The Avars arrived in Europe in the late 550s. Although their identity would not last, they had a serious impact on the events in medieval Balkans. They were a nomadic Turkic group that had lost a war against other nomads further east, and settled in the Carpathian basin, subjugating the many small Slavic tribes. They had crushed the Gepid Kingdom and pushed the Lombards into Italy.
The Battle:
After several campaigns to stabilize the Danube frontier, Emperor Maurice sent General Priscus to confront the Avars (who had been raiding the Balkans for 20 years) under Khan Baian in their homeland, north of the Danube. A series of engagements in the Tisza Valley saw Priscus defeat the Avars, including a major victory at Viminacium (modern Kostalac, Serbia). The Byzantine infantry withstood repeated charges from Avar cavalry, who were beaten off with heavy losses. The death of Maurice in a coup (602) helped secure a temporary peace.
Aftermath:
It was the first success of the Byzantines against the Avars. It was also a blow to the prestige of the Avars who until then had a reputation of being invincible.
It can be argued that this mistake set into movement the events that created and preserved Western culture as we know it today. This is why it is included here a bit out of chronological order. The world as we know it today all began with a very bad judgment made by the tyrant of the Ionian city-state of Miletus. His name was Aristagoras, and his mistakes began a chain of events that are still being played out today. The city of Miletus was located on the eastern coast of the Aegean Sea, in an area known as Ionia. That entire coast was controlled by Persia, and the tyrant and his city owed both allegiance and taxes to Darius I.
To understand Aristagoras’ mistake you need to take a look at the world as it was in 499 BCE, more than 2,500 years ago. The fastest means of communications was a message sent by horseback, and it took weeks for communications from Darius I to reach a distant city such as Miletus. It also took months for Darius to raise an army from the heart of the Persian empire and march it to a distant satrapy, a Persian province, such as those on the Aegean coast. Miletus was in the boonies, the far end of the empire. What this meant in practical terms was that the tyrants, men in absolute control of an area or city for Darius I, operated on their own as kings, called satraps.
There was also a lot of competition among the Persian satraps. Everyone wanted to look good so that they could be promoted to more prestigious and comfortable positions in the capital of Babylon. The problem for this particular satrap was that Greek Aegean cities like Miletus were neither important nor prestigious. Men such as Aristagoras needed to do more than just be competent to get noticed; they needed to do something spectacular that attracted the attention and approval of a distant emperor. Only then were they given more control of a richer and more important satrapy or even a coveted position in the Babylonian court.
Off the coast of Ionia, in the Aegean Sea, is the island of Naxos. This island had on it a city-state in what we would call today the sphere of influence of Persia. Darius had appointed a tyrant to rule in his name and collect taxes. Yes, even at the dawn of civilization it was all about taxes. But being farther from the center of the Persian empire than even Miletus, the men of Naxos felt that they could throw out the tyrant Darius has assigned, and the island was too far from the capital for him to react. So Naxos declared its independence and executed the satrap. Being separate and independent lowered their taxes and gave the city’s merchants more freedom to trade where they wanted. Those economic considerations were the more likely source of inspiration for the revolt rather than any philosophical need for freedom or democracy as we think of them today. At the time, the rights of men or the right to rule were vague concepts at best, but self-interest was just as strong a motivator then as now.
Aristagoras saw this nearby revolt as an opportunity. If he could recover Naxos for Persia, that might earn him some real credit with Darius. At a minimum, he could add the island to his satrapy, increasing his own importance and tax revenue. But the tyrant of Miletus had a problem. He could raise an army, but Naxos was an island, and he had no ships with which to transport his men to Naxos. To solve this problem, he cut a deal for the loan of the fleet controlled by the satrap of the larger and richer Lydia. This deal had a double advantage. That satrap, Artaphernes, happened to also be Darius I’s brother. His involvement guaranteed that news of Aristagoras’ victory would make it to court. Then the tyrant hired one of the top admirals of the day, Megabates. He was an experienced and proven commander for the expedition. It was a good move right up until Aristagoras publicly insulted the seaman. In revenge, Megabates warned the citizens of Naxos that the invasion was coming.
