The socio-political system of Byzantium had its own specific features. The process of decomposition of the slave-owning order was slow in Byzantium. The ruling class of Byzantium IV-VII centuries. was uneven. Economic and social positions were occupied by senatorial circles and the landed aristocracy. The economic basis of their domination was large-scale private ownership of land of the slave type. A high place in the social structure of Byzantine society was occupied by the urban municipal top of the large cities of the Empire, especially the capital, Constantinople.

Slaves, being at the lowest stage of social development, were included in the relations of the social ladder. The various categories of the free included, first of all, free peasant landowners. Preservation in the IV-VI centuries. free peasantry - the main specific feature of the social system of Byzantium.

Free peasants lived in neighboring communities and had the right to private ownership of land. The peasants paid the land tax and bore all sorts of heavy property and personal duties. Widely used in Byzantium of this period was the late Roman form of exploitation of the peasants - the colonat.

In the X-XI centuries. the social position of the Byzantine slaves improves somewhat. The conversion of the free into slavery is suppressed. In the XI-XII centuries. the tendency to blur the lines between slaves and other categories of the exploited classes of Byzantium intensified.

Only to the X century. the tendency to form a feudal seigneurial system based on the labor of the dependent peasantry from landowners prevailed while maintaining control by the state. The slow nature of the development of feudal relations determined the specifics of the social composition of the ruling class of Byzantine society at the second stage of its development. This force was not consolidated for a long time and did not develop into closed estates. The hereditary vassal-seigneurial system began to take shape in Byzantium only by the 11th-12th centuries. The incompleteness of the development of the feudal seigneurial system led to the relative weakness of the Byzantine landowning nobility. The leading place in the structure of the ruling class of Byzantium belonged to the capital nobility and the highest officials of the Empire, competing with the military landowning provincial nobility. Throughout this historical period, numerous differences in the legal status of individual strata of subjects persisted. In Byzantium, the formation of a class of dependent peasantry was delayed due to the survival of the slave system. The peasants were exploited mainly

in a centralized form through the state tax system. Large landowners and military nobility (dinats - “strong”) seize peasant lands, subjugate rural communities, achieve a new attachment of peasants to the land. From the XI-XII centuries. there is a steady growth of peasants attached to the land. Since that time, the main figure in the Byzantine village is the feudally dependent wig. Pariki did not have the right to own land and were obliged to pay rent to the master in kind and in cash, as well as in the form of working off.

From the Roman Empire, Byzantium inherited a monarchical form of government with an emperor at the head. From the 7th century the head of state was more often called an autocrator (Greek Αὐτοκράτωρ - autocrat) or basileus (Greek Βασιλεὺς).

The Byzantine Empire consisted of two prefectures - the East and Illyricum, each of which was headed by prefects: the prefect of the praetoria of the East (lat. Praefectus praetorio Orientis) and the prefect of the praetoria of Illyricum (lat. Praefectus praetorio Illyrici). Constantinople was singled out as a separate unit, headed by the prefect of the city of Constantinople (Latin Praefectus urbis Constantinopolitanae).

For a long time, the former system of state and financial management was preserved. But from the end of the VI century, significant changes begin. The reforms are mainly related to defense (administrative division into themes instead of exarchates) and predominantly Greek culture of the country (introduction of the positions of logothete, strategist, drungaria, etc.). Since the 10th century, feudal principles of governance have been widely spread, this process has led to the approval of representatives of the feudal aristocracy on the throne. Until the very end of the empire, numerous rebellions and the struggle for the imperial throne do not stop.

The two highest military officials were the master of infantry (lat. magister paeditum) and the master of cavalry (lat. magister equitum), later these positions were combined (Magister militum); in the capital there were two masters of infantry and cavalry (Stratig Opsikia) (lat. Magistri equitum et paeditum in praesenti). In addition, there was a master of infantry and cavalry of the East (Strateg of Anatolika), a master of infantry and cavalry of Illyricum, a master of infantry and cavalry of Thrace (Stratig of Thrace).

The state system of Byzantium at the main stages of its development is characterized by the presence of a huge bureaucratic central and local apparatus. It was based on a strict hierarchy.

