Editing Theme (Byzantine district) (section)

==History==
===Background===
During the late 6th and early 7th centuries, the [[Byzantine Empire]] was under frequent attack from all sides. The [[Sassanid Empire]] was pressing from the east on [[Syria (region)|Syria]], [[Egypt]], and [[Anatolia]]. [[Early Slavs|Slavs]] and [[Pannonian Avars|Avars]] raided Thrace, Macedonia, Illyricum, and southern Greece and settled in the [[Balkans]]. The [[Lombards]] occupied northern [[Italy]], largely unopposed. In order to face the mounting pressure, in the more distant provinces of the West, recently regained by [[Justinian I]] (r. 527–565), Emperor [[Maurice (emperor)|Maurice]] (r. 582–602) combined supreme civil and military authority in the person of an ''[[exarch]]'', a [[viceroy]], forming the exarchates of [[Exarchate of Ravenna|Ravenna]] and [[Exarchate of Africa|Africa]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Bréhier|2000|pp=98–101}}</ref> These developments overturned the strict division of civil and military offices, which had been one of the cornerstones of the reforms of [[Diocletian]] (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 established [[Praetorian prefecture of Africa|Praetorian prefects of Africa]] (''Eparchos tes Afrikís'') and [[Praetorian prefecture of Italy|Italy]] (''Eparchos tes Italías'') respectively.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1990|p=210}}</ref>

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's [[Roman diocese|dioceses]], Diocletian's main administrative structure, but more importantly, he had also created the exceptional combined military-civilian circumscription of the {{Lang|la|[[quaestura exercitus]]}} and following the norm, abolished the [[Diocese of Egypt (Late Antiquity)|Diocese of Egypt]]  putting a {{Lang|la|[[dux]]}} (Greek: ''[[stratelates]]'') with combined authority at the head of each of its old provinces instead.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bréhier|2000|pp=93–98}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=BURY. |first=J.B |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1193333944 |title=HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE from the death of theodosius i to the death of justinian. |date=2018 |publisher=CHARLES RIVER EDITORS |isbn=978-1-61430-462-3 |oclc=1193333944}}</ref> The empire maintained this precedent structure until the 640s, when the eastern part of the Empire faced the [[Early Muslim conquests|onslaught]] of the Muslim [[Caliphate]]. 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 by [[Hellenistic kingdoms|Hellenistic political practice]], [[Hellenistic philosophy|philosophies]] and [[Orthodoxy|Orthodox doctrines]], power had been concentrated in military leaders ''[[Strategos|strategoi]]'' who acted as [[viceroy]]s 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Heather |first1=Peter |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.3828/978-0-85323-106-6 |title=Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century |last2=Moncur |first2=David |date=January 2001 |publisher=Liverpool University Press |isbn=978-0-85323-106-6 |location=Liverpool|doi=10.3828/978-0-85323-106-6 |doi-broken-date=2024-11-11 }}</ref> The remaining imperial territory in [[Asia Minor]] was divided into four large themes, and although some elements of the earlier civil administration survived, they were subordinated to the governing general or {{Lang|la|[[stratēgos]]}}.<ref name="ODB2035">{{Harvnb|Kazhdan|1991|p=2035}}</ref>

===Origins===
The origin and early nature of the themes has been heavily disputed amongst scholars. The very name {{Lang|el-Latn|théma}} is of uncertain etymology, but most scholars follow [[Constantine Porphyrogennetos]], who records that it originates from Greek {{Lang|el|thesis|size=90%}} ("placement").<ref name="ODB2034">{{Harvnb|Kazhdan|1991|p=2034}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1990|p=215}}</ref> The date of their creation is also uncertain. For most of the 20th century, the establishment of the themes was attributed to the Emperor [[Heraclius]] (r. 610–641), during the [[Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628|last]] of the [[Byzantine–Sassanid Wars]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Cheynet|2006|pp=151–152}}</ref> Most notable amongst the supporters of this thesis was [[George Ostrogorsky]] who based this opinion on an extract from the chronicle of [[Theophanes 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."<ref>{{Harvnb|Ostrogorsky|1997|p=101}}</ref> 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, under [[Constans II]] (r. 641–668).<ref>{{Harvnb|Treadgold|1997|p=316}}</ref> It has further been shown that, contrary to Ostrogorsky's conception of the {{Lang|el-Latn|thémata}} being established from the outset as distinct, well-defined regions where a {{Lang|la|stratēgos}} held joint military and civil authority, the term {{Lang|el-Latn|théma}} 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1990|pp=214–215}}</ref>

