Mobility in seventh‐century Byzantium: analysing Emperor Heraclius’ political ideology and propaganda

This paper aims to shed light on the mobility of people and relics in the seventh century. It will show that Emperor Heraclius strategically designed his movements and those of his household, citizens, and officials, as well as those of relics within and beyond the borders of Byzantium, in order to consolidate the empire and his position in it. These movements also allowed Heraclius to associate himself effectively with Old Testament, antique, and Byzantine exemplary models of leadership. Overall, this look at mobility in terms of political ideology and propaganda provides a more nuanced understanding of imperial leadership in seventh‐century Byzantium.

became increasingly undisciplined and thus ineffective in protecting Byzantium from external danger. Moreover, a plethora of plagues (epidemics, diseases), bad harvests and earthquakes resulted in the inevitable abandonment of cities and, in some cases, their complete depopulation. 1 Heraclius reorganized the administration and the military and focused on protecting Byzantium against external threats. Through his military campaigns he significantly enlarged the empire, reclaiming territory that had been lost to the Sasanian Persians. He reclaimed Jerusalem in 629/30 and restored from the Sasanian enemies one of the holiest Christian relics, the True Cross. Modern scholarship has dealt with Heraclius' achievements and examined the structures and mechanisms that shaped and conditioned his imperial practice. 2 This paper hopes to contribute to the ongoing research on Heraclius by bringing together various widely accepted analyses and reflecting more on mobility in terms of political ideology and propaganda, providing further understanding of the phenomenon of imperial leadership in seventh-century Byzantium.
This paper aims to shed light on the mobility of people and relics in the seventh century during the reign of Heraclius. It will show that Emperor Heraclius strategically orchestrated the movement of individuals (i.e., his own and those of his household, citizens, officials, and army) and the movement of relics, such as that of the True Cross, both within and beyond the borders of the Byzantine Empire, to strengthen his position and cement his power. These movements allowed Heraclius to associate himself effectively with Old Testament, antique, and Byzantine models of leadership such as Moses and David, Alexander the Great, and Constantine the Great. By doing so, he legitimized his accession to the throne and justified his rulership and political efforts to bring stability to the empire. In this paper, Heraclius' actions and decisions connected to six key movements will be interpreted in terms of political ideology and propaganda to show how these movements caused and reflect pivotal moments in Heraclius' reign that signalled lasting changes in Byzantine geopolitics and imperial ideology.
In my view, there were six strategic movements during the reign of Heraclius, each involving various actors and planned with different intentions. First comes Heraclius' arrival in Constantinople in 610 to claim the imperial throne. Second is Heraclius' departure from Constantinople in 613 to lead in person the army against external threats. The third movement is Heraclius' departure along with his army in 622 that inaugurated his long-lasting military campaign on the Persian front. The fourth was his rushed trip, away from his military campaign, to Constantinople in 623 to negotiate peace with the Avars, who were threatening the capital, and his departure in 624 to continue the military expedition against the Persians manufactured bridge of boats in 638, to counteract the negative connotations of Heraclius' campaign in the early 630s against the Arabs. The following analysis will show that each of these movements had a significant impact, not only on Heraclius' reign but also on the fate of the Byzantine Empire.

Arriving in Constantinople (610)
Heraclius, son of the exarch of Carthage Heraclius the Elder, came to power in 610, after instigating a revolt against the usurper Phocas, who in 602 had murdered the reigning Emperor Maurice and his family. 3 Phocas was unable to form a naval defence against Heraclius' fleet and was thus defeated and executed. Heraclius was proclaimed by the Senate and crowned emperor by Patriarch Sergius on 5 October 610. 4 Even though Heraclius was supported by both the political faction of the Greens and the church in his plans to depose Phocas, one must not forget that he too was a 'usurper'.  A factor that could have perhaps lent him further legitimacy would have been the incorporation of the army into his ceremonial accession. However, the absence of any mention in the sources of the involvement of any members of the military aristocracy underscores Heraclius' careful planning and the calculation he put into his accession to the throne. He strove to promote the idea of a smooth transition after the rule of Phocas, regarded as a tyrant, and avoided certain accession rituals used by his predecessors, such as the shield-raising ceremony and the army's involvement in the process. 6 Moreover, to secure his position, Heraclius made plans to establish a long-lasting dynasty granting his wife, Fabia-Eudokia, the title of augusta. 7 Their first son Heraclius Constantine III, born in Constantinople on 3 May 612, was proclaimed co-emperor (basileus) less than one year later, on 22 January 613. 8  allowed Heraclius to enhance his family alliances further and establish his dynasty.