All Byzantine officialdom was divided into ranks (titles). The central administration of the empire was concentrated in the State Council - the highest body under the emperor, which managed the current affairs of the state. Its functions were not clearly defined. The State Council consisted of the highest state and palace officials, who were the closest assistants to the emperor. These included two prefects of the praetorium, the prefect of Constantinople, the master and quaestor of the palace, and two committees of finance. These officials of the empire had extensive powers. Thus, two praetorian prefects were the highest leaders of the local state apparatus; the prefect of Constantinople was the civil ruler of the capital and the chairman of the senate. The master - the head of the palace and the quaestor - the chief lawyer and chairman of the consistory directly managed the affairs of the Empire with the help of an extensive bureaucratic apparatus. In the IX-XI centuries. the state bureaucracy controlled all spheres of the political, economic and cultural life of Byzantium. Since the 9th century, due to the growth of the imperial economy and the court, the palace administration has become more complicated. Differences between government departments and palace services are blurred. Judicial functions are divided among various institutions: the court of the patriarch, the court of the city prefect (eparch), a special court for the palace services of the emperor, etc.

The local state apparatus of the Empire in the IV-VII centuries. was entirely based on the late Roman system of government (division into prefectures, dioceses and provinces). Civil power was separated from the military and had priority over the latter during this period. At the head of the local administration of the Empire were two praetorian prefects. These senior civil officials wielded broad administrative, judicial, and financial powers. Directly subordinate to the prefects were the civil rulers of the dioceses and provinces. The rulers of the provinces, the main link of local government, had extensive administrative, financial and judicial powers. They were judges of the first instance within the province. In the 7th century. The Fem system replaced the old system of local government. Themes originated as military districts. The themes were headed by strategists, uniting in their hands the entirety of military and civil power. finally falls into decay. The military forces of the Empire consisted of soldiers for whom service was a hereditary profession. A powerful military fleet was also created in Byzantium. In the 13th century, Constantinople became the prey of the crusaders. Politically weakened and in economic decline, Byzantium had to enter into unbearable competition with the developing European trade in the East. The oppressed peoples in a tough struggle with the Empire fell away from it, forming independent states.

30. Political history of the Arab Caliphate in the 7th-9th centuries

Social relations in Arabia in the VI-VII centuries. were very difficult. In most of the country, primitive communal relations were not eliminated, which were clearly manifested in the clan connection of members of society, blood feuds, common ownership of land, etc. At the same time, society was at the stage of decomposition of the consanguineous community. Free community members remained the main producers of material values. The peasants of Arabia, who lived in rural communities, and the bulk of the pastoral tribes opposed

establishment of feudal relations. In the VI-VII centuries. the doctrine is spreading, which in a religious form proclaimed the concentration of power in the hands of the tribal nobility, recognized the formal equality of free people bound by a new religion (regardless of belonging to a tribe). A way out of the social crisis was proposed through a holy war against the infidels. Mohammed became the "prophet" of Islam. With the transformation of Islam into the dominant religion, Muhammad became in fact the head of all Arabia. From the first half of the 7th century. united Arabia moves on to mass conquest. The Arabs capture Palestine, Syria, Egypt, conquer Iran, extend their power to North Africa and southern Spain, the Transcaucasus and Central Asia. A huge Arab state is formed, known as the Arab Caliphate. Its center is the city of Baghdad. A significant mass of the Arabian population moved to the new lands. The political system, while retaining the features of a slaveholding system, began to quickly acquire the features of feudalism. Most of the conquered lands were turned into state property. The peasants who sat on it paid land taxes as hereditary tenants. A significant part of the population of Arabia moved to the new lands. The state structure of the Caliphate was a centralized monarchy. The Caliph was the spiritual and secular head of state. The combination in one person of the highest secular and spiritual power is an important feature of the monarchy, giving it the complex character of a feudal-theocratic state. Among the highest officials of the state, the vizier played the main role. So-called sofas are of great importance. The emirs appointed by the Caliph were at the head of the regions. With the onset of feudal fragmentation on the territory of the Caliphate, many of them turned into independent feudal rulers.

During the first period of the Caliphate, law and religion merged into one. The Koran was recognized as the main source of law. Mohammed is considered its author. Islamic law was called "Sharia" (straight path). In addition to religious prescriptions, Sharia includes the norms of criminal, civil and procedural law. Collections of legends about the judicial decisions of Muhammad (Sunnah) and interpretations of authoritative Muslim creators of laws served and serve as an addition to the Koran. If there was a gap in written law, it was allowed to resort to the old customary law - adat. Legal, religious, ethical norms are not separated from each other, making up all together a single complex. State ownership of land remains, but as feudal relations develop, private ownership of land also becomes widespread.

