Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 6 (1897).djvu/22

 2 THE DECLINE AND FALL religious yoke of the Koran : that protected the majesty of Rome, and delayed the servitude of Constantinople ; that in- vigorated the defence of the Christians, and scattered among their enemies the seeds of division and decay. First siege of Forty-six ycars after the flight of Mahomet from Mecca, his pie^bythe'" disciples appeared in arms under the walls of Constantinople.^ A.D. 668-675 They were animated by a genuine or fictitious saying of the prophet, that, to the first army which besieged the city of the Cssars, their sins were forgiven ; the long series of Roman triumphs would be meritoriously transferred to the conquerors of New Rome ; and the wealth of nations was deposited in this well-chosen seat of royalty and commerce. No sooner had the caliph Moawiyah suppressed his rivals and established his throne than he aspired to expiate the guilt of civil blood by the success and glory of his holy expedition ; - his preparations by sea and land were adequate to the importance of the object ; his standard was entrusted to Sophian,^ a veteran warrior, but the troops were encouraged by the example and presence of Yezid, the son and presumptive heir of the commander of the faithful. The Greeks had little to hope, nor had their enemies any reasons of fear, [consuntine from the courage and vigilance of the reigning emperor, Avho disgraced the name of Constantine, and imitated only the in- 1 Theophanes places the sez'e7i years of the siege of Constantinople in the year of <?«r Christian sera 673 (of the Alexandrian 665, September i), and the peace of the Saracens, four years afterwards : a glaring inconsistency ! which Petavius, Goar, and Pagi (Critica, torn. iv. p. 63, 64) have struggled to remove. Of the Arabians, the Hegira 52 (a.D. 672, January 8) is assigned by Elmacin, the year 48 (a.u. 668, February 20) by -Abulfeda, whose testimony I esteem the most convenient and creditable. [Theophanes gives 672-3 as the year of Moawiya's preparation of the expedition, 673-4 ^s that of his investment of Constantinople. It seems safest to follow Theophanes here ; the Arabic authors say little or nothing of an event which was disgraceful in Mohammadan history. But we cannot accept his statement that the siege lasted seven years ; in fact he contradicts it himself, since he places the peace in the fifth year after the beginning of the siege. We have no means of determining with certainty the true diu-ation. Nicephorus (p. 32, ed. de Boor) states that the war lasted seven years, and, though he evidently identifies the war with the siege, we may perhaps find here the clue to the solution. The war seems to have beg^n soon after the accession of Constantine (eOeo?, Niceph. if.) and perhaps its beginning was dated from the occupation of Cyzicus by Phadalas in 670-1 (Theoph. A M. 6162), and peace was made in 677-8. Thus we get sei'cn years for the duration of the war (671-7), and perhaps three for the siege (674-6).] 2 For this first siege of Constantinople, see Nicephorus (Breviar. p. 21, 22 [p. 32, ed. de Boor]), Theophanes (Chronograph, p. 294 [a.m. 6165]), Cedrenus (Compend. P- 437 ['• 764, ed. Bonn]), Zonaras (Hist. torn. ii. 1. xiv. p. 89 [c. 20]), Elmacin (Hist. Saracen, p. 56, 57), Abulfeda (Annal. Moslem, p. 107, 108, vers. Reiske), d'Herbelot (Bibliot. Orient. Constantin.), Ockley's Hist, of the Saracens, vol. ii. p. 127, 128. 3 [The expedition was first entrusted to Abd ar-Rahman, but he was killed, and was succeeded by Sofyan.]