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 Sasanian {{Lang|pal|[[aswaran|aswārān]]|size=90%}}).<ref name="ODB2034"/><ref>{{Harvnb|Cheynet|2006|p=152}}</ref> 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.<ref name="ODB2034"/>

=== First themes: 640s–770s ===
[[File:A28 Sergiopolis-Martirion 562.jpg|thumb|left|Ruins at [[Sergiopolis]]]]
[[File:Byzantine Empire Themata-750-en.svg|thumb|200px|Byzantine ''themata'' in [[Anatolia]], c. 750.]]
[[File:Asia Minor ca 780 AD.svg|thumb|250px|The Byzantine themata in Asia Minor as they existed in c. 780, following the creation of the Bucellarian and ''[[Optimatoi]]'' themes out of the original theme of the ''[[Opsikion]]''.]]

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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1990|pp=212–216}}</ref> The first four themes were those of the Armeniacs, Anatolics and Thracesians, and the Opsician theme. The [[Armeniac Theme]] ({{lang|grc|Θέμα Ἀρμενιακῶν|size=90%}}, {{Lang|grc-Latn|Théma Armeniakōn}}), first mentioned in 667, was the successor of the Army of Armenia. It occupied the old areas of the [[Pontus (region)|Pontus]], [[Armenia Minor]] and northern [[Cappadocia]], with its capital at [[Amasya|Amasea]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Kazhdan|1991|p=177}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1999|pp=73, 112}}</ref> The [[Anatolic Theme]] ({{lang|grc|Θέμα Ἀνατολικῶν|size=90%}}, ''{{Lang|grc-Latn|Anatolikōn}}''), first mentioned in 669, was the successor of the Army of the [[Diocese of Oriens|East]] ({{lang|el|Aνατολῆ|size=90%}}, {{Lang|el-Latn|Anatolē}}). It covered southern central Asia Minor, and its capital was [[Amorium]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Kazhdan|1991|p=90}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1999|p=73}}</ref> Together, these two themes formed the first tier of defence of Byzantine Anatolia, bordering Muslim Armenia and Syria respectively. The [[Thracesian Theme]] ({{Lang|el|Θέμα Θρᾳκησίων|size=90%}}, {{Lang|el-Latn|Théma Thrakēsiōn}}), first mentioned clearly as late as c. 740, was the successor of the Army of [[Diocese of Thrace|Thrace]], and covered the central western coast of Asia Minor ([[Ionia]], [[Lydia]] and [[Caria]]), with its capital most likely at [[Chonae]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Kazhdan|1991|p=2080}}</ref> The [[Opsician Theme]] ({{lang|grc|Θέμα Ὀψικίου}}, {{lang|grc-Latn|Théma Opsikiou|size=90%}}), first mentioned in 680, was constituted from the imperial retinue (in [[Latin]] {{lang|la|Obsequium}}). It covered northwestern Asia Minor ([[Bithynia]], [[Paphlagonia]] and parts of [[Galatia]]), and was based at [[Nicaea]]. Uniquely, its commander retained his title of {{Lang|grc-Latn|kómēs}} ({{Lang|grc|κόμης|size=90%}}, "count").<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1990|pp=216–217}}</ref>

In addition, the great naval division of the Carabisians or ''[[Karabisianoi]]'' ({{lang|grc|Kαραβισιάνοι|size=90%}}, "people of the {{lang|grc|κᾱ́ρᾰβοι|size=90%}} [ships]"), first mentioned in 680, was probably formed of the remains of the Army of the [[Illyricum (Roman province)|Illyricum]] or, more likely, the old ''[[quaestura exercitus]]''. It never formed a theme proper, but occupied parts of the southern coast of Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands, with its {{Lang|la|stratēgos}} seat most likely at [[Samos]]. It provided the bulk of the [[Byzantine navy]] facing the new Arab fleets, which after the [[Battle of the Masts]] contested control of the Mediterranean with the Empire.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1990|p=217}}</ref> 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 the [[Cibyrrhaeot Theme|Cibyrrhaeots]] ({{lang|grc|Θέμα Κιβυρραιωτῶν}}, ''Thema Kibyrrhaiotōn''), which encompassed the southern coasts of Asia Minor and the [[Aegean islands]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1999|p=77}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Cheynet|2006|p=155}}</ref>