The Byzantine Empire was called the "Roman" state. Was at the head emperor, in his hands is the legislative, executive and judicial power; he was in charge of secular and ecclesiastical affairs. The Orthodox Church, which dominated Byzantium, claimed that the power of the emperor was from God, his person was considered sacred. There was no definite order of succession to the throne. Formally, the emperor was elected by the senate, the army and the “people” represented by the peculiar political parties of Byzantium. Some emperors appointed a successor or "co-ruler" during their lifetime.

Created under the emperor deliberative body - the senate (synclite), who discussed the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy of Byzantium, considered bills, exercised judicial functions in the most important criminal cases Council of State (Consistory)- another advisory body under the emperor, which was at the head of the central state administration in the Byzantine Empire. The Consistory regularly discussed all current issues of public administration, carried out some judicial functions senior officials empire - two prefects of the praetorium, the prefect of the capital, the head of the palace, the quaestor, two committees of finance and two masters of the army subordinate to the emperors.

Constantinople with the surrounding countryside up to 100 miles was an independent imperial administrative unit. At the head of the city was prefect (eparch) capital, who was ex officio chairman of the senate. Quaestor He was the chairman of the State Council, was in charge of the development and distribution of imperial decrees, and had judicial power. At the head of the army two masters. One commanded the infantry, the other - the cavalry. In the 7th century. all Byzantine officialdom was divided into 60 ranks or ranks. Persons holding the highest state positions - logothetes.

Administrative division. The whole country was divided into two prefectures. The prefectures were divided into seven dioceses, each with 50 provinces. Initially, civil power was separated from the military, but in the VI century. the government in some border areas united military-civil power in one hand. In the 7th century in connection with the military threat, the government placed many frontier provinces on martial law and transferred their administration to military commanders. A new system of local government emerged - theme system Fema is the military district on whose territory the troops were stationed. At the head of the theme was the commander of the troops - the strategos.

supreme judicial body there was an imperial court that considered cases of state crimes (uprisings and conspiracies against the emperor). This court was also the highest court of appeal. Judicial functions were carried out by the State Council on cases of state crimes and crimes of high officials. supreme ecclesiastical court was the court of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The ecclesiastical courts heard cases of clergy crimes, as well as crimes against religion, marriage and morality committed by persons who did not belong to the clergy.

The socio-political system of Byzantium had its own specific features. The process of decomposition of the slave-owning order was slow in Byzantium.

The ruling class of Byzantium IV-VII centuries. was uneven. Economic and social positions were occupied by senatorial circles and the landed aristocracy. The economic basis of their domination was large-scale private ownership of land of the slave type. A high place in the social structure of Byzantine society was occupied by the urban municipal top of the large cities of the Empire, especially the capital - Constantinople.

Slaves, being at the lowest stage of social development, were included in the relations of the social ladder. The various categories of the free included, first of all, free peasant landowners. Preservation in the IV-VI centuries. free peasantry - the main specific feature of the social system of Byzantium.

Free peasants lived in neighboring communities and had the right to private ownership of land. The peasants paid the land tax and bore all sorts of heavy property and personal duties. Widely used in Byzantium of this period was the late Roman form of exploitation of the peasants - the colonat.

In the X-XI centuries. the social position of the Byzantine slaves improves somewhat. The conversion of the free into slavery is suppressed. In the XI-XII centuries. the tendency to blur the lines between slaves and other categories of the exploited classes of Byzantium intensified.

Only to the X century. the tendency to form a feudal seigneurial system prevailed, based on the labor of the dependent peasantry from landowners while maintaining control from the state.

The slow nature of the development of feudal relations determined the specifics of the social composition of the ruling class of Byzantine society at the second stage of its development. This force was not consolidated for a long time and did not develop into closed estates. The hereditary vassal-seigneurial system began to take shape in Byzantium only by the 11th-12th centuries. The incompleteness of the development of the feudal seigneurial system led to the relative weakness of the Byzantine landowning nobility. The leading place in the structure of the ruling class of Byzantium belonged to the capital nobility and the highest officials of the Empire, competing with the military landowning provincial nobility.

