ (thema Charsianoù, Θέμα Χαρσιανοῦ) | 863–873 | Armeniacs (originally atourma), part of the Bucellarians | Caesarea | NWCappadocia | Charsianon | |
| Cherson/Klimata (thema Chersōnos/Klimata, Θέμα Χερσῶνος/τὰ Κλίματα) | 833 | ruled by theKhazars in the 8th century, Byz. rule rest. byTheophilos | Cherson | SouthCrimea | Sougdea,Theodosia,Bosporos,Galita | |
| Cibyrrhaeots† (thema Kibyrrhaiotōn,Kibyrrhaiotai, Θέμα τῶν Κυβυρραιωτῶν) | by 697/698 or c. 720 | Created from theKarabisianoi fleet | Aegean Sea, Samos, Seleucia | Samos, laterAttaleia | Pamphylia,Lycia,Dodecanese, Aegean Islands,Ionian coast | Rhodes,Myra,Cibyrrha,Limyra,Phaselis,Side,Selinus,Anemurium,Sagalassus,Telmissus,Patara,Halicarnassus,Iassus,Mylasa,Selge,Cnidus,Kos |
| Crete† (thema Krētēs, Θέμα Κρήτης) | by 767 (?), again in 961 | Arab emirate from c. 828 until Byz. reconquest in 961 | Chandax | Crete | Rethymnon,Gortys | |
| Dalmatia (thema Dalmatias, Θέμα Δαλματίας) | by 899 | New territory | Idassa/Iadera | Coast ofDalmatia | Ragousa,Aspalathos,Polae,Tragyrion,Scardona | |
| Dyrrhachium (thema Dyrrhachiou, Θέμα Δυρραχίου) | by 842 | New territory | Dyrrhachium | Illyria,Albanian coast | Aulon,Apollonia,Lissos | |
| Hellas (thema Hellàdos,Helladikoi, Θέμα τῆς Ἑλλάδος/Ἑλλαδικῶν) | c. 690 | Karabisianoi | Cephallenia (by 809), Peloponnese (by 811) | Corinth, laterThebes (after 809) | Initially E. Peloponnese andAttica, after 809 easternCentral Greece andThessaly | (after 809)Athens,Larissa,Pharsala,Lamia,Thermopylae,Plataeae,Euripus,Demetrias,Stagoi |
| Koloneia§ (thema Kolōneias, Θέμα Κολωνείας) | by 863, probably c. 842 | Armeniacs,kleisoura by early 9th century | Duchy ofChaldia | Koloneia | NorthArmenia Minor | Satala,Nicopolis,Neocaesarea |
| Longobardia (thema Longobardias, Θέμα Λογγοβαρδίας) | by 892 | Cephallenia (originally atourma) | Barion | Apulia,Lucania | Tarantas,Brindesion,Hydrus,Callipolis | |
| Lykandos (thema Lykàndou, Θέμα Λυκάνδου) | by 916 | New territory | Lykandos Fortress | SECappadocia | Arabissos,Cocyssos,Comana | |
| Macedonia (thema Makedonias, Θέμα Μακεδονίας) | by 802 | Thrace | Strymon | Adrianopolis | WesternThrace | Didymoteicho,Mosynopolis,Aenos,Maronia |
| Mesopotamia (thema Mesopotamias, Θέμα Μεσοποταμίας) | by 899-911 | New territory | Duchy of Mesopotamia | Kamacha[citation needed] | UpperEuphratesia | |
| Nicopolis (thema Nikopoleōs, Θέμα Νικοπόλεως) | by 899 | probably raised fromtourma of the Peloponnese | Naupaktos | Epirus,Aetolia,Acarnania | Ioannina,Buthrotum,Rogoi,Dryinoupolis,Nicopolis,Himarra | |
