Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 6 (1897).djvu/560

 538 APPENDIX 5. THE BYZANTINE NAVY— (P. 91 sqq.) The history of the Byzantine sea-power has still to be written. The chief sources (up to the tenth century) are Leo's Tactics, c. 19 [irepl vavfxaxias) ; the official returns of two expeditions to Crete in the tenth century, included in " Coustantine's " de Cerimoniis, ii. c. 44 and 45; and (on naval commands under Basil I. and Leo VI.) Constantine, De Achii. Imp. c. 51. The chief modern studies that treat the subject are : Gfrorer, Das byzantinische Seewesen (c. 22 in his Byzantinische Geschichten, Bd. ii. p. 401 sqq.); C. de la Ronciere, Charlemagne et la civilisation maritime au ixe siecle (in Moyen Age, 2e ser. t. i. p. 201 sqq., 1897) ; C. Neumann, Die byzantinische Marine ; Ihre Verfassung und ihr Verfall. Studien zur Geschichte des lO bis 12 Jahrhunderts (in Hist. Zeitschrift, B. 45, p. 1 sqq. 1898). Add G. Schlumberger, Nicephore Phqaife, p. 52-66. In the 6th century, after the fall of the Vandal kingdom, the Empire had no sea-foes to fear, and there was therefore no reason to maintain a powerful navy. The Mediterranean, though all its coasts were not part of the Empire, was practi- cally once more an Imperial lake. This circumstance is a sufficient defence against the indictment which Gfrorer ^ brought against Justinian for neglecting the navy. The scene changed in the second half of the seventh century, when the Saracens took to the sea. The Emperors had to defend their coasts and islands against a hostile maritime power. Consequently a new naval organiza- tion was planned and carried out ; and we must impute the merit of this achieve- ment to the successor.s of Herachus. "We have indeed no notices, in any of our authorities, of the creation of the Imperial na^*ies, but it is clear that the new system had beeri estabhshed before the days of Anastasius III. and Leo III. Lender Basil I. and his son the naval organization was remodelled and improved ; the settlement of the Saracens in Crete, and their incursions in the Aegean, were facts which urgently forced the Emperors to look to their ships. From this time till the latter ])art of the eleventh century, the fleets of the Empire were the strongest in the ^Mediterranean. There were two fleets, the Imperial and the Provincial (Thematic), f ntil the time of Basil, the Imperial fleet seems not to have been organized as a standing force. A system seems to have been established whereby, in case Constantinople itself were threatened, a squadron of vessels could be got together for its defence ^^■ithout much delay. This was managed by an arrangement with the shipowners of the capital ; but as to the nature of this arrange- ment (it seems to have been a sort of " indenture " system) we have only some obscure hints.- On the other hand, the several contingents of the provincial fleet, supplied by the themes of the Cibyrrhaeots, Samos, and the Aegean.-' were always ready for action, like the thematic armies. A standing Imperial fleef seems to have been created b}- Basil, and to him we may probably ascribe thj institution of the Imperial Admiral (Spovyyapios twv TrXoiuwv).* This admiral the great Drungarios, was strictly commander of the Imperial fleet, but on oj casions when the Imperial and Provincial fleets acted together he would natural be the commander in chief. The admirals of the three divisions of the Provinci.^ fleet had the title of drungarios, when they were first instituted. ^ But the were promoted to the title of strate[/os, which they continued to hold, afte^ Basil had raised the name drungarios to new honour by conferring it upon the commander of the Imperial fleet. There can be little doubt, it seems to meJ that TO. TrAdijua in this connexion means the Imperial fleet, and not (as Gfrorer' maintained) both the Imperial and Provincial fleets.* 1 Of), cit. p. 402-4. 2 Theophanes, sub a.m. 6302, p. 487, ed. de Boor. 3 Hellas also supplied naval contingents sometimes (as in the Cretan expedition, a.d. j 902), but was not one of the fleet themes proper. 5 Cp. Leo. Tactics, 19, S 23. 24- 6 Gfrorer (p. 415) has misunderstood the passage in Leo's Tactics referred to in the^ preceding note.
 * Cp. Cedrenus, ii. p. 219, p. 227 ; Gfrorer, op. cit. p. 433.