The part of the region of [[Thrace]] under Byzantine control was probably constituted as a theme at about 680, as a response to the [[Bulgars|Bulgar]] threat, although for a time the command over Thrace appears to have been exercised by the Count of the ''Opsikion''.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1990|p=216}}</ref><ref name="HaldonB87">{{Harvnb|Haldon|1999|p=87}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Kazhdan|1991|p=2079}}</ref> Successive campaigns by the emperors of the [[Heraclian dynasty]] in Greece also led to the recovery of control of [[Central Greece (geographic region)|Central Greece]] from [[Slavs|Slavic]] invaders, and to the establishment of the theme of [[Hellas (theme)|Hellas]] there between 687 and 695.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kazhdan|1991|p=911}}</ref> [[Sicily]] too was formed as a theme by the end of the 7th century, but the imperial possessions in mainland [[Italy]] remained under the exarch of Ravenna or the local ''doukes'', as did [[Byzantine Africa]] until the fall of [[Carthage]] in 698. At the same time, [[Crete]] and the imperial exclave of [[Cherson (theme)|Cherson]] in the [[Crimea]] formed independent ''[[archontia]]i''.<ref name="HaldonB87"/><ref>{{Harvnb|Cheynet|2006|p=146}}</ref>

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 of [[Artabasdos]] in 741–742.<ref>{{Harvnb|Treadgold|1998|pp=26–29}}</ref> The suppression of Artabasdos' revolt heralded the first significant changes in the Anatolian themes: the over-mighty ''Opsikion'' was broken up with the creation of two new themes, the [[Bucellarian Theme]] and the [[Optimatoi|Optimates]], while the role of imperial guard was assumed by a new type of professional force, the imperial ''[[tagma (military)|tagmata]]''.<ref>{{Harvnb|Treadgold|1998|pp=28–29, 71, 99, 210}}</ref>

=== Height of the theme system, 780s–950s ===
{{Expand section|date=May 2008}}[[File:Byzantine Empire Themata-950-en.svg|thumb|Byzantine ''themata'' in Anatolia, c. 950.]]
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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1999|pp=83–84}}</ref> This process, resulting in unified control over both military and civil affairs of each theme by its ''strategos'', was complete by the mid-9th century,<ref name="HaldonB84">{{Harvnb|Haldon|1999|p=84}}</ref> and is the "classical" thematic model mentioned in such works as the ''[[Kletorologion|Klētorologion]]'' and the ''[[De 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, the ''[[kleisoura (Byzantine district)|kleisourai]]'' or ''kleisourarchiai'' ("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 a ''kleisourarchēs'', tasked with guerrilla warfare and locally countering small to mid-scale incursions and raids. Gradually, most of these were elevated to full themes.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1999|pp=79, 84, 114}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Kazhdan|1991|p=1132}}</ref>

=== Decline of the system, 960s–1070s ===
With the beginning of the Byzantine offensives in the East and the Balkans in the 10th century, especially under the warrior-emperors [[Nikephoros II]] (r. 963–969), [[John I Tzimiskes]] (r. 969–976) and [[Basil 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Treadgold|1998|pp=33–37}}</ref>

[[File:Byzantine Empire Themes 1025-en.svg|thumb|The ''themata'' of the Byzantine Empire, at the death of Basil II in 1025.]]
At this time, a new class of themes, the so-called "minor" ({{lang|grc|μικρὰ θέματα}}) or "Armenian" themes ({{lang|grc|ἀρμενικὰ θέματα}}) appear, which Byzantine sources clearly differentiate from the traditional "great" or "Roman" themes ({{lang|grc|ῥωμαϊκά θέματα}}). Most consisted merely of a fortress and its surrounding territory, with a junior ''stratēgos'' (called {{transliteration|ar|zirwar}} by the Arabs and {{transliteration|hy|zoravar}} by the Armenians) as a commander and about 1,000 men, chiefly infantry, as their garrison. As their name reveals, they were mostly populated by [[Armenians]], either indigenous or settled there by the Byzantine authorities. One of their peculiarities was the extremely large number of officers (the theme of [[Charpezikion]] alone counted 22 senior and 47 junior ''tourmarchai'').<ref name="HaldonB84"/><ref>{{Harvnb|Treadgold|1998|pp=80–84}}</ref><ref name="DOAKSArmenian">{{Harvnb|McGeer|Nesbitt|Oikonomides|2001|p=143}}</ref>

