Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:10:43.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sebeos’ account of an Arab attack on Constantinople in 654

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Shaun O’Sullivan
Shaun O’Sullivan*
Affiliation:
University of Balamand, Lebanon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Armenian writer Sebeos records in detail a great Arab attack on the Byzantine capital in 654, which ended in disastrous failure. No parallel accounts are known, and Sebeos’ report has not been seriously considered. Yet Sebeos, otherwise known to be a reliable author, was writing only shortly after the supposed event. The event is plausible in its historical context. Allusions to it in several historical sources may be remnants of written records, parallel to Sebeos’ account, which disappeared after the condemnation of Monotbeletism in 680–1. Indirect evidence of the attack from several other Christian sources and, to a lesser degree, from the Islamic tradition also tends to confirm Sebeos’ report.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 28 , 2004 , pp. 67 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos, 2 vols., ed. Thomson, R. and Howard-Johnston, J. (Liverpool 1999) xxviii-xxixGoogle Scholar, 274-6 (hereafter Sebeos, History).

2 Sebeos, History, xxxi-iv.

3 Ibid., xxxiv-xxxvii.

4 Ibid., lxi, lxiv.

5 ibid., 176.

6 Ibid., xxxviii-ix, lxi.

7 Ibid., lxx, lxxiv, lxxvi.

8 Ibid., lxxiv. Hoyland, R., Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: a Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Princeton 1997) 125-8Google Scholar, 131-2, 439, concurs, pointing to Sebeos’ use of documentary material, possible eyewitness reports, and ‘apparent access to certain privileged information’ in reports for which Sebeos is the only source.

9 Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, ed. J.–B.|Chabot (Brussels 1963) XI, 10, 441-2Google Scholar; Chronicle 1234, ed. Chabot, J.-B. (CSCO, 81-2. Paris 1916-20) 268-9Google Scholar; Chronicle Zuqnin, ed. Chabot, J.-B. (Paris 1895) 151 Google Scholar all give the date AG960/648-9. In addition, see Theophanes, , Chronographia, tr. Scott, R., Mango, C. (Oxford 1997) 344 Google Scholar; Agapius, , Universal History, ed. Vasiliev, A.A. (Patrologia Orientalis 8. Paris 1912) 220 Google Scholar; Elias of Nisibis, Chronicle, ed. Brooks, E.W., Chabot, J.-B. (CSCO 62-3. Paris 1909-10) 66 Google Scholar; al-Balādhurī, , Futūh al-buldãn, tr. Hitti, P. (Beirut 1966) 153 Google Scholar; al-Tabarī, , Tarīkb al-mulūk wa-l-rusul, ed. de Goeje, M.J. (Leiden 1879-1901) I, 2820, 2826-7Google Scholar.

For secondary sources see Stratos, A.N., Byzantium in the Seventh Century, 5 vols. (Amsterdam 1968-80) III, 38-9Google Scholar; Bosworth, E., ‘Arab Attacks on Rhodes in the Pre-Ottoman Period’, journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 3/6 (1996) 157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lemerle, P., ‘Les répercussions de la crise de l’empire d’Orient au VIIe siècle sur les pays d’Occident’, Caratteri del secolo VII in Occidente, (Settimane di Studi del Centro italiano sull’ alto Medioevo 5/2. Spoleto 1957) 716 Google Scholar;

Bréhier, L. and Aigrain, R., Grégoire le Grand, les états barbares et la conquête arabe (590-757) in Histoire de l’Eglise: depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours , ed. Fliehe, A. and Martin, V. (Paris 1947) V, 156-7Google Scholar, 177; Bréhier, L., ‘La marine de Byzance du Ville au Xle siècle’, B 19 (1949) 2 Google Scholar; Lewis, A., Naval Power and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, AD 500-1100 (Princeton 1951) 56 Google Scholar.