JOHN OF GAUNT, DUKE OF LANCASTER, fourth son of Edward III and Queen Philippa, was born in March 1340 at Ghent, whence his name. On the 29th of September 1342 he was made Earl of Richmond; as a child he was present at the sea fight with the Spaniards in August 1350, but his first military service was in 1355, when he was knighted. On the 19th of May 1359 he married his cousin Blanche, daughter and ultimately sole heiress of Henry, Duke of Lancaster. In her right he became Earl of Lancaster in 1361, and next year was created Duke. His marriage made him the greatest lord in England, but for some time he took no prominent part in public affairs.
In 1366 he joined his eldest brother, Edward the Black Prince, in Aquitaine, and in the year after led a strong contingent to share in the campaign in support of Pedro the Cruel of Castile. With this began the connexion with Spain, which was to have so great an influence on his after-life. John fought in the van at Najera on the 3rd of April 1367, when the English victory restored Pedro to his throne. He returned home at the end of the year. Pedro proved false to his English allies, and was finally overthrown and killed by his rival, Henry of Trastamara, in 1369. The disastrous Spanish enterprise led directly to renewed war between France and England. In August 1369 John had command of an army which invaded northern France without success. In the following year he went again to Aquitaine, and was present with the Black Prince at the sack of Limoges. Edward’s health was broken down, and he soon after went home, leaving John as his lieutenant.
For a year John maintained the war at his own cost, but whilst in Aquitaine a greater prospect was opened to him. The Duchess Blanche had died in the autumn of 1369 and now John married Constance (d.1394), the elder daughter of Pedro the Cruel, and in her right assumed the title of King of Castile and Leon. For sixteen years the pursuit of his kingdom was the chief object of John’s ambition. No doubt he hoped to achieve his end, when he commanded the great army which invaded France in 1373. But the French would not give battle, and though John marched from Calais right through Champagne, Burgundy and Auvergne, it was with disastrous results; only a shattered remnant of the host reached Bordeaux.
The Spanish scheme had to wait, and when John got back to England he was soon absorbed in domestic politics. The king was prematurely old, the Black Prince’s health was broken. John, in spite of the unpopularity of his ill-success, was forced into the foremost place. As head of the court party he had to bear the brunt of the attack on the administration made by the Good Parliament in 1376. It was not perhaps altogether just, and John was embittered by reflections on his loyalty. As soon as the parliament was dissolved he had its proceedings reversed, and next year secured a more subservient assembly.
There came, however, a new development. The duke’s politics were opposed by the chief ecclesiastics, and in resisting them he had made use of Wycliffe. With Wycliffe’s religious opinions he had no sympathy. Nevertheless when the bishops arraigned the reformer for heresy John would not abandon him. The conflict over the trial led to a violent quarrel with the Londoners, and a riot in the city during which John was in danger of his life from the angry citizens. The situation was entirely altered by the death of Edward III on the 21st of June. Though his enemies had accused him of aiming at the throne, John was without any taint of disloyalty. In his nephew’s interests he accepted a compromise, disclaimed before parliament the truth of the malicious rumours against him, and was reconciled formally with his opponents.
Though he took his proper place in the ceremonies at Richard II‘s coronation, he showed a tactful moderation by withdrawing for a time from any share in the government. However, in the summer of 1378, he commanded in an attack on St Malo, which through no fault of his failed. To add to this misfortune, during his absence some of his supporters violated the sanctuary at Westminster. He vindicated himself somewhat bitterly in a parliament at Gloucester, but still avoiding a prominent part in the government, accepted the command on the Scottish border. He was there engaged when his palace of the Savoy in London was burnt during the peasants’ revolt in June 1381. Wild reports that even the government had declared him a traitor made him seek refuge in Scotland. Richard had, however, denounced the calumnies, and at once recalled his uncle.