Regarding Byzantine political ideology, the emperor's relationship with the similarly named hero Heracles offered the opportunity for an apparent mythological analogy. 11 Heracles' (Hercules') labours were compared with Heraclius' efforts to overthrow the tyrant Phocas or to overcome the Persian threat. 12 However, Heracles' labours, such as killing a boar or a lion, may even be considered insignificant by comparison with those of Heraclius, whose actions benefited the greater good. 13 Thus, Heraclius was also identified with Christ himself, as both Christ and Heraclius strove to save the worldthe city of Jerusalem plays a major role here, as we will also see below. Heraclius was even given the epithet κοσμορύστης/kosmorhystes (a hapax legomenon), which means 'saviour of the world'. 14

Leading the army in person (613)
After having consolidated his authority and dynastic succession, Heraclius shifted his focus to external enemies threatening the empire's stability. In 613, he took a risk by departing from Constantinople and leading the army against the Sasanian troops raiding Syria and Anatolia. Since the reign of Emperor Theodosius I (r. 347-95), emperors had not campaigned in person. 15 The campaign of 613 signalled a significant shift in political ideology and resulted in the remilitarization of the imperial office under Heraclius. His decision to move away from Constantinople and go to war in person broke a long tradition of imperial rulership in which the sovereign, to a great extent, remained in the Byzantine capital. Modern scholarship pointed out that Heraclius' decision shifted the pre-existing dynamic relationship between the emperor, the military, and the urban aristocracy. 16 By acting as a military general and leading the army in battle, Heraclius wished to manage the dangerous Sasanian threat and maintain authority over the Byzantine forces, thus preventing any potential usurpation orchestrated by ambitious high-ranking commanders. 17 Despite the personal involvement of the emperor and the commitment of all available troops, the Byzantine strategy of coordinated attacks from the west and south failed. Sasanian control reached the southern slopes of the Taurus Mountains in the north-west and to northern Palestine in the south. 18 Heraclius was forced to withdraw back to Constantinople.

Engaging in an offensive war (622)
Heraclius' life combined rotating periods of immobility and extensive mobility: the lengthiest stationary part of Heraclius' reign was probably 15  Interestingly, James Howard-Johnston suggests that Heraclius 'decision to take personal command of military operations' may have been 'partly motivated by the need to distract attention from his private affairs and to recover lost prestige'. 27 Again, in this case, Heraclius seems to have acted very wisely in taking Martina with him. Of course, we cannot exclude the possibility that this plan might have been based on the personal desire of the couple, as it would simultaneously increase the prospect of further offspring. 28 However, additional reasons might have inspired Heraclius' strategy. Heraclius' intention was probably to prepare Martina for leadership, as he likely considered this occasion an opportunity to improve his wife's public image and authority. 29 By following her husband, Martina could be cast as a caring leader concerned about the serious affairs of state and claim that she was able to live up to the demands of her role as empress, standing stalwartly by her husband's political decisions. Certainly, Heraclius' military campaigns involved increased risks. Martina's presence on campaign was also an indication that the couple was willing to undertake any necessary steps for the good of the empire. 30 At the same time, considering Martina's great unpopularity, her absence from Constantinople would likely have relieved tensions in the capital and left the citizens with a sense of stability, at least in their internal affairs.

Continuing the offensive war (626)
In 626, while Heraclius and his army were far from Constantinople, the city was besieged by a coordinated army of Avars, Slavs, and Persians. The Sasanian army, led by the commander Shahrbaraz, attacked the city from the east, while at the same time, an army of Avars, Slavs, and Bulgars attacked from the west and the sea. In addition, the Persian commander Sain (Σάϊν) was assigned a significant number of soldiers to hold Mesopotamia and Armenia and thereby prevent Heraclius from invading Persia. 31 A high-ranking official and eyewitness of the events, the clergyman Theodore Synkellos, lamented that the great Emperor Heraclius was not in Constantinople. 32 Yet a return would have robbed Heraclius of all the strategic advantages against the Sasanians he had 29 Heraclius' future decisions also manifest his intentions regarding the role Martina should take.