10 Sebeos, History, 147.

11 Theophanes, Chronographia, 344; Agapius, Universal History, 221; Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, II, 446 Google Scholar; and Chronicle 1234, 214, also record the treaty, supplying names other than Procopius. See Stratos, A.N., ‘The exarch Olympius and the supposed Arab invasion of Sicily in A.D. 652’, JÖBG 25 (1976) 71-2Google Scholar; idem, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 42–3; Brooks, E.W., ‘The successors of Heraclius to 717’, Cambridge Medieval History, II (Cambridge 1913), 393 Google Scholar; S. Brock, ‘An early Syriac life of Maximus the Confessor’, in idem, Syriac Perspectives in Late Antiquity (London 1984) XII, 329.

12 Theophanes, Chronographia, 344, for AM6140/ 647-8. Agapius, Universal History, 220 gives a similar account. See also Chronicle 1234, 273, and Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, 11, 10, 442.

13 Conrad, L., ‘The Conquest of Arwad: A Source-Critical Study in the Historiography of the Early Medieval Near East’, in The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, ed. Cameron, A., Conrad, L. and King, G. (Princeton 1992) I, 320-1, 340-1Google Scholar.

14 Chronicle 1234, 271-2.

15 The sources offer evidence of three Muslim attacks on Cyprus — in 649, 650 and 654. al-Balādhurī, Futūh al-buldān, 153, records the first attack on Cyprus, dated 28 or 29/Sep 648-Sep 650: it was led by Mu’āwiya, and resulted in the Cypriots’ agreement to pay a yearly tribute of 7200 dinars. However, al-Balādhurī may be conflating two consecutive attacks made in 649 and 650, for several Christian sources — Theophanes, Chronographia, 344; Agapius, Universal History, 220; Chronicle 1234, 271-2; and Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, 11, 10, 442 — record a second attack made the year after the first. Moreover, Theophanes, Chronographia, 344, reports that the original attack had ended with the despatch of a Byzantine fleet and the retreat of the Muslims — so that any agreement by the Cypriots to pay tribute could hardly have been effected. The inscription, dated 655, recently discovered at the basilica of Soloi in Cyprus confirms the two attacks, giving the dates 649 and 650. Neither of these raids led to permanent occupation, although, after the second, the inhabitants may have paid the moderate tribute demanded. However, al-Balādhurī, Futuh al-buldān, 153, goes on to record another invasion of Cyprus in 33/653-4, after which a strong Muslim colony was settled in the island. This permanent occupation may have come in rapid response to the Muslim disaster before Constantinople in 654 and the ensuing Byzantine counter-attack. At any rate, the occupation probably survived until Yazïd I ordered the colony’s evacuation in 680-1. See C.E. Bosworth, ‘Arab Attacks on Rhodes’, 157; Stratos, A.N., Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 44-5Google Scholar; A. Lewis, Naval Power and Trade, 57. The topic is discussed further in n. 40.

16 Cameron, A., ‘Cyprus at the time of the Arab conquests’, Cyprus Historical Review 1 (1992) 31-2Google Scholar. According to the 655 inscription at the basilica of Soloi, 120,000 captives were taken in the first attack of 649, and 50,000 in the second a year later. The island was probably hosting many refugees from Syria.

17 Chronicle 1234, 274; Theophanes, Chronographia, 344; Agapius, Universal History, 221-2; Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, 11, 11, 446; Chronicle Zuqnin, IV, 152.

18 Sebeos, History, 164.

19 Ibid., 169-71.

20 ‘Les expéditions des arabes contre Constantinople dans l’histoire et dans la légende’, journal Asiatique 208 (1926) 63, n.4.

21 Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 50. Sebeos is the only such Armenian chronicler.

22 The Early Islamic Historical Tradition: a Source-Critical Study (Princeton 1994), 163-5.

23 Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: a Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, 125.

24 Sebeos, History 266. Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 42-3Google Scholar, calculates the duration of the truce as two years, from early 651 to the first months of 653.

25 Sebeos, History, 163-4.

26 These accounts are quoted below, n.33.

27 The source for this event is a vague notice in Liber Pontificalis, I, 338. See Eickhoff, E., Seekrieg und Seepolitik zwischen Islam und Abendland: das Mittelmeer unter byzantinischer und arabischer Hegemonie (650-1040) (Berlin 1954) 16 Google Scholar; and Lewis, Naval Power and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, 56. On the other hand, Becker, C., ‘The Expansion of the Saracens’, Cambridge Medieval History II, 367, 380 Google Scholar; Stratos, ‘The exarch Olympius and the supposed Arab invasion of Sicily in A.D. 652’, 63-73, both argue that the Muslims did not attack Sicily until 664. Dennett, D., ‘Pirenne and Mohammed’, Speculum 23 (1948) 169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, proposes two attacks, in 652 and 664.