| Opsikion (Thema of Opsikion, Θέμα τοῦ Ὀψικίου) | by 680 | Imperial Praesental Armies | Bucellarians (by 768), Optimates (by 775) | Nicaea | Mysia, NorthernPhrygia, WesternBithynia | Prussa,Kios,Malagina,Dorylaion,Nakoleia,Krasos,Kotyaion,Midaeum |
| Optimates (thema Optimàtōn,Optimatoi, Θέμα τῶν Ὀπτιμάτων) | by 775 | Opsicians | Nicomedia | Bithynia oppositeConstantinople | Chalcedon,Chrysopolis | |
| Paphlagonia (thema Paphlagonias, Θέμα Παφλαγονίας) | by 826, prob. c. 820 | Armeniacs, Bucellarians (in part) | Gangra | Paphlagonia | Amastris,Ionopolis,Kastamonè,Pompeiopolis | |
| Peloponnese (thema Peloponnēsou, Θέμα Πελοποννήσου) | by 811 | Hellas in part, in part new territory | ?Nicopolis (by 899) | Corinth | Peloponnese | Patrae,Argos,Lacedaemon,Korinthos,Helos,Methòne,Elis,Monemvasia |
| Phasiane (Derzene) (thema Phasianēs/Derzēnēs, Θέμα Φασιανῆς/Δερζηνῆς) | by 935 | New territory andTheme of Mesopotamia | Duchy of Mesopotamia | Arsamosata | source ofAras | |
| Samos† (thema Samou, Θέμα Σάμου) | by 899 | Cibyrrhaeots, raised from independent drungariate of the Gulf | Smyrna | Southeastern Aegean islands,Ionian coast (shared with Thracesians) | Samos,Ephesos,Miletus,Magnesia,Tralles,Lebedos,Teos,Clazomenae,Phocaea,Pergamon,Adramyttion | |
| Sebasteia§ (thema Sebasteias, Θέμα Σεβαστείας) | by 911 | Armeniacs,kleisoura by c. 900 | Sebasteia | NECappadocia andArmenia Minor | Dazimon | |
| Seleucia§ (thema Seleukeias, Θέμα Σελευκείας) | by 934 | Cibyrrhaeots, from early 9th century akleisoura | Seleucia | WesternCilicia | Claudiopolis | |
| Sicily (thema Sikelias, Θέμα Σικελίας) | by 700 | Calabria (remaining territory afterMuslim conquest of Sicily) | Syracuse | Sicily andCalabria | Katàne,Tavromènion,Panormos,Akragas,Leontini,Himera,Mazzara,Lilybaeum,Drepanum | |
| Strymon§ (thema Strymōnos, Θέμα Στρυμῶνος) | by 899, probably 840s | Macedonia, raised fromkleisoura (709) | Neapolis | roughly modern GreekEastern Macedonia | Serres | |
| Thessalonica (thema Thessalonikēs, Θέμα Θεσσαλονίκης) | by 824 | Thessalonica | roughly modern GreekCentral Macedonia | Beroia,Edessa,Dion,Ierissos,Moglena,Diocletianopolis,Servia | ||
| Thrace (thema Thrakēs, Θέμα Θράκης/Θρᾳκῷον) | by 680 | ?Opsicians | Macedonia | Arcadiopolis | Eastern Thrace, exceptConstantinople | Selymbria,Bizye,Perinthus,Rhaedestus |
| Thracesians (thema Thrakēsiōn,Thrakēsioi, Θέμα Θρᾳκησίων) | by 687 | Former Field Army of Thrace | Chonae | Lydia,Ionia | Hierapolis,Sardeis,Thyatira,Laodikea |
Notes:
†naval theme (in Greekthema nautikon, θέμα ναυτικόν)
§ Originally established as akleisoura
These were the new major or minor themes (provinces), established during the Byzantine conquests, in the East (the so-called "Armenian" themes or generalships,strategiai), in Italy and in the Balkans.