Before his death in 641, Heraclius drafted a will whereby his sons Heraclius Constantine III (by his first wife Fabia-Eudokia) and Heraclonas (by his second wife Martina) were to have equal status and ruling rights. The will also stipulated that Martina was to be regarded as empress.   At this point, Heraclius' association with the King David of the Old Testament becomes apparent, an association that operates on several levels. On a personal level, both David and Heraclius received public condemnation for their marital choices. David had an adulterous alliance with Bathsheba, a married woman who later became his wife and gave birth to Solomon, while Heraclius' second marriage was considered incestuous. 40 For this, both rulers were seen on occasions to perform publicly as penitentsfor example, when Emperor Heraclius shed tears upon his return to Constantinople, specifically during the ceremony performed at Hiereia in 629 discussed above. This act of weeping to demonstrate repentance also connected Heraclius with the great biblical king: David as a penitent and humble ruler strongly influenced the image of the emperor in this regard as well. 41 But most importantly, both David and Heraclius were divinely chosen to rule and did not inherit the throne through dynastic succession.
The location of Heraclius' welcome, Hiereia, was significant for further reasons that have hitherto escaped the attention of modern scholars. First, Eudocia-Epiphania, Emperor Heraclius' eldest child and Heraclius Constantine III's sister, was born in the palace of Hiereia. 42 Therefore, this place held a unique position in the hearts of both father and son, reminding everyone present of the potential for better, peaceful days under the new and flourishing dynasty. Second, the lack of a military character surrounding his adventus, even though Heraclius was seen as an undisputed victor, is reinforced by the location: military triumphs proceed from the Strategion and through the Golden Gate. 43 0 Practical reasons, too, might have led Heraclius to choose the route via Hiereia since he approached Constantinople from Asia Minor. Passing by the Strategion and through the Golden Gate would make more sense for triumphal entries from the west/Thrace. Using Hiereia as a base meant that ships must have been involved rather than large numbers of foot soldiers in a parade. Instead, his return was performed and presented as an act of thanksgiving to God. 44 From the angle of political ideology, Heraclius probably wished to promote the idea that the events unfolded according to divine will and that he and his dynasty enjoyed divine support.
The Short History of Patriarch Nicephorus (d. 828), composed in the ninth century, offers further information. 45 It claims that the True Cross, or at least pieces of it, had been sent to Constantinople after being certified as authentic by the patriarch of Jerusalem, Modestos, and his clergy. 46 Patriarch Sergius received them in procession at the Blachernae Church and then brought them to the Great Church of Hagia Sophia, where he exalted them. The reader is informed that, soon after, Heraclius also arrived in the capital, and the inhabitants received him with great acclamation. For the triumphal procession, he brought four elephants, which he paraded at the hippodrome contests to the delight of the citizens. Additionally, he distributed largesse to everyone. 47 The Short History is the only source to describe these events, and there is much debate on their truthfulness or accuracy. 48 In any case, Heraclius' imperial virtues of philanthropy and generosity towards the citizens shone through his well-planned celebrations. If true, these events, at least in the memory propagated by this ninth-century author, would further reinforce the idea that Heraclius' campaign owned its success to the divine plan.
Cross was a solemn symbol of the imperial ideology of Byzantium and was connected to the first Christian ruler and founder of the East Roman Empire, Constantine the Great. Thus, the restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem allowed Heraclius and his panegyrist, George of Pisidia, to build his image as an ideal leader and to model him as a second Constantine, by 're-inventing' the True Cross. 52 For George of Pisidia and his imperial patron, taking Emperor Constantine the Great as a model was fundamental to promoting Byzantine imperial ideology. 53 Heraclius was presented as a great leader and a man of military skills, a victor and triumphator like Alexander the Great and Constantine the Great before him. Heraclius' mobility and victories over the external enemies of the Byzantine Empire and the restoration of the True Cross inspired his connection not only to Byzantine traditions but also to various models from the Old Testament, as contemporary authors pointed out. 57 One of the Old Testament models that Emperor Heraclius and his panegyrist George of Pisidia chose was Moses. For George of Pisidia, being a king, archpriest, and lawgiver, Moses embodied the perfect prototype for the Christian emperor Heraclius. 58 Heraclius embarked on his lengthy Persian campaign against the 'second Pharaoh' in imitation of Moses. The Byzantine emperor became, in a way, a 'second Moses' because he was also armed with piety against the  57 The literary juxtaposition of the emperor and his models could be achieved in two ways in literary sources: by 'exemplum' and 'comparison'. On the one hand, establishing an exemplum meant that an emperor was expected to imitate a preceding leadership figure who served as a positive model for governance, employing those virtues they aspired to achieve. On the other hand, the so-called comparison method aimed at directly comparing the emperor with his model. As a result, the author could claim equality between the two or even the superiority of his subject over the earlier point of reference. In the Christian context, praise could also take the form of a 'typology' connecting the present time with the biblical past of the Old Testament. Then, an emperor could become a 'typos', extending an established pattern from biblical times into the present and re-enacting it, thus becoming, for example, speech to the army, Heraclius is presented as paraphrasing a psalm of David (CXXXVI.9). These observations help justify the view that Heraclius may have seen himself as the new David. However, the fact that most mentions in George of Pisidia's oeuvre are implicit can also reveal the author's intention to evade strongly associating Heraclius with the Old Testament king, in order to focus on the emperor's connection with Moses. 