28 Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, 11, 10, 443, for AG965/653-4. See P. Lemerle, ‘Les répercussions de la crise de l’empire d’Orient’, 716; Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 45-6Google Scholar; Bosworth, ‘Arab Attacks on Rhodes’, 158; Conrad, ‘The Conquest of Arwãd’, 376-7.

29 Agapius, Universal History, 222, reports for year 8 of ‘Uthmān (652-3): ‘Mu’āwiya sent troops into the island of Rhodes, who seized it, organized an administration, and made an observation post there for the Arabs.’ Theophanes, the Syriac chroniclers, and Ibn A’tham al-Kūfī also mention a Muslim raid against Rhodes in 653: Bosworth, ‘Arab Attacks on Rhodes’, 157-8. Conrad, L., ‘The Arabs and the Colossus’, journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 3/6 (1996) 173 Google Scholar, considers Agapius’ statement as unhistorical, derived from a typical theme of Islamic futūh narrative. Yet the only evidence presented for this sceptical assertion are reports in Theophanes’ Chronographia and patriarch Nicephorus’ Short History, that Rhodes was an important Byzantine base in the eighth and early ninth centuries, much later than the period referred to by Agapius’ statement. If one accepts Sebeos’ account of the Muslims’ annihilation before Constantinople in 654, then it is likely that their occupation of Rhodes in 653 was short-lived. In that case, the Muslims likely re-occupied Rhodes in 673, in preparation for their second great assault against Constantinople. The evidence for this second occupation comes from generally accepted Islamic reports that Yazld I (680-4) ordered the evacuation of Rhodes by Muslim forces. Although they do not agree on the dates, other Islamic sources report a seven-year re-occupation of the island during the 670s. See n.83.

30 Sebeos, History, 164; Theophanes, Chronographia, 344.

31 Sebeos, History, 165-8. Most of the great army had already been recalled from Armenia before Constans himself returned.

32 Chronicle 819 was probably written at the monastery of Qartmïn in Jazira, and Chronicle 846 depends on it almost exclusively for the Early Islamic period: Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It 170, 420.

33 Chronicle 1234, 274-5, and Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, 11, 10, 44, report the event for AG966, equivalent to 654–5; the equivalent Islamic year, 34H, is given by Agapius, Universal History, 223, and Elias of Nisibis, Chronicle, I, 138 Google Scholar. Chronicle Zuqnin, 152, gives AG963/651-2. In contrast, Theophanes, Chronographia, 345, reports the Tripoli revolt for AM6145/652-3. The two men were captives, the sons of a trumpeter (buccinator — Theophanes) or ‘a man named Boukinator’ (Agapius) — even, improbably, companions of Mu’awiya (Elias of Nisibis). See n.42.

34 Chronicle 1234, 274-5; Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, 11, 10, 445-6; Theophanes, Chronographia, 345-6; Agapius, Universal History, 113-4.

35 All the above sources agree on this. al-Tabarī, , Tarīkh al-mulūk wa-l-rusul, I, 2865, 3086-7Google Scholar, also refers to this battle, ‘that of the Masts’, for 34H/July 654-July 655.

36 Chronicle 1234, 274–5; Agapius, Universal History, 223-4. The latter, together with al-Tabarl, , Tarīkh al-mulūk wa-l-rusul, I, 3086-7Google Scholar, wrongly adds that Constans fled to Sicily after the battle. See Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 198–200 Google Scholar.

37 Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 49-55: ‘the consequences of the battle [of Phoenix] conflict entirely with the result with which all agree’ (49). Canard, ‘Les expeditions des Arabes contre Constantinople’, 67, notes the difficulty without explanation.