John’s self-restraint had strengthened his position, and he began again to think of his Spanish scheme. He urged its undertaking in parliament in 1382, but nearer troubles were more urgent, and John himself was wanted on the Scottish border. There he sought to arrange peace, but against his will was forced into an unfortunate campaign in 1384. His ill-success renewed his unpopularity, and the court favourites of Richard II intrigued against him. They were probably responsible for the allegation, made by a Carmelite, called Latemar, that John was conspiring against his nephew. Though Richard at first believed it, the matter was disposed of by the friar’s death. However, the court party soon after concocted a fresh plot for the duke’s destruction; John boldly denounced his traducers, and the quarrel was appeased by the intervention of the king’s mother [see Joan of Kent]. The intrigue still continued, and broke out again during the Scottish campaign in 1385. John was not the man to be forced into treason to his family, but the impossibility of the position at home made his foreign ambitions more feasible.
The victory of John of Portugal over the king of Castile at Aljubarrota, won with English help, offered an opportunity. In July 1386 John left England with a strong force to win his Spanish throne. He landed at Corunna, and during the autumn conquered Galicia. Juan, who had succeeded his father Henry as King of Castile, offered a compromise by marriage. John of Gaunt refused, hoping for greater success with the help of the King of Portugal, who now married the duke’s eldest daughter Philippa. In the spring the allies invaded Castile. They could achieve no success, and sickness ruined the English army. The conquests of the previous year were lost, and when Juan renewed his offers, John of Gaunt agreed to surrender his claims to his daughter by Constance of Castile, who was to marry Juan’s heir. After some delay the peace was concluded at Bayonne in 1388.
The next eighteen months were spent by John as lieutenant of Aquitaine, and it was not till November 1389 that he returned to England. By his absence he had avoided implication in the troubles at home. Richard, still insecure of his own position, welcomed his uncle, and early in the following year marked his favour by creating him Duke of Aquitaine. John on his part was glad to support the king’s government; during four years he exercised his influence in favour of pacification at home, and abroad was chiefly responsible for the conclusion of a truce with France. Then in 1395 he went to take up the government of his duchy; thanks chiefly to his lavish expenditure his administration was not unsuccessful, but the Gascons had from the first objected to government except by the crown, and secured his recall within less than a year.
French Monarch. King of France and Navarra, only son of Louis X and Clemence de Hongrie, half-brother of Jeanne. He was born five months after his fathers death. He died five days after his birth during his christening. His uncle Philippe de Poitiers succeeded him as King Philippe V. There where rumors that Philippe had kidnapped the real child and put a dead child in his place. Fourty years later an man claimed to be John and was soon put in a prison where he died.
Tancred, Prince of Antioch, b. about 1072; d. at Antioch, December 12, 1112. He was the son of Marquess Odo and Emma, probably the daughter of Robert Guiscard. He took the Cross in 1096 with the Norman lords of Southern Italy and joined the service of his uncle Bohemund. Having disembarked at Arlona (Epirus), they marched towards Constantinople, and Tancred soon attracted attention by his activity, bravery, and somewhat undisciplined zeal; according to his biographer, Raoul de Caen, he was noted also for his humanity and kindness towards the defenseless. He brilliantly repulsed the Byzantine army which attacked him as he was crossing the Vardar (February 28, 1097), from which time Tancred became and remained the bitter enemy of the Greeks. Unlike Bohemund, he was the only one of all the leaders who refused to take the oath of fidelity demanded by Alexis Comnenus. He played an important part in the siege of Nicaea, and later, during the difficult march through Asia Minor, he led the way southwards and captured Tarsus which Baldwin tried in vain to wrest from him (September, 1097). While Baldwin advanced towards the Euphrates, Tancred seized the towns of Cilicia. He took an active part also in the siege of Antioch. In the march on Jerusalem he commanded the vanguard, and on July 15, 1099, he entered the city, after making a breach in the gate of St. Stephen. He vainly endeavored to save the lives of 300 Mussulmans who had taken refuge in the Mosque of Omar (Templum Domini). On the other hand he looted the treasures amassed in that building and distributed them among his knights. He received from Godfrey de Bouillon, who had been selected over him as king, the fiefs of Tiberias and Caïfa. When Bohemund was captured by the Turks in July, 1100, Tancred assumed the government of the Principality of Antioch, and extended its boundaries at the expense of the Turks and the Greeks. During the war between Bohemund and Alexis Comnenus (1104-08), Tancred defended both the Principality of Antioch and the Countship of Edessa; he also strengthened the Christian power in those districts, and refused to recognize the Treaty of Durazzo by which Bohemund had ceded the suzerainty of Antioch to the emperor. A skilled politician, he knew how to placate the Greeks and issued Greek money on which he is represented adorned with gold and jewels, wearing a turban surmounted by a cross.