Throughout this historical period, numerous differences in the legal status of individual strata of subjects persisted. In Byzantium, the formation of a class of dependent peasantry was delayed due to the survival of the slave system.

Peasants were mainly exploited in a centralized manner through the state tax system.

Large landowners and military nobility (dinats - "strong") seize peasant lands, subjugate rural communities, achieve a new attachment of peasants to the land. From the XI-XII centuries. there is a steady growth of peasants attached to the land.

Since that time, the main figure in the Byzantine village is the feudal dependent wig. Pariki did not have the right to own land and were obliged to pay rent to the master in kind and in cash, as well as in the form of working off.

Chapter 5

Byzantine Empire IV-V centuries. was a centralized military-bureaucratic monarchy. She inherited the main features of the state system of the Late Roman Empire, which combined the traditions of the Roman state system with elements of Eastern despotism. The ruling elite of Constantinople saw in Byzantium the successor of the Roman Empire. In the 5th century, despite the actual division, both states - the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire - were still considered parts of a single whole. This found its expression in a single consulate (each empire appointed one of the two consuls), in laws common to both empires, issued on behalf of both emperors, in mutual support by the latter of each other. Although Byzantium included areas where the Greek language dominated, the state language of the empire until the 6th-7th centuries. continued to be Latin.

Byzantium adopted Roman legislation; it was the basis of the first set of Byzantine law proper - the Code of Theodosius.

In its administrative structure, the empire in the IV century. retained the Diocletian-Constantinian division. It was divided into two large administrative-territorial units - prefectures: the East, covering the eastern regions (its center was the capital of the empire - Constantinople), and Illyricum, which included the Balkan lands (the center - Thessalonica). Each of the prefectures, in turn, was divided into dioceses, divided into provinces. The largest was the prefecture of the East, which consisted of 4 dioceses: 1) East - 15 provinces; 2) Asia - 10 provinces; 3) Pontus - 10 provinces and 4) Thrace - 6 provinces. The prefecture of Ilpirik included 2 dioceses: 1) Macedonia - 6 provinces and 2) Dacia - 5 provinces. A separate administrative region (diocese) was formed by Egypt, at the head of which was the Augustal prefect; his residence was in Alexandria. In total, the empire had 7 dioceses and over 50 provinces 1 .

In its social essence, the Byzantine state was a dictatorship of large landowners-slave-owners and a wealthy trade and usury elite, in the conditions of crisis and decomposition of the slave-owning society, rallied around a strong imperial power.

The entire free population of the empire was sharply separated from the slaves and divided into estates (ordines), each of which had strictly defined rights and obligations. The most disenfranchised, standing outside the official life of society, the stratum of the population of Byzantium continued to be slaves 2 . Although the slave was still considered the full property of his master, in legislation and in social practice he was already recognized not only as a “thing”, but also as a “person”. The master's right to kill a slave and treat him excessively was limited. However, the master retained an almost unlimited right to punish slaves. The death of a slave, if it occurred during or as a result of a punishment, was not regarded as premeditated murder. At the same time, the state encouraged the release of slaves into the wild and in a number of cases directly ordered that prisoners of war be converted not into slaves, but into colonies. The formalities associated with the emancipation of slaves were also facilitated.

In the IV-V centuries. the elements of the property legal capacity of slaves, which had already partially existed in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, were also strengthened. The connection of slaves with their peculium, the right to own and dispose of it, in particular, transmission by inheritance, was strengthened. In fact, the existence of a family in a slave was recognized.

Along with property rights, the legal capacity of slaves in relation to third parties also increased somewhat. The slaves of the fiscus and the emperor could, in their own name, conduct legal proceedings against freemen in criminal and civil cases. However, a slave did not have the right to sue his master, except in the case of a complaint of excessive cruelty. Slaves could not act as witnesses not only against their masters, but also against other free people, with the exception of cases of crimes against the state and imperial power.

Changes in the position of slaves objectively brought them closer to some extent to the bulk of the free. Therefore, the state less severely pursued the marriages of those and others among themselves. According to the law of 319, such marriages were no longer prohibited, although they were not considered "legal", but the children born from them received, as before, the status of their mother.

However, the slaves were tightly denied access to all state and public positions. In principle, their service in the army was also not allowed. Not only in terms of rights, but also in the system of punishments for various crimes, the legislation most decisively separated slaves from persons "decorated with the dignity of freedom." The most severe torture during the process of interrogation, cutting off hands and feet, decapitation, burning, giving to beasts to be torn to pieces - these were the usual punishments that slaves were subjected to for any significant crime against the state or slave owners.