62 In Byzantine political thought, David represented the prototype of divinely appointed rulership and imperial victory. 63 Davidic language became part of the repertoire of imperial ideology in Byzantium. 64 Part of traditional scholarship claims that, on Heraclius' orders, silver plates with David motifs, the so-called David plates, dated between 613 and 629/30, were manufactured to promulgate the new ideology of his reign. 65 Suzanne Spain Alexander has even proposed that David plates were probably made shortly after Heraclius' victory over the Persians and the restoration of the True Cross in 629/30. 66 In this way, the plates may or may not have been connected to Heraclius' self-image and promotion of his political ideology. 67 Admittedly, Heraclius' association with David would strengthen his position as an emperor who came to power through usurpation, nonetheless with divine approval, leading the empire to victory against its multiple opponents. Beyond doubt, the heroic deeds of Emperor Heraclius culminated in the restoration of the True Cross in Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that, although Constantinople had been called a 'second Jerusalem' since around 500, it is only during the time of Heraclius' reign that we can observe more sustained comparisons between Israel and the Christian people, or Jerusalem and Constantinople. 68 Nowadays, scholars have begun to shift away from the idea of Heraclius' association with the David plates and the Old Testament king. 69 In any case, the impact on Byzantine political thought of the restoration of the True Cross is better traced in the empire's legal jargon.
Especially after returning the Cross to Jerusalem, Heraclius was styled as a pious emperor closely connected to Christ, which is also evident in a significant change in the manifestation of the imperial titulature and political ideology. In 629, Heraclius adopted the formula πιστὸς ἐν Χριστῷ βασιλεὺς/pistos en Christo basileus ('faithful emperor in Christ') as his official title, instead of Imperator Augustus. 70 The formula and the title basileus replaced the previous Roman dynastic titles of the emperors, such as caesar and augustus. This change can be regarded as the final step in the replacement of Latin with Greek in terms relating to state affairs. The adoption of basileus during the reign of Heraclius and its continued use for his successors may have been inspired by biblical models and messianic notions. The formula pistos en Christo basileus is appropriate for the ruler of an empire with a Christo-or biblio-centric culture.

The majestic sea-crossing on horseback (638)
Emperor Heraclius' return to Constantinople in 629 after his victorious expedition against the Persians would not last long. A few years later, a new threat arose. Arabs raided Byzantine territory, and Heraclius had to return to the battlefield. Heraclius failed to coordinate the defence against this new enemy, and the Byzantines suffered a significant loss in a battle on the banks of the river Yarmouk in August 636. 71 The defeat paved the way for further Arab expansion, substantially reducing the empire's reach. When Heraclius returned from this unsuccessful expedition, he settled in Hiereia. Over time, he hesitated to visit the capital and even sent his sons to the city to represent him on festive days. 72 One cannot exclude the possibility that he was ashamed of the failure of his last campaign. However, his unwillingness to leave the Hiereia palace is often associated with an unsuccessful assassination attempt in 637. 73 Yet, the Short History of Patriarch Nicephorus, the only existing account focusing on Heraclius' return to the capital, reports a 'fear of water' that Heraclius had developed. 74 Eventually, in 638, the citizens constructed a bridge consisting of boats, so that the emperor could safely cross the water. 75 Nicephorus, writing more than two centuries after the event, paints a picture of a mentally fragile Heraclius. Assessing the consequences of Heraclius' military loss, scholar Nadine Viermann argues that Nicephorus did so as a form of political satire, motivated by the emperor's failure to cope with the damaging consequences of imperial defeat. 76 Whether the event took place or not, for the current paper, it is interesting to observe how Heraclius' staged movement aimed to influence his contemporaries positively. The triumphal parade on the bridge of boats would have made a lasting impression, especially if one considers that Heraclius crossed 'the sea on horseback as if it were dry land'. 77 Probably, Heraclius sought to gain the admiration of the spectators and their benevolence. In addition, the delay of his entry into Constantinople must have increased the excitement of the people who would gather to welcome him. Nonetheless, Patriarch Nicephorus' retrospective view and inclusion of this event as a satirical element in his story show that not everyone was pleased with Heraclius' actions. However, one can anticipate that the parade would have at least entertained those present, offering them a unique experience that eclipsed, even if only temporarily, Heraclius' failure against the Arabs.

