The reign of the emperor Heraclius (610 –641) is often perceived as a distinctive transformative phase in the history of Byzantium marked by external and internal threats to the state on a military, political and ideological level (J. Haldon, Byzantium in the seventh century. The transformation of a culture. Cambridge; J. Koder, “Zeitenwenden”. Zur Periodisierungsfrage aus byzantinischer Sicht. BZ (), –; G. Reinink/ B. Stolte (eds.), The reign of Heraclius (–). Crisis and confrontation. Groningen Studies in Cultural Change, . Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA ; W. Kaegi, Heraclius. Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge ; A. Louth, Byzantium transforming (–), in J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire (c. –). Cambridge , –; J. Howard-Johnston, Witness to a world crisis. Historians and histories of the Middle East in the seventh century. Oxford , –. See as well the recent publications by J. Howard-Johnston, The last great war of antiquity. Oxford ; T. Raum, Szenen eines Überlebenskampfes. Akteure und Handlungsspielräume im Imperium Romanum –. Roma Aeterna, . Stuttgart ; N. Viermann, Herakleios, der schwitzende Kaiser. Die oströmische Monarchie in der ausgehenden Spätantike. Millennium-Studien, . Berlin ).
Heraclius operated within a network of powerful allies. Among his most trusted supporters were members of the imperial family. In this context, Heraclius’s eldest son, usually referred to as Heraclius Constantine III (613–641) in modern scholarship, played an eminent role in the political planning of his father. Since Heraclius Constantine III always stayed in Constantinople while his father fought against external threats during the 620s and between 634 and 638, he contributed to the imperial family’s representation in the capital and thus to the continuity of the Byzantine state. He therefore occupied a key position within the Heraclian family.
Stemma of Heraclius’s dynasty:
Establishing a new dynasty – birth, coronation and political functions of Heraclius Constantine III between 613 and 622
Heraclius Constantinus 38; EPLBHC II, 238 f.) was born in Constantinople on May 3, 612 as the eldest son of the emperor Heraclius and the Augusta Eudocia (PLRE III, 457, Eudocia quae et Fabia EPLBHC III 6 f., Flavia Eudokia) (Chronicon Paschale, I, rec. L. Dindorfius. Bonn , I, , – = Chronicon Paschale, –, trans. M.Whitby/M.Whitby. Translated Texts for Historians, . Liverpool , ; Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History, ed. C. Mango. CFHB, . Washington, DC , (, –) = Nicephorus, Breviarium; Theophanis Chronographia, I, AM , rec. C. de Boor. Leipzig ,The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern history, AD –, trans. C. Mango/ R. Scott/G. Greatrex. Oxford). He was the younger brother of Epiphania quae et Eudocia (PLRE III 445 f., Epiphania 2), who was born on July 7, 611 in the Hiereia palace (Chronicon Paschale (as footnote above), Ioannis Zonarae Epitome Historiarum, Dindorfius. Leipzig , III). As his name indicates, his father actively attempted to revitalize the memory of Constantine the Great when consolidating his own dynasty, thereby depicting his offspring as a new hope for the future of Byzantium based on its well-remembered past. This action marked simultaneously a departure from Justinian’s I family, which ended abruptly after the assassination of Maurice as well as the disruptive reign of Phocas. Baptized by patriarch Sergius, Heraclius’s eldest son was blessed by saint Theodore of Sykeon at the Sophianae palace. Heraclius’s daughter and son were then raised as Augusta and Augustus while they were still infants. As the eldest, Epiphania Eudocia was crowned on October 4, 611. Heraclius Constantine III subsequently became co-emperor on behalf of his father on January 22, 613.
The coronation of the infant followed traditions established already during the 5th and 6th centuries, involving various supportive groups in the capital (G. Dagron, Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le “césaropapisme” byzantin). Heraclius crowned his son in the imperial palace in the presence of close advisors from the senatorial elite. Both emperors carried the full imperial title (Zuckerman, Title (as footnote above), 889). Shortly after the coronation, Gregoria (PLRE III 547, Gregoria 3), daughter of the influential patrician Nicetas (PLRE III 940 –943, Nicetas 7), was betrothed to the young monarch, thereby strengthening family alliances and further consolidating the ruling dynasty (Nicephorus, Breviarium (as footnote above), f., ed. Mango, 44).
As becomes clear when studying the first years of Heraclius’s reign, it was the emperor’s intention to systematically create stable governmental and administrative structures as fast as possible in order to systematically assemble resources to fight the Persians after 620. This included the rapid formation of a sound domus divina with the prospect of long-term political and ideological stability. Heraclius Constantine III in particular played a vital role for his father’s plans. As Heraclius’s imperial deputy in the capital, he was not only perceived as a symbol of hope for the state’s secured future. It also allowed his father to wage war against external enemies, since an emperor of Byzantium still resided in Constantinople during Heraclius’s absence, thereby responding to traditional expectations of Byzantium’s inhabitants.