In the IV-V centuries. there is a certain convergence of the actual position of slaves and other categories of the dependent population of the empire. The line between freedom and lack of freedom became extremely shaky. If the possibilities of transition from slavery to another dependent or free state expanded and became easier, then the paths of transition to slavery for the free 3 became noticeably easier.

Almost completely disenfranchised were numerous ascribed columns - enapographs. They were regarded as hereditary slaves of the earth (servi terrae). Even the personal property of the Enapographers began to be considered the property of their masters, and marriages with the free, as well as with those dependent on other masters, were forbidden to them. In IV-V centuries. lost a significant part of their former legal capacity and free columns, which during the IV century. gradually attached to the ground. The official law more and more opposed the columns to the free ones. Thus, the overwhelming majority of the rural population of the empire, which consisted in the IV-V centuries. from the columns, was almost a disenfranchised mass. In the system of punishments, the state often equated columns, especially assigned ones, with slaves.

The free population of the empire had certain political and civil rights. Its lower stratum was made up of the plebeian class, numerous in Byzantium, ordc plebeius.

Part of the trade and craft population of cities was during the IV century. hereditarily attached to their professions. Persons who married members of the collegiums were included in the collegiates. However, attachment extended only to professions in which the state was particularly interested. The bulk of the artisans were not attached. Free plebeians also did not enjoy special privileges before the court, legislation brought the plebs closer to the slaves. Plebeians were increasingly subjected to torture, to be torn to pieces by beasts, sentenced to be burned, to eternal or temporary slavery in mines and mines.

The best was the position of the second estate of the empire, which united the average urban landowners-curials - ordo curialium. Curials enjoyed a number of privileges. Usually the highest punishment for them was the confiscation of property and exile in remote provinces, on the outskirts of the empire.

Along with class restrictions on political rights for broad sections of the population of the empire, there were restrictions due to ethnic and especially religious motives. So, pagans, Jews, Samaritans, representatives of various democratic religious sects already at the beginning of the 5th century. were banned from holding public office. Many heretics were constrained in their judicial and property rights.

The highest in the empire was the senatorial class - ordo senatorius, which included several hundred families of the richest and largest landowners, representatives of the military bureaucratic nobility. Many senators earned thousands of libres of gold a year. The replenishment of the senatorial estate took place not only by virtue of hereditary belonging to it or through the praetorship, but also by bestowing senatorial dignity on individuals by the senate or imperial power for their services to the state. By the beginning of the 5th century many people of humble origin, advanced in the state and military service, entered the senatorial estate 4 .

In the 5th century the process of merging the old, senatorial and new, military-bureaucratic nobility was completed. An influential service aristocracy was formed.

Representatives of the senatorial estate enjoyed exclusive tax, judicial and political privileges.

Class inequality corresponded to inequality before the court. For the same crimes, representatives of the upper strata of society (honestiores) were subjected to much less severe punishments than humiliores 5 . Senators could not be arrested and imprisoned without the permission of the senate or the emperor.

The political system of Byzantium IV-V centuries. was a further development of the dominance regime that had developed in the Roman Empire in the 4th century, when all power was concentrated in the hands of the emperor, who was considered the sole spokesman for the sovereignty, will and rights of the entire “Roman people”. The emperor (basileus), the largest and richest owner of the empire, heir to the power of the Roman emperors and Eastern Hellenistic monarchs, was an unlimited ruler (αυτοχρατ ωρ), an absolute master (dominus) of his subjects. Endowed with unlimited legislative and executive power, he was the only source of power and law, the supreme legislator and judge, the bearer of the highest military power, "the chosen one of God" and as such - the supreme protector and patron, the secular head of the Byzantine church. The theory of the divine origin of imperial power, representing the emperor as the “anointed of God”, a living symbol of the kingdom entrusted to him by God, surrounded him with an aura of holiness, separated the emperor from the rest of the “mortals” with an impenetrable line. Any kind of public service was considered as a service to the emperor, and all state officials - as his servants. The elaborate lavish court ceremonial was designed to emphasize the grandeur and inaccessibility of imperial power 6 . A golden diadem adorned with pearls and precious stones and long purple robes and boots were the hallmarks of imperial power.