Summary and conclusion
To summarize and conclude, all six strategic movements examined in this paper, whether they involved people or relics, were chosen because they reveal different aspects of seventh-century imperial propaganda. In a way, they contributed to the legitimization of Heraclius' accession. These movements were integral to his political and military activities against Byzantium's rivals, here the Avars, the Persians, and the Arabs. Last but not least, they were employed to extol Heraclius' achievements, establish him as a Christian emperor, and promote the political ideal of the divine providence of imperial authority.
Heraclius' arrival in Constantinople in 610 enabled him to seize the throne and form his dynasty. The ritual accession revealed the support he enjoyed from the senatorial elite and the church, despite the fact that he had assassinated his predecessor Phocas. As part of his plan to further establish his position and consolidate his dynasty, he made preparations for his infant son to be acclaimed soon after his birth. The ceremony involved many movements on behalf of the main participants. The senior and junior co-emperor moved from the palace to the hippodrome and then to the church, ensuring that all the necessary steps would be appropriately performed.
Nevertheless, when Heraclius' first wife Fabia-Eudokia, who was also crowned augusta, died, the next bride he chose was his niece, Martina, and the marriage was condemned as incestuous. Fearing internal instability and feuds when he was forced to abandon the capital to continue his military expedition against the Persians, he took Martina along. Martina even accompanied him when he returned the True Cross to Jerusalem, an act that can be interpreted as seeking redemption. Managing the travels, or lack thereof, for the rest of his household manifests Heraclius' strategic aim to create a sense of stability for the empire's citizens. For example, every time he left the capital, he ensured that his son Heraclius Constantine III, his crowned co-emperor and designated successor, remained there as a representative of the authority of his father. Despite the boy's youth, he embodied that ideal for the capital's residents. Of course, Heraclius left excellent regents from the ecclesiastical and secular spheres, namely Patriarch Sergius and the statesman Bonus, which allowed state affairs to run as smoothly as possible.
In critical times Heraclius was summoned back to the capital: during the attacks of the Avars in 623 and also during the simultaneous siege of Constantinople in 626 by the Avars, Slavs, and Persians. The first time he came, but the second time, although the threat was greater than before, he chose to remain away to avoid losing the strategic advantages he had gained over the years of fighting against the Sasanians. However, he sent instructions for the city's defence and a supportive garrison. His military leadership skills allowed him to make strategic decisions with positive outcomes. He ordered the tripartite division and movement of the army, and the troops led by his brother, Theodorus, also by divine intervention managed to prevail over Byzantines' enemies.
The mobility of religious objects, namely the icon of the Mother of God (or that of Christ) carried around the city walls by Patriarch Sergius in 623 and the True Cross returned to its rightful sacred place in Jerusalem in 630, reveal a great deal about seventh-century political ideology and thought. The first played a role in enhancing the morale of the Constantinopolitans in the face of grave danger. Subsequently, after the siege by the Avars had lifted, it gradually strengthened the cult of the Mother of God in the capital. The second movement, the restoration of the True Cross, allowed Heraclius to evoke an association with the founder of the Byzantine Empire, Constantine the Great, and also with Old Testament leadership models, such as Moses and, partially, David. The use of Davidic language and the ideal of divinely appointed rulership was consolidated, subsequently becoming a standard component of the repertoire of imperial ideology in Byzantium across the ages.
The two triumphal entries of Heraclius into cities -Jerusalem and Hiereiatook the form of a thanksgiving procession to God, allowing Heraclius to promote the idea of a pious emperor. The pious emperor Heraclius also employed the formulation pistos en Christo basileus in his titulature. Adopting this political terminology is interpreted as a further step into the process of Hellenization of the empire. This change was another ideological element initiated by Heraclius that remained in the imperial phraseology until the fall of Constantinople in 1435.
Examining at least two occasions when Heraclius went on a failed military campaign has proved fruitful. It has demonstrated not only the resilient personality of the emperor towards hardships but also the mobility strategies that assisted him on both occasions. The first defeat was at the hands of the Sasanians at the beginning of his reign, in 613; the second was near the end, in 636, against the Arabs. The first years of Heraclius' rule faced unmitigated disasters, including the Sasanian