38 Accounts of Muslim land operations at this time are confused. Theophanes, Chronographia, 345-6, reports that the Arabs led by Mu’āwiya attacked Cappadocian Caesarea in 654–5. Agapius, Universal History, 223–4, states that the Arabs ‘conquered the land of Bazantiyah and of Malatya, and reached as far as Hisn al-Murrah near the Gate of Malatya, taking captive 100,000 of its people.’ There is no corroboration of Sebeos’ report that the Muslims advanced overland to Chalcedon in 654.

39 The Syriac sources and Agapius all state that the emperor’s brother was also present. Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 53-5Google Scholar, relying on the account of George the Monk, suggests that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Constans during the battle and replace him with Theodosius.

40 al-Balādhurī, Futūh al-buldān, 153, reports: ‘In the year 32 [652-3], however, the Cypriots offered ships as an aid to the Greeks [...]. Consequently, Mu’āwiya invaded them in the year 33 [653-4] with 500 ships (there follows a description of the new Muslim garrison centre).’ It is thought that this report refers to the second Muslim attack on Cyprus in 650. More likely, though, it records a third assault, occurring in the first half of 655, and launched in response to the island’s defection after the 654 defeat and an imminent Byzantine counter-attack. The reported Cypriot offer of aid to the Empire, in contravention of the truce made between Cyprus and the Muslims, seems most likely in the aftermath of a disastrous Muslim defeat in 654. However, the location of the Islamic garrison centre on Cyprus remains unknown; the basilica of Soli, re-dedicated in 655, mentions only the first two attacks, dated 649 and 650; and a hagiography written in Cyprus about 655 records the contemporary visit of Paul, archbishop of Crete without any hint of an Arab presence on the island. If there had been a Muslim attack on Cyprus in 655, then the Soli inscription and the hagiography must have antedated this attack or simply ignored it. See Cameron, ‘Cyprus at the time of the Arab conquests’, 32-4. The topic is also discussed in n.15.

41 Accordingly, it is reported that the Byzantines had 500-1000 ships at Phoenix, while the Muslims had only 200. Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 50 Google Scholar, dismisses these figures, noting that the Byzantines would have required 40-100,000 sailors and 15-30,000 troops for a fleet of that size. Yet the figures on both sides seem plausible in light of the event described by Sebeos: the Byzantines had assembled most of their naval strength for a triumphant campaign of re-conquest, while the Muslims had gathered together all they could muster after the disaster they had just suffered. See also Eickhoff, Seekrieg und Seepolitik zwischen Islam und Abendland, 19.

42 Theophanes dates the Tripoli revolt to 652-3 and the battle of Phoenix to 654-5. Since his dating for this period is frequently one year behind, the former date should be brought forward to 653-4. However, his date for Phoenix matches that of 34H/ June 654-early July 655, given by al-Tabarī, , Tarīkh al-mulūk wa-l-rusul, I, 2867 Google Scholar. In contrast to Theophanes, the Syriac chroniclers place the Tripoli revolt in 654-5: this date must be rejected, since it falls after the 654 attack recorded by Sebeos. See n.33.

43 Note however that, according to a late Turkish tradition, the battle of Phoenix followed a siege of Constantinople: Canard, ‘Les expeditions des Arabes contre Constantinople’, 63-8.

44 Theophanes, Agapius, Michael the Syrian and Chronicle 1234 record both events; Elias of Nisibis records only the Tripoli revolt.

45 Conrad, ‘The Conquest of Arwād’, 331-2; ibid., ‘Theophanes and the Arabic historical tradition: some indications of intercultural transmission’, BF 15 (1990) 43; Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, 400-2. Theophilus’ original account reached Michael the Syrian and Chronicle 1234 through the Syrian Monophysite patriarch Dionysius of Tellmahre (d.845). For his coverage of the seventh century, Agapius adds details from a Muslim Arab source.

46 The Zuqnin chronicler attests that for the period 573-4 until 775, ‘we have not found [anything] concerning [men’s] actions which is composed as carefully as the ones aforementioned (Eusebius, Socrates, and John of Ephesus)’, and refers to what he did find as ‘miscellany’ (quoted in Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, 408-10). This remark by no means excludes the likelihood that chroniclers were active in Syria in the first half of the eighth century. The Spanish work known as the Byzantine-Arab Chronicle 741 includes much material on Umayyad Syria that bears no correspondence whatsoever to the chronicles relying on Theophilus. This work probably relied on a Greek source, unknown to Theophilus, that was compiled in Syria before 750 (ibid. 425).