The emperor had complete control over all the resources and means of the empire.

The advisory body under the emperor was the senate, or synklit. The Senate discussed the issues that the emperor proposed to him, prepared legislative proposals, to which the subsequent imperial approval gave the force of law. On behalf of the emperor, the senate performed the functions of the highest judicial and appellate instance. In Byzantium, the consulate was preserved: consul was the highest honorary title bestowed by the senate. The consuls were obliged to arrange entertainment for the inhabitants of the capital at their own expense. The praetorship survived, also associated with the costs of organizing festivities in the capital. There were eight praetors in the Eastern Empire.

The praetor opened access to the senatorial class. All holders of the highest public offices (illustres, spectabiles, or clarissimi) automatically received the senatorial dignity of various ranks.

At the end of the IV century. the number of senators reached two thousand. Senators were divided into ranks, each of which had 7 different rights. In the 5th century the highest category of senators - illustres - covered about 600 active statesmen who enjoyed exclusive privileges. Illustres were required to live permanently in Constantinople.

The emperor, who was a member of the Senate, consulted here on the main fundamental problems of domestic and foreign policy. Such a system, on the one hand, did not bind the initiative and speed of action of the imperial power, on the other hand, it guaranteed the ruling elite of the empire the necessary degree of participation in the management of state affairs.

An important factor that ensured the influence of the senate on the policy of the emperors was the election of the latter. In order to transfer the throne to their sons, emperors from the 4th century. usually gave them the title of co-rulers. However, only subsequent elections turned them into "legitimate" emperors. The proclamation of the new emperor by the Senate, the army and the "people", and from the 5th century. in some cases, his coronation as a patriarch was considered a necessary "constitutional" procedure for asserting the "legality" of his power. In case of dissatisfaction with the policy of the emperor, the senate, the army and the "people" could depose him. Thus, the imperial power in Byzantium was in fact limited by the privileges and rights of the ruling elite, forcing the emperor to constantly reckon with its interests and wishes.

Formally, the emperor, as already mentioned, was chosen by the senate, the army and the "people" - dims. In fact, the decisive role belonged to the Senate and the top of the army, who put forward the candidacy of the new emperor.

As for the “people of Constantinople”, the position of the leaders of political parties, primarily the parties of the Veneti and Prasins, formed in the first half of the 5th century, was decisive here. and consisting of representatives of the same ruling circles of the empire.

Dimas (δημοι) 8 - circus parties - played a special role in Byzantium in the 5th-6th centuries. They were formed as a result of the development of the internal political life of Byzantine society in the 4th - early 5th centuries. At that time, sports organizations formed around the spectacles in the cities - factions that were in charge of preparing and holding circus performances, and around them peculiar sports parties took shape, “supporting” one or another faction, having their own seats on the hippodrome, supporting the factions with donations, closely connected with them and received their name from them. In each more or less large city there were four sports circus parties: Levki (white), Rusii (red, pink), Prasin (green) and Veneti (blue, blue), divided by the colors of the drivers' clothes.

However, the growth of interest in spectacles in the IV century. was not only sporty. If in the western half of the Roman Empire the factions remained purely sports associations, dying along with the decline of the city, then in Byzantium their fate was different. Here, the factions began to turn from sports organizations into political organizations of the urban population, into original political parties. Of great importance in the history of the formation of circus parties was Constantine's decree on aoclamationes, which gave the right to the urban population during spectacles to express their approval or disapproval of the activities of the authorities. By the end of the IV - the beginning of the V century. factions acquired a more distinctly political character.

Dimas were also involved in the defense of the capital; according to dimas, detachments of the city militia were formed. The government was forced to recognize certain rights for the dims - the right to participate in political life and to have weapons. True, the number of Dimotes who enjoyed these rights was, apparently, small. There were only a few thousand "military" dimotes, recorded in special lists - catalogs. Dimarchs officially recognized by the government, patrons (prostates) of the parties from among their most influential supporters, were at the head of the dims.

In the 5th century the metropolitan parties were already considered a well-known "constitutional" force. They had the right to gather at the hippodrome, where they occupied “their” places, participate in official ceremonies and festivities, express their opinion and make demands on the imperial power and bureaucratic administration during performances at the hippodrome. Often, according to their requirements, the most important issues of the country's political life were raised and decided; Dima expressed approval or disapproval of the policies of the emperors. In the 5th century parties also took shape in other cities, eventually turning into a kind of all-imperial organizations, closely connected with each other.

