Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία

1. Origination of the term ‘opsikion’

The term ‘opsikion’ derives from the Latin obsequium; at first it denoted any kind of ‘escort’, whose mission was to honour or protect officials. Afterwards, it was used to indicate the unit of the imperial guard, whose duty was to secure the safe and smooth transport and stay of the emperor during military expeditions, as Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos (913-920/944-959) clarifies, among other things in the relevant chapter of his work De Thematibus.¹

2. History and Geography

The unit deriving from the Opsikion theme was possibly stationed in Constantinople at first,²but during the reign of the Emperor Herakleios (610-641), ca. 622, it was transferred to Northwest Asia Minor, it was dispersed in many stations and covered an extensive area, from the Dardanelles until the river Ales, as a bridge to the defence of the capital.³

Gradually the name Opsikion acquired a wider meaning and signified the whole administrative region, where the opsikia were stationed. Finally it came to define the theme with the same name, also called ‘god-protected imperial opsikion’ or in Latin ‘a Deo conservandum imperiale Obsequium’.⁴ The Opsikion theme was one of the first four great themes of Asia Minor. Until the middle of the 8^th century it extended to the regions of the Hellespont, Bithynia, Honorias, Paphlagonia, and it also included parts of Lydia, Galatia and Phrygia.⁵

During the reign of Constantine V Isauros (740-775), the Opsikion theme was restricted to the area of the Hellespont, the southern part of Bithynia and the upper part of Phrygia Salutaris.⁶ From its remaining former regions, two new themes emerged: the Boukellarion theme, which included the regions of Honorias and Galatia I, with its strategos stationed in Ankyra, and the theme of Optimaton, in Northwest Bithynia, with the strategos’ seat in Nicomedia.⁷ The most important city of this new ‘reduced’ Opsikion and the seat of the strategos was Nicaea. Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos (913-920/944-959) mentions nine more cities (Kotyaion, Dorylaion [Dorylaeum], Medaion, Apameia, Myrlia, Lampsakos, Parion, Kyzicos, Abydos); the most important were Kyzicos, Abydos, Apameia and Lampsakos.⁸

3. Administration

The military leader of the theme, the ‘comes of the imperial opsikion’,⁹ was superior to the strategoi of the other themes and he was also identified as the strategos (or hypostragetos) of Thrace. The defence of both the Asian and European parts of Constantinople fell under his jurisdiction. The first undeniable mention of a comes of Opsikion dates back to 680.¹⁰ On the first period of its history, the Opsikion theme appears to have had a different administrational structure from the other themes; it was divided into domesticates and not tourma .¹¹

Afterwards, the division of the Opsikion from Constantine V (741-775) somewhat marked the beginning of its decline: In the so called taktikon Uspenskij (843) the comes of Opsikiou appears only sixth in the hierarchy, as he does in the other taktika.¹² Toward the end of the 9^th century the traditional title of the leader of the Opsikion changes from comes to strategos .¹³

4. Relations of the Opsikion with the central government

Some of the most significant events of the middle Byzantine period are connected to the Opsikion theme. Towards the end of the 7^th century (685-695), the Opsikion was led by the comes Barasbakourios and consisted of the main military force upon which Justinian II (685-695/705-711) depended, in order to enforce his policy.¹⁴ However, after his overthrow in 711 and the execution of Barasbakourios from his successor, the Emperor Bardanes Philippikos (711-713), the people of the Opsikion, clearly dissatisfied, led consecutive rebellions, affecting the internal policy of the Empire: the military units of the Opsikion rebelled (they had been transferred in Thrace on the orders of the patrikios George Bouraphos in order to repel Bulgarian attacks) and in 713 Philippikos was overthrown; Anastasios II (713-715) was placed on the throne. However, Anastasios blinded George Bouraphos, without any plausible explanation, almost immediately upon his ascent to power. His reign did not last long, since almost two years later, toward the end of 715, Anastasios II was overthrown by the armies of the Opsikion, who declared Theodosios III (715- 716) as emperor.¹⁵ Theodosios’ successor, Leo III Isaurian (716-740) also became emperor with the support of the Opsikion, among others, even though the army of the Opsikion was apparently not actively involved. Nevertheless, three years later, in 718, the patrikios Isoes unsuccessfully attempted to rebel against Leo III. His successor, the patrikios,kouropalates and comes of the Opsikion Artabasdos also rebelled in 741/742 against Constantine V (740-775). After suppressing the rebellion (743), Constantine V bestowed the office of comes upon his trusted follower, the patrikios Anthes.¹⁶

The next twenty years were marked with a relative calmness in the area without any significant rebellions. The peace was disrupted in 766 with the conspiracy of the spatharios David; the details of this affair are not known. Around the same time (possibly between 742 and 766), Constantine V did some administrational reforms, aiming to put an end to the consecutive rebellions, which were so common in the area, by surrounding the area with forces friendly towards him and his iconoclastic policy.¹⁷ The vast area of the old Opsikion was divided in three.¹⁸