47 Conrad, ‘Theophanes and the Arabic historical tradition’, 4–6.

48 Theophanes, Chronographia, 345, 347, 348, 353-1, 355, 361, 363-1.

49 Ibid., 382, 417, 431-2.

50 See n.45.

51 A major, initially successful, revolt against the Muslims began in 655 in Adharbayjan and Iberia: Sebeos, History, 280-1, n.86.

52 Hefele, K., Histoire des Conciles, d’après les documents originaux, tr. Leclercq, H., 11 vols. (Paris 1907-52) XVI 472ffGoogle Scholar; Herrin, J., The Formation of Christendom (Princeton 1997) 275-6Google Scholar. The Monothelete documents are collected in Brock, S., Syriac Perspectives in Late Antiquity (London 1984) 12.299-346Google Scholar, 13. 63-71; idem, Studies in Syriac Christianity (London 1992) 14.35-45, 15.121-40. The Syriac Life of Maximus, the most important, is discussed on p. 77.

53 This reference to an army at Phoenix may imply that the Byzantine fleet was transporting an army in order to re-capture Cyprus. Alternatively, Agapius, Universal History, 223-4, describes a twin battle fought at Phoenix between opposing armies on the Lycian coast, and between the fleets a short distance offshore. A later Turkish tradition also reports a twin battle (n.43). However, according to the detailed description in al-Tabarī, , Tarīkh al-mulūk wa-l-rusul, I, 2868 Google Scholar, Phoenix was a naval encounter, but one in which the opposing ships were chained together closely, so that the battle resembled one fought on land. See M. Canard, ‘Les expeditions des Arabes contre Constantinople’, 65–6.

54 Anastasius of Sinai, Sermo 3, PG 89, 1156, quoted in Kaegi, W., ‘Initial Byzantine reactions to the Arab conquest’, Church History 38 (1969) 142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, 102-3. Later references to the Muslim civil war and the Arab-Byzantine truce suggest that this passage was composed in the early 690s.

55 Constans’ decree of 648, the Typos, purported to be neutral, forbidding mention of either one or two wills. However, the patriarchs of Constantinople during Constans’ reign were all declared Monotheletes.

56 Theophanes, Chronographia, 353-4; Nikephoros, Patriarch, Short History, ed. Mango, C. (Washington 1990), 34 Google Scholar.

57 Chronographia, 331-2.

58 Nikephoros, Short History, 14-15. See also Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, 433-1, 575; Conrad, ‘Theophanes and the Arabic historical tradition’, 2.

59 Brock, , ‘An early Syriac life of Maximus the Confessor’, Syrian Perspectives in Late Antiquity (London 1984) 318 Google Scholar.

60 Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, 185; idem, Arabia and the Arabs: from the Bronze Age to the coming of Islam (London 2001) 31.

61 Chronicle Khuzistan, ed. Guidi, I. (CSCO, 1-2, Paris 1903) 37-8Google Scholar.

62 Chronicle of Fredegar, ed. Wallace-Hadrill, J.M., The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar (London 1954) 81 Google Scholar.

63 Maronite Chronicle, ed. Palmer, A. (Liverpool 1993) 29 Google Scholar; Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, 137-8. Weekdays and dates of the month fit the corresponding years. Some later editing is indicated by a remark following the description of an event in 664: ‘The Arabs have not attacked that lake again up to the present day.’

64 Brooks, ‘The successors of Heraclius to 717’, 396; Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 232-4Google Scholar, Bréhier/Aigrain, Grégoire le Grand, les états barbares et la conquête arabe (590-757), 182. See Sebeos, History, 287.

65 al-Tabarī, , Tarīkh al-mulūk wa-l-rusul, II, 27 Google Scholar; Agapius, Universal History, 228; Maronite Chronicle, 29-35, 72 (partly quoted on pp. 13-14). Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 232 Google Scholar; Canard, ‘Les expeditions des Arabes contre Constantinople’, 67. See n.70, n.80.

