Nicolas Drocourt

From the seventh to the fifteenth century, Byzantine diplomacy played a major role in the government of the Byzantine Empire. This diplomacy was informed by a political ideology that considered the emperor as God’s lieutenant on Earth and the Empire’s neighbors as inferior barbarians. Yet in practice, Byzantine diplomacy was far different and largely adapted to its various neighbors, who in some cases were stronger than the Byzantines. The roles of the main actors involved, from emperors to ambassadors and interpreters, are first examined here. Second, this article addresses the importance granted to display in the tangible exercise of diplomacy, notably in Constantinople. Finally, different elements of the geopolitical context are analyzed, showing how Byzantine diplomacy succeeded in prolonging the life of the medieval East Roman Empire for almost a millennium, until the final fall of 1453.

During the Middle Byzantine period (640s-1204) the Byzantine Empire was a Christian state which promoted that monotheistic religion through various channels. It also developed an intensive diplomacy with its numerous neighbors, notably non-Christian ones. The aim of this study is to present and examine the links between these two main aspects: religion and the peace established by diplomatic means between Byzantium and its neighbors.
At first glance, the Christian religion seems a major aspect of an official peace established by the basileus, i.e. the Byzantine emperor. This clearly appears in the official correspondence (N. Mystikos, Th. Daphnopates) between Constantinople and its northern official partners, at the beginning of the tenth century, and more specifically with the Bulgars. The latter are Christian neighbors of the Byzantines, and so breaking the official peace established with the basileis is frequently considered as an offence made to religion. Moreover, the official delegations led in the name of the Byzantine emperor are frequently composed of members of the clergy. Political negotiations are so associated with religious ones, notably when the diplomatic partner remains pagan. Even in the case of diplomatic discussion with Muslim partners the question of religion can be present, through different aspects (nature of the faith, rites or negotiations concerning places of worship such as the church of Holy Sepulchre or the mosques in Constantinople).
Nevertheless, we have to admit that the Christian religion, and its rhetoric, is clearly forgotten during some diplomatic meetings. While concluding an official peace with non-Christian peoples, the Byzantines accept that solemn oaths are concluded in a pagan way. Religious discussion or controversies are only a part of the diplomatic encounters. Furthermore, the political, military or economic aspects of an official peace treaty seem to be by far more important. Even the persons involved in the peace process demonstrate that the Byzantines had a pragmatic, more than a religious, idea of peace. These persons were more civil courtiers than members of the clergy, and, anyway, the latter were just considered as civil servants acting for the benefit of the state.
Key words : Peace – Religion – Byzantine Diplomacy – Middle Byzantine Period
Link : https://www.routledge.com/Religion-and-Peace-Historical-Aspects/Friedman/p/book/9781138694248

The other as a model. Saracens and Persians in the official correspondence of the basileis with their Bulgarian neighbours at the beginning of the tenth century
As it is well known, Byzantines frequently affirmed that they were the sole representatives of true civilization, compared to which the barbarians beyond the borders of the empire, who reveled in warfare, would always be inferior. As such, the barbarians could hardly been considered as models. Nevertheless, a quick glance at the official correspondence written in Constantinople in the beginning of the tenth century offers different perspectives. A few letters sent to the Bulgarian sovereign Symeon describe the Saracens as well as the Persians quite differently. In order to restrict the expansionism of the tsar at the expense of the Empire, two official Byzantine court writers, Theodore Daphnopates and Nicolas Mystikos, give various examples to Symeon where these neighbours appear as respectful of the Byzantine court and previous emperors. Though they were non-Christians partners, they acted in a better way than the recently converted Bulgarians to Christianity. Muslims and Persians are thus shown as political partners who the basileis could trust. Of course, such exempla are moralizing and based on past events when the Persians are evoked. Nonetheless, Symeon could understand it since he was educated in Constantinople for many years. Furthermore, to mention the Saracens as models is not without significance in the military context of the 920’s, when Bulgarians and Arabs tried to ally each other against the Byzantine Empire. It also demonstrates that in the official Byzantine chancery, Persians and Muslims were certainly considered as distinct neighbors of the Empire. Moreover, their particular case demonstrates that barbarians could be invoked as models when circumstances made such representation useful.

published in International Diplomacy, ed. I.B. Neumann and H. Leira, vol. II, Diplomacy in a Multicultural World (Sage Publications Ltd), London, 2013, chapter 17, p. 39-64 (reprint of an article published in Al-Masāq. Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean, 24-1, 2012, 91-112)

published in Tegeas II. Investigations in the Sanctuary of Athena Alea 1900-1994 and 2004, éd. E. Østby, (Papers and Monographs from the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 4o, vol. 4), The Norwegian Institute at Athens, Athènes, 2014, p. 415-420.

Published in Al-Masāq. Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean, 24-1, 2012, p. 91-112 ; reprinted in International Diplomacy, éd. I.B. Neumann and H. Leira, vol. II, Diplomacy in a Multicultural World (Sage Publications Ltd), London, 2013, chapter 17, p. 39-64

L'étude des relations internationales et des contacts diplomatiques au travers des âges ne saurait faire l'économie d'une réflexion sur le rôle et l'importance du recours au droit et aux arguments juridiques. C'est autour de ce postulat que sont réunies les diverses contributions du présent ouvrage qui s'inscrivent dans un espace allant des marges orientales de Byzance à l'Europe occidentale et dans un large champ chronologique, de l'Antiquité tardive à la fin du xviii e siècle. Elles cherchent à saisir l'usage que les différents acteurs des relations internationales ont fait du droit et des règles juridiques dont ils disposaient pour éviter, résoudre mais aussi, parfois, générer des conflits. L'argument de nature juridique relève en effet d'un langage fondé sur des valeurs et des références qui permettent l'échange et la controverse entre interlocuteurs partageant a priori une culture politique sinon toujours commune, du moins proche. Plus largement, le droit, considéré comme un moyen de la diplomatie, est non seulement utilisé, mais aussi dévoyé et manipulé, disant ainsi beaucoup des rapports de force des parties en présence. Les maniements du droit en diplomatie nécessitent une réelle maîtrise de l'outil juridique et impliquent d'étudier les différents types de protagonistes des relations internationales, qu'ils y soient directement impliqués (ambassadeurs, juristes, souverains) ou que leurs activités et leur sort en dépendent (marchands, négociants, transfuges). Autant d'éléments qui sont au coeur des réflexions de ce volume issu d'un colloque international tenu à l'université de Nantes (juin 2014).

Cet ouvrage analyse l’origine, l’accueil et le traitement des ambassadeurs étrangers dans l’Empire byzantin. Portant sur le temps long, des années 640 à 1204, leur étude bouscule les traditionnels clivages historiographiques. S’intéressant tout d’abord aux origines sociales, politiques ou intellectuelles des émissaires officiels, tout comme aux  pouvoirs qui leurs sont dévolus, ce travail met de fait en parallèle les cercles politiques de l’Occident chrétien, de l’Islam et des divers voisins septentrionaux du monde byzantin. Les conditions de déplacements dans l’Empire sont présentées, soulignant combien une délégation diplomatique effectue un voyage au cœur des enjeux géopolitiques. La grande variété des sources – grecques comme non-grecques, narratives comme normatives – permet aussi d’appréhender le séjour des représentants de souverains à Constantinople, depuis l’accueil solennel et les cérémonies au palais des basileis jusqu’aux conditions de logement et de surveillance. Le rôle de passeurs joué par ces hommes, figures d’un entre-deux culturel, est enfin mis en exergue. De la sorte, ces multiples ambassadeurs constituent un prisme privilégié d’étude de la diplomatie byzantine.