Raymond IV, OF Saint-GILLES, Count of Toulouse and of Tripoli, b. about 1043; d. at Tripoli in 1105. He was the son of Raymond III, Pons, and in 1088 succeeded his brother, William IV, who had died without male issue. From 1066 he had been Count of Rouergue, of Nimes, and of Narbonne, thus becoming one of the most powerful lords of southern France. In 1095 he received the pope, Urban II, on his own estates and took the Cross with enthusiasm, vowing never to return to his own dominions. After a pilgrimage to Chaise Dieu, he set out in October, 1096, entrusting the care of his dominions to his son Bertrand. His army was composed of Aquitanians and Provenpals, the pope's legate, Adhemar of Monteil, Bishop of Le Puy, accompanying him. He traversed Lombardy and proceeded to Constantinople through the valleys of the Eastern Alps. After many a successful combat with the half-barbarous Slays who inhabited this region, he arrived at Durazzo, where he found letters from the Emperor Alexius inviting him to Constantinople. Raymond accepted, leaving his army, which in his absence pillaged the country, and was attacked by the imperial troops. At Constantinople Raymond refused to swear allegiance to Alexius, as most of the crusading chiefs had done. He afterwards took an active part in the expedition against Jerusalem, and, notwithstanding his rivalry with Bohemond, exercised a very great influence on the course of events. He could not prevent Bohemond from taking Antioch in 1098, and out of spite against the Norman chief he became reconciled with the Emperor Alexius, to whom he restored the city of Laodicea (February 1099). After his rupture with Bohemond, Raymond directed the great bulk of the crusaders against Jerusalem, and was actively engaged in the capture of the Holy City (July 8, 1099). He refused the title of king, and left Jerusalem to return to Constantinople in 1100. He was chosen chief of a new army of crusaders, which was destroyed by the Turks in Asia Minor. Returning to Syria in 1102, he was imprisoned at Tarsus by Tancred, and, on being released, seized Tripoli (1103), where he died two years later.
Constans II had been baptized Heraklios and reigned officially as Constantine. "Constans" is a diminutive nickname established itself in Byzantine texts and in historiography.
Constans was also the bearer of one of the most characteristic Byzantine epithets: He was known as "Pogonatos" which means "the bearded". Considering that all emperors after Phocas head a beard, one would assume that his beard must have been a really exceptional one. It ain't so.
The reason for taking the bearded title is quite different : Constans was 11 years old when he became king. Some years later, when the first facial hair appeared, his people saluted the event and, apparently in a playful and affectionate spirit, started to refer to him as "the bearded one".
In fact, he was referred as Constantine Pogonatos and not Constans Pogonatos. All this name-dropping is confusing and probably that is why until the 1990s, historians believed that his son, Constantine IV, was the "Pogonatos". Today it is known that Constans II was the real Pogonatos.