66 Various reasons are suggested for Constans’ surprising move, including an intention to transfer the seat of government; the emperor’s desire to flee popular hostility at Constantinople following the execution of his brother, Theodosius; and his wish to strengthen the Byzantine position in Italy and Africa. See Dennett, ‘Pirenne and Muhammad’, 169; Brooks, ‘The successors of Heraclius to 717’, 394; Lewis, Naval Power and Trade, 59; Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 198–200 Google Scholar; Bréhier/Aigrain, Grégoire le Grand, les états barbares et la conquête arabe (590-757), 178-9; Haldon, J., Byzantium in the Seventh Century: the Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge 1990) 60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Maronite Chronicle, 73.

68 Ibid., 74. The extant chronicle ends here.

69 Ibid., 72.

70 Ibid., 72-3. This Constamene cannot be Constans, officially Constantine III, who left the capital for the West in 661-2, never to return. He must be Constans’ son, Constantine IV (668-685). If he is the ruling emperor (‘the King’) in this passage, then the text must refer to the Muslim expedition of 668-9: Islamic sources record an expedition in that year and name Yazïd ibn Mu’awiya as taking part. More likely, however, the passage describes Constantine as co-emperor in his father’s absence: he had been crowned as such in 654. Since the next account in the text of the Maronite Chronicle is dated 664, the quoted passage would thus refer to an earlier expedition in 663. Being then no more than fifteen years old, Constantine could not have exercised full control of affairs, which may explain why the populace reportedly ignore his warning. In support of the Maronite Chronicle and the date of 663, al-Tabarī, , Tarīkh al-mulūk wa-l-rusul, II, 27 Google Scholar, reports for that same year an expedition led by Busr ibn Abī Artāt that wintered in Byzantine territory until it reached Constantinople. Yazīd, born in the early 640s, could have participated in this earlier expedition under Busr’s leadership. See Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, IV, 135 Google Scholar, 156, 168. The topic is discussed further in n.80.

71 Olster, D., ‘Theodosius Grammaticus and the Arab siege of 674-78’, BS 56 (1995) 23-8Google Scholar. Olster argues that the poem refers to the siege of 674-7, against the view of the original editor, S. Lampros, that the siege of 716-7 is intended. The poem’s title is anachronistic: ‘Iambic verses of Theodosius Grammaticus on the Arab fleet when the Christians annihilated it at Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius the pious.’ Olster emends the title by inserting ‘Constantine, descendant (engonou) of [Heraclius the pious]’ — a phrase that better fits Constans, Heraclius’ grandson, than Constantine IV, his great-grandson.

72 Ibid., 23-4 (italics added).

73 al-Tabarï, , Tarīkh al-mulūk wa-l-rusul, I, 3086-7Google Scholar.

74 Ibid., I, 2865, 2868.

75 Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 199–200 Google Scholar. See n.66.

76 Canard, ‘Les expeditions des Arabes contre Constantinople’, 105-12; Vasiliev, A., ‘Medieval ideas of the end of the world: East and West’, B 16 (1944) 472-3Google Scholar; Madelung, W., ‘Apocalyptic prophecies in Hims in the Umayyad age’, journal of Semitic Studies 31 (1986) 141-85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. According to these prophecies, the conquest of Rome would follow that of Constantinople. The Himsī apocalyptic tradition is largely preserved in the Kitāb al-fitan of Nu’aym ibn Hamraād (d. 227/842). See also Cook, M., ‘An Early Islamic Apocalyptic Chronicle’, journal of Near Eastern Studies 52 (1993) 25-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Madelung, ‘Apocalyptic prophecies in Hims’, 158.

78 Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 235 Google Scholar.

79 Madelung, ‘Apocalyptic prophecies in Hims’, 179-80, considers that the themes of the apocalyptic tradition, including the fall of Constantinople, are of early Umayyad origin.