| Theme (name in Greek) | Date | Capital | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artze (Ἄρτζε) | 970s | Artze | A minor theme attested in theEscorial Taktikon. Ceded toDavid III of Tao in 979, recovered after David's death in 1000 and subordinated to the catepanate of Iberia. The town was destroyed by the Turks in 1049.[48][49] |
| Asmosaton (Ἀσμόσατον) | c. 938 | Asmosaton | A minor theme, it survived until conquered by the Turks in the 1050s.[48][50] |
| Boleron/Neos Strymon (thema Voleroù/Nèou Strymōnos, Θέμα Βολεροῦ/Νέου Στρυμῶνος) | 970s | Serres | |
| Bulgaria (thema Boulgarias, Θέμα Βουλγαρίας) | 1018 | Scupi | established by Emperor Basil II after the victory overSamuel of Bulgaria and the fall of the First Bulgarian Empire in 1018. It was based on the wider regions of Skopje and Ohrid (modern North Macedonia and south Serbia). |
| Calabria (thema Kalavrias, Θέμα Καλαβρίας) | c. 950 | Rhegion | Following theMuslim conquest of Sicily, from 902 theTheme of Sicily was limited to Calabria, but retained its original name until the middle of the 10th century |
| Charpezikion (Χαρπεζίκιον) | 949 | Charpezikion | A minor theme.[51] |
| Chavzizin (Χαυζίζιον) | after 940 | Chavzizin | A minor theme covering the area of the Bingöl Dağ mountains.[52] |
| Chozanon (Χόζανον) | before 956, possibly 948/952 | Chozanon | An "Armenian theme".[50][53] |
| Cyprus (thema Kyprou, Θέμα Κύπρου) | 965 | Leukosia | Byzantine-Arabcondominium from 688 until the definite Byzantine reconquest in 965. |
| Derzene (Δερζηνῆ) | 948/952 | Chozanon | A minor theme, the administration of Derzene was often entrusted to officials of the theme of Chaldia.[50][54] |
| Edessa (thema Edēssēs, Θέμα Ἐδέσσης) | 1032 | Edessa | Captured byGeorge Maniakes in 1032, it became seat of astrategos, later adoux, until conquered by the Turks in 1086.[55] |
| Euphrates Cities (Παρευφρατίδαι Πόλεις) | c. 1032 | Minor theme.[56] | |
| Hexakomia orHexapolis (Ἑξακωμία/Ἑξάπολις) | 970s | Minor theme, its name means "six villages/cities", a region between Lykandos and Melitene. It apparently was also an episcopal see.[56][57] | |
| Iberia (θέμα Ἰβηρίας) | c. 1001 or c. 1023 | Theodosiopolis | Formed out of the territories of David III ofTao, which he bequeathed to Basil II. The date of establishment is disputed among scholars. United withAni in 1045 and with Kars in 1064.[58] |
| Kama (Κάμα) | 970s | Minor theme attested only in theEscorial Tactikon, location uncertain.[56][59] | |
| Lucania (thema Leukanias, Θέμα Λευκανίας) | 968 | Tursi | |
| Manzikert (Ματζικέρτ) | 1000 | Manzikert | Part of the territories inherited from David III of Tao, it was the seat of astrategos, later probably a subordinate of thedoux of Vaspurakan.[60] |
| Melitene (Μελιτηνή) | 970s | Melitene | Became an imperial curatorship (kouratoreia) after conquered byJohn Kourkouas in 934.[61] |
| Paristrion/Paradounavon (thema Paristriou/Paradoùnavon, Θέμα Παριστρίου/Παραδούναβον) | 1020 | Dorostrolon | |
| Samosata (Σαμόσατα) | 958 | Samosata | Became the seat of astrategos after the Byzantine conquest in 958.[62] |
| Sirmium (thema Sirmiou, Θέμα Σιρμίου) | 1018 | Sirmium | Established in 1018 at the northwestern part of the Bulgarian Empire (Syrmia) |
| Tarantas (Τάραντας) | 970s | Tarantas | Minor theme attested only in theEscorial Taktikon.[56][63] |
| Taron (Ταρών) | 966/7 | A dependency of the Empire since the early 10th century, the region ofTaron became a theme in 966/7 and remained a Byzantine province until lost to the Turks after Manzikert.[64] | |
| Tephrike/Leontokome§ (thema Tephrikēs/Leontokōmēs, Θέμα Τεφρικῆς/Λεωντοκώμης) | 934/944 | Tephrike | Formed as akleisoura after the Byzantine reconquest of thePaulician principality ofTephrike, renamed Leontokome underLeo VI the Wise, became a theme in the 930s.[65] |
| Theodosiopolis (Θεοδοσιούπολις) | 949, again in 1000 | Theodosiopolis | Formed as a theme after the Byzantine conquest in 949, ceded to David III of Tao in 979, recovered in 1000, it became the capital of the theme of Iberia. |
| Vaasprakania (Βαασπρακανία) | 1021/2 | Established whenSeneqerim-Hovhannes,king of Vaspurakan, ceded his realm to the Empire. Governed by adoux/katepano atVan, it lasted until overrun by the Turks after 1071.[66] |
| Theme (name in Greek) | Date | Capital | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maiandros | after 1204 | a minor theme of theNicaean period, which eventually became part of the southern Thracesian theme.[67] | |
| Mylasa and Melanoudion | 1143 | a minor theme comprising the territories in Asia Minor south of the Maeander valley, created from parts of the Cibyrrhaeot and Thracesian themes. Its existence continued under theNicaean Empire.[68] | |
| Neokastra | between 1162 and 1173 | created from the northern Thracesian theme as part of Manuel Komnenos' reorganization of the Asiatic frontier. Its existence continued under theNicaean Empire.[69] |
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Byzantine Empire topics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
