The Secret History by Procopius
I’ve made it one of my goals to read all of the available sources on the Romans, Persians, Arabs, and Muslims between 500 and 900 AD. I’ve also made it my goal to read the primary sources and stay away from what modern historians say. What was the relationship between the Roman Christians and the Arabs before and after Muhammad? There is certainly a lot to say.
There is a 6th century Byzantine writer named Procopius who gives us some interesting details in The Secret History. This book is essentially a polemic against the celebrated emperor Justinian. It says some very nasty things about him and despite his accomplishments in military and law, he was a corrupt tyrant. Very interesting stuff.
In the 6th century the main enemy of the Byzantine Empire in the East were the Persians. The Greeks and the Persians had a long history of military engagements and the 6th century was no exception. The other big player in the East were the Arabs, who are referred to as the Saracens. Before the rise of Islam, there were never any wars with the Arabs but that doesn’t mean that there weren’t engagements. Although the Arabs never invaded prior to the 630s, they would often do border raids which would cause a lot of damage. However, these raids weren’t anything like a full scale invasion, similar to what the Persians did. Keep in mind that these Arabs weren’t Muslim; they were most likely pagan or a mixture of several religions.
To stop these Arab boarder raids, the Roman army had large portions of their soldiers stationed on the Eastern frontier. Their goal was to protect the Empire against two groups: the Persians and the Arabs. In The Secret History, Procopius writes:
The Roman emperors hitherto had stationed large armies on all frontiers of the State to protect its boundaries; and particularly in the East, to repel incursions of the Persians and Saracens. These border troops Justinian used so ill and meanly from the start that their pay became four or five years overdue; and when peace was declared between the Romans and Persians, these poor men, instead of sharing in the fruits of peace, were forced to contribute to the public treasury whatever was owed them; after which they were summarily discharged from the army. Thereafter the boundaries of the Roman Empire were unguarded, and the soldiers were left suddenly on the hands of charity.
So the highly overpraised Justinian cuts back on defending the Eastern boundaries of the Empire. During the Islamic invasions of the 630s, we don’t see any organized opposition to the conquests until the Battle of Yarmouk, but that’s three years into the invasion. If Justinian hadn’t cut back on soldiers stationed at the border we probably wouldn’t be dealing with Muhammad’s religion today. The Muslims probably would have stayed in Arabia and eventually they’d be reached by trained Christian missionaries and would have converted. Of course Justinian died several decades before the Arabs had united under their new religion and invaded. However, I would say that a large part of the blame goes to him. What a disgraceful Emperor.
Ouch tell us what you really think why don’t you?
All the same it’s an extraordinarily interesting hypothesis worthy of some consideration at the least.
Hi Corance,
Thanks for the comment Corance. It’s hard to say what would have happened if he didn’t do that but it was certainly sloppy.
God bless,
Allan
My advice is to be very careful with Procopius. He also wrote hefty volumes, full of praise to Justinian. They, just as “The Secret History”, contain much tares along with the wheat. Procopius had his own reasons to put all the blame on Justinian. Don’t get me wrong, Justinian messed up badly in some of his imperial efforts (like wasting tremendous amount of resources on his Western campaigns), but his supposed negligence of the Eastern defenses is not the reason for the subsequent victories of the Arabs. After Justinian’s death the Empire was literally under siege. Enemy incursions all along the Byzantine borders, both Eastern and Western, occurred almost daily. Also,the next emperors were not among the brightest. Heraclius was the first that tried his best to reinforce the defense of the East.
Hi Orangehunter,
Yes, Procopius spoke highly of Justinian when he talks about his wars. However, this book talks about his inner dealings. It’s weird that he would write a book like this, you’re correct on that. According to the scholar that did the intro, it’s definitely his writing style. It survives only in one manuscript so it wasn’t as widely circulated.
I don’t know a lot about the next Emperors. I know that Heraclius did a good job against the Persians. He’s known as the hero in that war. According to Thomas Madden in his lectures on the Byzantine Empire, Heraclius became afraid of water in the final years of his life and secluded himself weakening his rule. Madden said that if this wasn’t the case, he probably could have dealt with the Arab invasions.
Either way, we’re both just speculating at this point. Maybe I was a bit harsh in my post. I suppose we don’t know how accurate the book is. It’s probably correct on the section I quoted though.
Btw, feel free to recommend any good primary sources on this. I’ve read Procopius and Theophanes but I want to read as much as I can from 500-900 AD.
God bless,
Allan
At the risk of appearing boringly obvious I would blame Mohammed for Islam?
What a shame that Saint Thomas or one of his disciples did not stop off in Arabia on the way to India and and gain greater success there. Or maybe the natives were not quite up to the level of the Jews, Greeks and Indians of the day and could not appreciate the message.
Well if that were so friend God in his Providence would have seen to it, but for whatever reason he in his wisdom it seems, has deemed it best that we should have Muslims to play with.
Emperor Justinian can be said at most the precursor to the failure of Eastern Roman Empire. Entire blame can’t be placed on Justinian alone. There are various factors to consider:
1. The church and the State supported each other so much that the emperors wanted religious Unity throughout their empire.The emperors from Constantine would set a precedent that they didn’t want any theological disputes which could threaten the empire.
[Just my thought: Especially after the Edict of Thessalonica, the church began to use imperial influence to enable the emperor in punishing the heretics and a church-state nexus was formed.]
2. The plague during the reign of Justinian, which decimated the populations.
3. Church Schism: After the Council of Chalcedon, the people were split based on their christological creed and the provinces of Syria and Egypt became schismatic.
4. State sponsored persecution of schismatic christians and Iconophiles.
5. Nearly bankrupt treasury
6. Constant Threats at all sides of the empire
6. Sacking of Constantinople [All hopes were lost after this]
At the time of Rashidun and it’s successor Caliphates, The Sassanians exhausted themselves leaving for the caliphate to take control easily. The Eastern Roman empire would hold out that stopped the caliphate at the borders of Anatolia. What is fascinating is that at the time most of the central authority of kingdoms had fallen that enabled the Arabs to take control. In India the Imperial Gupta dynasty and the short lived Empire of Harsha Vardhana would fall leading to chaos and an alliance of Indian kings would defeat them and give respite for a short while. Even Tang dynasty in China were weakened after the Battle of Talas due to An Lushan Rebellion which gave Arabs the upper hand in central Asia. Meanwhile Huns and other barbarians were a problem for the Roman empire.