80 The 663 expedition is mentioned by al-Tabarî, Agapius, and the Maronite Chronicle, see n.65, n.70, n.81. The expedition of 668-9/48-9 is well known from Islamic sources ( al-Tabarī, , Tarīkh al-mulūk wa-l-rusul, II, 86 Google Scholar; al-Ya’qūbī, , Ta’rīkh, II, 272 Google Scholar; al-Athīr, Ibn, Kãmil, III, 231 Google Scholar; Aghānī, XVI, 33; al-Mas’ādī, , Murūj, V, 62 Google Scholar; Yāqūt, , Mu’jam, II, 697 Google Scholar, and later Turkish traditions). They associate it with anecdotes about Yazād ibn Mu’īwiya and the Companion Abū Ayyūb al-Ansarī. No Christian source mentions this expedition except Elias of Nisibis, , Chronicle, I, 144 Google Scholar. See Canard, ‘Les expeditions des Arabes contre Constantinople’, 67-77.

81 Brooks, ‘The successors of Heraclius to 717’, 397, makes no mention of a 663 expedition, but accepts that the Muslims crossed the Sea of Marmara in spring 669. Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, III, 232, 239-47Google Scholar, considers that neither expedition crossed into Thrace, and that Yazīd played no part in the earlier one, which was only a normal summer raid led by Busr. He dismisses the Maronite Chronicle as fanciful and its chronology as ‘jumbled’ (243-4). According to Stratos (242), its detailed but undated account of an expedition led by Yazīd to Constantinople, partly quoted above, refers to the 668-9 expedition. Yet its dating and style indicate the Maronite Chronicle to be a contemporary source; its account of Yazīd’s expedition may reasonably be dated to 663, not 668-9, because it immediately precedes an account of ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Khālid’s expedition, which the Chronicle dates to 664. See n.65, n.70.

82 Odetallah, R. Khoury, ‘Leo Tripolites-Ghulām Zurāfa and the Sack of Thessaloniki in 904’, BS 56 (1995) 100-1Google Scholar. For Arab siege machinery, see also al-Hassan, A.Y. and Hill, D.R., Islamic Technology (Paris 1986), lOlfGoogle Scholar.; for Arab naval technology, see Christides, V., ‘Naval history and naval technology in medieval times: the need for interdisciplinary studies’, B 58 (1988) 309-32Google Scholar; ibid., ‘Ibn al-Manqalī (Manglī) and Leo VI: New Evidence on Arabo-Byzantine Ship Construction and Naval Warfare’, BS 56 (1995) 83-96. The editors of Sebeos consider that his list of siege-engines placed upon the Muslim ships in 654 is ‘lifted directly from the account of the siege of Jerusalem in I Maccabees 6.51’ (Sebeos, History, 1). Yet there is no exact parallel: compare Sebeos’ description with the biblical text: ‘He (Antiochus V) besieged the sanctuary for a long time, erecting batteries and siege-engines, flame-throwers and ballistas, scorpions to discharge arrows, and catapults’ (New Jerusalem Bible).

83 al-Balādhurī, Futūh al-buldān, 235-6; al-Tabarī, , Tarīkh al-mulūk wa-l-rusul, II, 158 Google Scholar; al-Kkfī, Ibn A’tham, Kitāb al-futuh, II, 127-8Google Scholar. These sources differ on the date of the conquest of Rhodes, but all refer to a seven-year Muslim occupation of the island during the 670s. See Bosworth, ‘Arab attacks on Rhodes’, 158-60; Brooks, ‘The successors of Heraclius to 717’, 397; Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, IV, 27 Google Scholar. Conrad, ‘The Conquest of Arwād’, 364-86, doubts the validity of the Islamic reports referring to this event. Nevertheless, strategy dictated the taking of Rhodes before the launching of a naval assault on Constantinople. The topic is also discussed in n.29.

84 Brooks, ‘The successors of Heraclius to 717’, 397; Stratos, A.N., ‘Siège ou blocus de Constantinople sous Constantin IV’, JOBG 33 (1983) 105-7Google Scholar; Byzantium in the Seventh Century, IV, 29-39; Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, 89.

85 Stratos, , Byzantium in the Seventh Century, V, 89 Google Scholar.

86 Together with Muslim defeats in the Caucasus in 655: Sebeos, History, 280-1, n.51.