A child as sole emperor in Constantinople between 622 and 628
After successfully securing his dominion and gathering the state’s financial and personal resources to fight the Sasanids, Heraclius began his attacks on the Persians on April 4, 622 while his son – now ten years of age – remained as his father’s deputy in the care of patriarch Sergius and the patrician Bonus (PLRE III 242–244, Bonus 6) in Constantinople. These three were of greatest importance for the functioning of the Byzantine state during the 620s. Although only mentioned sometimes in the sources, the senate of Constantinople also must have played an important role in this regard. On the one hand, its members executed various tasks as high-ranking imperial office holders in civic and military administration. On the other hand, the council served as an important location for hearings during Heraclius’s absence. Its significance becomes apparent, for instance, during the siege of Constantinople in 626, when diplomatic interactions with the Slavs, Avars and Persians were prepared in the senate, whose members met in the Magnaura near the imperial palace. After the first military confrontations against the Persians in 622/623, news reached the emperor of Avar attacks near Constantinople. Interrupting his first Persian campaign, the emperor returned to the capital in order to negotiate with the khagan for peace on June 5, 623. Against his expectations, Heraclius was not received for diplomatic interactions but nearly felt victim to an Avar trap.
In Byzantine Tradition, the Emperor is divinely chosen by God, and has God’s will:
Heraclius Constantine’s III actual role during the siege in 626 appears to have been quite marginal on the whole. Thanks to three eye-witness reports we are quite well-informed about the course of events and their perception in the capital. There are two panegyrics by George of Pisidia namely In Bonum patricium, written in the spring of 626 in honor of the patricius, magister and imperial vicarius Bonus, as well as the Bellum Avaricum, which was composed shortly after the siege in honor of patriarch Sergius. Then there is Theodore Synkellos’s Homilia de obsidione Constantinopolitana, which was probably presented publicly on December 7 in the Hagia Sophia. Finally, we have characterizations by the anonymous author of the Easter Chronicle written around 630, unfortunately with a transmission gap in the depiction of events after August 4, 626. In all these texts, the siege was perceived as the culmination of an apocalyptic battle between God’s chosen people of Byzantium and the demonic hordes of the Avars, Slavs and Persians. All leading actors of these stories – the khagan, patriarch Sergius, Bonus, Heraclius Constantine III and even Heraclius – were regarded as fulfilling their specific roles within God’s divine plan.
Heraclius himself was present in two ways in Constantonople during the siege while simultaneously battling the Persians in the east. On the one hand, he was represented by his own son in situ. On the other hand, he actively supported the defenders with the organization and protection of the city by means of epistles sent from afar and by his careful planning before he left Constantinople. According to the panegyrical poems by George of Pisidia, it thus seemed as if he actually was in the capital in times of great need. In the end, however, the city’s salvation was attributed by all authors to varying degrees to God’s mercy and to the intervention of the Theotokos in particular.
Return and death of Heraclius – changes of the position and the status of Heraclius Constantine III between 628 and 641
- Literary sources portray Heraclius’s subsequent triumphs over the Persians as a comprehensive renewal of the whole Byzantine world: E.g., Georgius Pisides, Heraclias , –, ed. Tartaglia (as footnote above), ; Georgius Pisides, In restaurationem Sanctae Crucis –, ed. Tartaglia, ; Theophanes (as footnote above), AM , ed. de Boor, , –; Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae, , , –; , , f. = rec. C. de Boor. Leipzig (corr. P.Wirth. Stuttgart ), ,– ,; ,–. See I. Shahîd, The Iranian factor in Byzantium during the reign of Heraclius. DOP (), f.; S. Spain Alexander, Heraclius, Byzantine imperial ideology, and the David plates. Speculum / (), –; A. Cameron, Images of authority. Elites and icons in late sixth-century Byzantium. Past & Present (), –; I. Shahîd, Heraclius πιστός ἐν χριστῷ βασιλεύς. DOP – (–), –; O. Kresten, Oktateuch-Probleme. Bemerkungen zu einer Neuerscheinung. BZ – (–), ; M.M. Mango, Imperial art in the seventh century, in Magdalino, New Constantines (as footnote above), –; Whitby, A new image (as footnote above), f.; C. Rapp, Comparison, paradigm and the case of Moses in panegyric and hagiography, in M. Whitby (ed.), The propaganda of power. The role of panegyric in Late Antiquity. Mnemosyne Supplementum, . Leiden , –, here ; O. Kresten, Herakleios und der Titel βασιλεύς, in P. Speck (ed.), Varia . Poikila Byzantina, . Bonn , f.; R. Leader, The David plates revisited. Transforming the secular and Early Byzantium. The Art Bulletin / (), –;
- W. Brandes, Herakleios between restoration and reform. Some remarks on recent research, in Reinink/Stolte, Reign of Heraclius (as footnote above), ; J. Drijvers, Heraclius and the Restitutio Crucis. Notes on symbolism and ideology, ibid., f.; Kaegi, Heraclius (as footnote above), ; ; f.; C. Ludwig, David – Christus – Basileus. Erwartungen an eine Herrschergestalt, in W. Dietrich/H. Herkommer (eds.), König David – biblische Schlüsselfigur und europäische Leitgestalt. Freiburg/Stuttgart , –; M. Meier, Sind wir nicht alle heilig? Zum Konzept des “Heiligen” (sacrum) in spätjustinianischer Zeit. Millennium (), –; H.M. Zilling, Jesus als Held. Odysseus und Herakles als Vorbilder christlicher Heldentypologie. Leiden/Boston , –; V. Tsamakda, König David als Typos des byzantinischen Kaisers, in F. Daim/ J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – Das Römerreich im Mittelalter. Teil : Welt der Ideen, Welt der Dinge. Mainz , –; Meier, Herakles (as footnote above), –.