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 old ''tagmata'' 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 ("{{lang|la|italic=no|ducates}}" or "{{lang|la|italic=no|catepanates}}"), under a ''[[dux|doux]]'' or ''[[katepano]]'', were set up. In the East, the three original such commands, set up by John Tzimiskes, were those of the ''doukes'' of [[Antioch]], [[Chaldia]] and [[Mesopotamia (theme)|Mesopotamia]]. As Byzantium expanded into [[Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)|Greater Armenia]] in the early 11th century, these were complemented or replaced by the commands of [[Iberia (theme)|Iberia]], [[Vaspurakan]], [[Edessa, Mesopotamia|Edessa]] and [[Ani]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1999|pp=84–85}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Treadgold|1998|pp=35–36}}</ref> In the same vein, the "Armenian" themes seem to have been placed under a single ''strategos'' in the mid-11th century.<ref name="DOAKSArmenian"/>

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 the ''[[tagma (military)|tagmata]]'' 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 (the ''[[dynatoi]]''), by the time of the [[Battle of Manzikert]] in 1071, the Byzantine army was already undergoing a severe crisis and collapsed completely in the battle's aftermath.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haldon|1999|pp=85, pp. 90–93}}</ref>

=== Change and decline: 11th–12th centuries ===
[[File:Map Byzantine Empire 1045.svg|300px|thumb|Map of themes within the Byzantine Empire in 1045.]]

The [[Byzantine Empire under the Komnenos dynasty|Komnenian era]] saw a brief restoration of the empire's fortunes as the force now known as the '[[Byzantine army (Komnenian era)|Komnenian army]]' was established by [[Alexios 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 the [[Varangian guard]] than the previous army, reducing the importance of the themes. The ''strategoi'' increasingly lost power as the empire centralized. The emperors often appointed relatives to the governorships, reducing their autonomous character and solidifying centralized imperial administration.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Birkenmeier |first=John |title=The Development of the Kommenian Army: 1081-1180 |publisher=Brill |year=2002 |isbn=9789004117105 |location=Leiden, The Netherlands |pages=242}}</ref>

The [[Komnenian restoration]] required a new system to manage the severely weakened themes of [[Anatolia]] due to the catastrophe of [[Battle of Manzikert|Manzikert]]. 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 (called [[Dux|Doux]] or [[Katepano|''Katepanos'']] indiscriminately) assumed strongly centralized roles on the emperor's behalf so that the influx of landed ''[[pronoia]]'' 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Frankopan |first=P. |date=2007-02-01 |title=Kinship and the Distribution of Power in Komnenian Byzantium |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehr/cel378 |journal=The English Historical Review |volume=CXXII |issue=495 |pages=1–34 |doi=10.1093/ehr/cel378 |issn=0013-8266}}</ref>

Each Theme was overseen by a ''Katepanos'' or ''Doux'', whose authorities was both military and civil, subdivided into [[Katepano|''Katepanakias'']] encompassing the old [[Tourma|''Tourmas'']], now each ruled by a [[Praetor|Praktor]] instead of a ''[[Tourmarches]]'' fulfilling the same civic and military roles now widely in the hands of [[Pronoia|''pronoiars'']]. 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 the ''[[dynatoi]],'' 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 extensive [[Golden bull|chrysobulas]] of different institutions granted by the monarch.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Haldon |first=John |date=2020-07-08 |title=Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781003070832 |doi=10.1201/9781003070832|isbn=9781003070832 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=C. |first=Bartusis, Mark |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/40455898 |title=The late Byzantine army : arms and society, 1204-1453 |date=1997 |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |isbn=0-8122-1620-2 |oclc=40455898}}</ref>

The [[Byzantine army (Komnenian era)|Byzantine 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 of [[Manuel I Komnenos]] in 1180, a new period of decline set in.

=== Late Byzantine ''themata'' ===
{{Expand section|date=January 2012}}

The neglect under the [[Angeloi]] 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 the [[Palaiologos]] dynasty's rule.

The now irrelevant micro provinces under imperial control were organized directly into [[Katepanikion|''katepanakias'']] or ''kephalatikion'' each also ruled by a ''[[Katepano|Katepan]]'' or [[Kephale (Byzantine Empire)|''Kephale'']] with military and civic powers centered around forts and major passes, relegating all minor tasks to deputies.<ref>{{Cite book |last=C. |first=Bartusis, Mark |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/40455898 |title=The late Byzantine army : arms and society, 1204-1453 |date=1997 |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |isbn=0-8122-1620-2 |oclc=40455898}}</ref>