User Profile

Phocas could now be vilified as the very type of the bad ruler, as bloodthirsty, brutal, and the bringer of disaster on his people, while the new emperor was praised as his antithesis. Heraclius had need of such propaganda, both negative (damning his predecessor) and positive (lauding his own character and achievements), to bolster his political position. While it was secure in the short term, resting as it did on the armed might of the land and sea forces which he had brought with him, he needed to win the active support of his subjects by bringing the war with Persia to an end on acceptable terms. So hopes of peace were proclaimed by the most eloquent of his panegyrists, the great poet George of Pisidia. Such hopes of peace were surely not unrealistic. It was not unreasonable to expect an end to hostilities and to the flow of blood on battlefields which had more than matched that at home, now that Heraclius had achieved for the Persians their announced war aim.

— The Last Great War of Antiquity by James Howard-Johnston (Page 69)

As for the economic and social health of the cities of the Egypt, the evidence of John of Nikiu is unequivocal: the old order was still firmly in place. Cities were effectively managed by the provincial authorities working together with each city’s local establishment, and most of them were successfully kept out of the conflict. Those which were involved because of their geographical position remained under the control of the authorities until the civil war was over or almost over. In some cases (Nikiu, Athribis, and Sebennytos), probably representative of the majority, the authorities succeeded in bringing the whole city out in support of one side or the other. In others (Alexandria and Onouphis), probably representative of a minority, there were sharp divisions in the local elite which broke out into the open in the course of the battle for hegemony in Egypt. But even in such cases of fission at the apex of a city, the opposing parties in the elite remained in control of events. It was only probably towards the end of the civil war and in the following transitional period between Bonosus’ departure and the imposition of the new rebel regime’s authority that the factions escaped briefly from the control of the authorities. John of Nikiu, who is probably repeating the official line, blames the Greens for starting the troubles, points to a common pattern in the disturbances—inter-factional fighting sparking off local crime waves—and indicates, without giving any details, that they were widespread. Whatever their incidence, whether or not the Greens took the lead in every outbreak, and whether or not local political influences were at work behind the scenes (none of which can be determined from John of Nikiu’s short notice), the disturbances should not be regarded as manifestations of a deep-seated economic and social malaise, nor as marking a deterioration in the long-established local political order—for one simple reason: they were suppressed without apparent difficulty by the new rebel regime as it established its authority in the interior.

— The Last Great War of Antiquity by James Howard-Johnston (Page 60)