During the time of the rebellion of Thomas the Slav (821-823) the Opsikion, sided with the central government.¹⁹ A series of revolts, such as the revolt of the strategos of the Opsikion George Peganes in 866 and of the strategos of the Thrakesion Symbatios against Basil I the Macedonian (867-886), the co-emperor of Michael III (842-867), but also the revolt of Basil Chalkocheir in 931 against Romanos I Lekapenos (920-944), and the problems they caused,²⁰ still cannot be compared to the consecutive rebellions of the 8^th century, when the Opsikion has tried several times to establish its own will to the Empire.²¹

5. The Opsikion in military expeditions

The Opsikion took part in the campaign against the Arabs towards the end of the 8^th century.²² The military force of the theme was ca. 6000 men, according to information of Arab geographers,²³ who present the situation in the area in the middle of the 9^th century. The military forces of the Opsikion theme do not appear after the second half of the 9^th century.²⁴ The last known reference of the Opsikion theme is that of George Akropolites, who writes that the Opsikion theme passed to the hands of the ‘Italians’ ²⁵ around 1234.

1. Ducange, C., Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis (Lyon 1688; repr. Graz 1958), pp. 1071-72; Haldon, J.F., Byzantine Praetorians. An administrative, Ιnstitutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion and the Tagmata, c. 580-900 (Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά 3, Bonn 1984), pp. 443-444; Pertusi, A. (ed.), Costantino Porfirogenito De Thematibus (Studi e Testi 160, Città del Vaticano 1952), p. 68.

2. Κυριακίδης, Σ., «Πώς η λέξις θέμα έφθασεν εις την σημασίαν της στρατιωτικής περιοχής;», Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών 23 (1953), pp. 392-394; Haldon, J.F., Byzantine Praetorians. An Αdministrative, Ιnstitutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion and the Tagmata, c. 580-900 (Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά 3, Bonn 1984), p. 178.

3. Βelke, K. – Restle, M., Galatien und Lykaonien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4, Wien 1984), p. 59; Βelke, K., Paphlagonien und Honorias (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9, Wien 1996), p. 69; Βelke, K. – Mersich, N., Phrygien und Pisidien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 7, Wien 1990), pp. 84-90.

4. As it is mentioned in a seal of an officer of the Opsikion, Zacos, G. – Veglery, A. (eds), Byzantine Lead Seals Ι:ΙΙ (Basel 1972), p. 1139, no. 2039, which probably belonged to the patrikios Isoes: Lounghis, T., Researching Seals in a Byzantine Chronography Data Base System, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, Oikonomidès, N. (ed.) (Washington 1990), pp. 7-15; Μansi, J. (ed.), Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 11 (Venice 1798), p. 737.

5. Pertusi, A. (ed.), Costantino Porfirogenito De Thematibus (Studi e Testi 160, Città del Vaticano 1952), p. 128.

6. Pertusi, A. (ed.), Costantino Porfirogenito De Thematibus (Studi e Testi 160, Città del Vaticano 1952), p. 128.

7. Haldon, J.F., Byzantine Praetorians. An Αdministrative, Ιnstitutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion and the Tagmata, c. 580-900 (Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά 3, Bonn 1984), pp. 212-214, 222-227; Lounghis, Τ., “A Deo conservandum imperiale obsequium. Some notes concerning field troops during the Dark Ages”, Byzantinoslavica 52 (1991), pp. 54-60.

8. Pertusi, A. (ed.), Costantino Porfirogenito De Thematibus (Studi e Testi 160, Città del Vaticano 1952), p. 128; Λουγγής, Τ., «Θέμα Οψίκιον», in Βλυσίδου, Β., Η Μικρά Ασία των θεμάτων (ΙΒΕ/ΕΙΕ, Ερευνητική Βιβλιοθήκη 1, Athens 1998), pp. 163-200.

9. This title is the evolution of the title comes domesticorum of the Early Byzantine period. See Haldon, J.F., Byzantine Praetorians. An Αdministrative, Ιnstitutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion and the Tagmata, c. 580-900 (Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά 3, Bonn 1984), pp. 143-148, 175-179.

10. There is reference of a strange title of a comes of Opsariou in the Chronikon Paschale, Dindorf, L. (ed.) (Bonn 1832), p. 715, dated in 626. It is not certain if Diehl was correct in assuming that this should be corrected to comes of Opsikion.

11. Lounghis, T., “The Decline of the Opsikian Domesticates and the Rise of the Domesticate of the Scholaes”, Σύμμεικτα 10 (1996), pp. 27-36, 32; Λουγγής, Τ., «Θέμα Οψίκιον», in Βλυσίδου, Β., Η Μικρά Ασία των θεμάτων (ΙΒΕ/ΕΙΕ, Ερευνητική Βιβλιοθήκη 1, Athens 1998), pp. 163- 200.

12. Oikonomidès, N. (ed.), Les Listes de préséance byzantin (Paris 1972), pp. 49, 101, 247, 265; cf. Λουγγής, Τ., «Θέμα Οψίκιον», in Βλυσίδου, Β., Η Μικρά Ασία των θεμάτων (ΙΒΕ/ΕΙΕ, Ερευνητική Βιβλιοθήκη 1, Athens 1998), pp. 163-200.

13. Λουγγής, Τ., «Θέμα Οψίκιον», in Βλυσίδου, Β., Η Μικρά Ασία των θεμάτων (ΙΒΕ/ΕΙΕ, Ερευνητική Βιβλιοθήκη 1, Athens 1998), pp. 163-200.

14. Γιαννόπουλος, Π., «Σπουδαί Bυζαντινών προσωπικοτήτων. Βαρασβακούριος, κόμης του Oψικίου», Bυζαντινά 4 (1972), pp. 289-297; Λουγγής, Τ., Δοκίμιο για την κοινωνική εξέλιξη στη διάρκεια των λεγομένων «σκοτεινών αιώνων» (602-867) (Athens 1985), p. 29; Λουγγής, Τ., «Θέμα Οψίκιον», in Βλυσίδου, Β., Η Μικρά Ασία των θεμάτων (ΙΒΕ/ΕΙΕ, Ερευνητική Βιβλιοθήκη 1, Athens 1998), pp. 163-200.

15. Sumner, G., “Philippicus, Anastasius II and Theodosius III”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 17 (1976), pp. 287-294; Haldon, J.F., Byzantine Praetorians. An Αdministrative, Ιnstitutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion and the Tagmata, c. 580-900 (Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά 3, Bonn 1984), pp. 200-201; Λουγγής, Τ., Δοκίμιο για την κοινωνική εξέλιξη στη διάρκεια των λεγομένων «σκοτεινών αιώνων» (602-867) (Athens 1985), pp. 32-33.

16. Λουγγής, Τ., Δοκίμιο για την κοινωνική εξέλιξη στη διάρκεια των λεγομένων «σκοτεινών αιώνων» (602-867) (Athens 1985), pp. 35-38; Γιαννόπουλος, Π., «Σπουδαί Bυζαντινών προσωπικοτήτων. Σισίννιος ο Ρενδάκις», Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών 39-40 (1972/73), pp. 579-593; Speck, P., Artabasdos, der rechtgläubige Vorkämpfer der göttlichen Lehren: Untersuchungen zur Revolte des Artabasdos und ihrer Darstellung in der byzantinischen Historiographie (Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά 20, Bonn 1981); Λεοντσίνη, Μ., «Άνθης, πατρίκιος κόμης του Οψικίου εκ προσώπου του Κωνσταντίνου Ε΄», Σύμμεικτα 10 (1996), pp. 37-43.

17. Lounghis, T., “The Decline of the Opsikian Domesticates and the Rise of the Domesticate of the Scholaes”, Σύμμεικτα 10 (1996), pp. 27-36.

18. Haldon, J.F., Byzantine Praetorians. An Αdministrative, Ιnstitutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion and the Tagmata, c. 580-900 (Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά 3, Bonn 1984), p. 209.

19. Lemerle, P., “Thomas le Slave”, Travaux et Memoires 1 (1965), pp. 255-297.

20. Bλυσίδου, B., Eξωτερική πολιτική και εσωτερικές αντιδράσεις την εποχή του Bασιλείου A΄ (Athens 1991), pp. 28-34; Δαπέργολας, A., «Tο κίνημα των στρατηγών Συμβατίου και Γεωργίου Πηγάνη το καλοκαίρι του 866», in Πρακτικά IΔ΄ Πανελληνίου Ιστορικού Συνεδρίου (Thessaloniki 1995),pp. 5-27; Runciman, S., The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his Reign (Cambridge 1963), p. 72.

21. Λουγγής, Τ., «Θέμα Οψίκιον», in Βλυσίδου, Β., Η Μικρά Ασία των θεμάτων (ΙΒΕ/ΕΙΕ, Ερευνητική Βιβλιοθήκη 1, Athens 1998), pp 163-200.

22. Βelke, K. – Restle, M., Galatien und Lykaonien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4, Wien 1984), p. 63; Βelke, K., Paphlagonien und Honorias (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, Wien 1996), p. 72; Βelke, K. – Mersich, N., Phrygien und Pisidien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 7, Wien 1990), p. 88.

23. Al Fakih, “Arabic Lists of the Byzantine Themes”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 21 (1901), Brooks, E.W. (trans.), pp. 67-77.

24. Λουγγής, Τ., «Θέμα Οψίκιον», in Βλυσίδου, Β., Η Μικρά Ασία των θεμάτων (ΙΒΕ/ΕΙΕ, Ερευνητική Βιβλιοθήκη 1, Athens 1998), pp. 163-200.

25. Heisenberg, A. (ed.), Georgii Acropolitae Opera (Leipzig 1903), p. 245.