Of the four circus parties, only prasins and venets acquired a certain political significance. The Levks usually united with the Venets, the Russians with the Prasins. Around these parties, depending on certain political interests or connections, the broader sections of the urban population, the masses of the city, were grouped.

The Veneti party developed as a party of the Greco-Roman landed aristocracy, the Prasin party was headed by the merchant-usurious elite. This party had its main support in the rich trading cities of the East of the empire, Veneti - in the agricultural areas - Asia Minor and Balkan provinces.

In the 5th century the government was increasingly forced to focus its policy primarily on the interests of one of these groups. The struggle between the parties became a struggle for influence on the policy of the imperial power. The Venets sought to limit extortions from landowners and increase them - from merchants and artisans; Prasyns put forward a diametrically opposed program.

All this united around the parties the corresponding sections of the city's population, who were interested in mitigating the tax burden that fell on them.

As the state found itself unable to act with equal activity on all the borders of the empire, conflicts between parties on the issue of the main direction of foreign policy escalated. Clashes especially intensified in the 5th century. in connection with the deteriorating position of the Western Roman Empire. The Veneti party, whose leading circles were closely connected with the Roman nobility of the West, stood for the all-out intensification of policy in the Balkans, for providing active assistance to the dying Western Roman Empire.

The Prasin party, on the other hand, sought to transfer the center of foreign policy activity to the East - in the interests of the trading and merchant circles of the eastern provinces.

Gradually, in the process of folding political "programs", a demarcation along religious lines was also taking shape. The official, "Nicene" Christianity, which also dominated the Western Roman Church, became the banner of the Veneti. The Prasins, on the other hand, were champions of the new, which arose in the 5th century. in the eastern provinces of Byzantium, the Christian doctrine is monophysitism. The struggle between the parties acquired a religious and political character. In the second half of the 5th c. it took on very sharp forms, often resulting in armed clashes at the hippodrome and on the streets of the capital and other cities.

In fact, the activities of the parties were entirely directed by their rich top. In the 5th century the popular masses of the city are increasingly drawn into this struggle, thus expressing their dissatisfaction with the policy of the imperial power and the ruling class.

Therefore, sometimes the struggle of the parties, contrary to the interests and desires of their leading leaders, grew into real popular unrest.

At the head of the central government was the State Council (consistorium sacrum) - consistories. It consisted of a narrow circle of senior civil and military officials appointed by the emperor. This body had an advisory character and was convened at the discretion of the emperor.

Members of the consistory accompanied him on his long journeys around the empire. The existence of the consistory ensured efficiency in solving the main current affairs, which was taken with the participation of the most prominent representatives of the senatorial class. Sometimes the Council met in a wider composition, together with representatives of the Senate 9 .

The administration of the empire was carried out through an extensive bureaucratic apparatus, formed by the emperor and headed by the highest officials of the empire, united in consistories. Along with official ranks and titles, there were honorary titles that were not associated with the occupation of any position, bestowed by the emperor and giving great public privileges (freedom from municipal duties, corporal punishment in court, etc.). The position of persons in the public service, and the ratio between civil and military ranks was at the beginning of the 5th century. determined by a special table of ranks (Notitia dignitatum omnium tarn civilium quam militarium, in partibus orientis et occidentis) 10 .

The structure of state administration was entirely based on the Diocletian-Constantinian system. The civil government was separated from the military. Civil service (militia) was divided into civil, military (militia armata) and court (palatina). At the head of the civil administration were two praetorian prefects (praefecti praetorium), 11 appointed by the emperor. These were the highest civil rulers, who had wide administrative, judicial and financial power. They were the emperor's closest assistants in the field of civil administration. The praetorian prefects were in charge of the general administration of the dioceses and provinces, the imperial post office, the construction and maintenance of public buildings, the supervision of trade, the collection of taxes and requisitions, the payment of funds to the officials of the dioceses, the appointment and removal of vicars and rulers, and the affairs of cities. They were in charge of the treasury of the prefecture, the recruitment for the army, its supply and maintenance, arsenals and workshops. For the population of the regions subject to them, the praetorian prefects were judges of the highest instance. They had the right to issue praetor edicts on matters relating to the details of government and legislation.

In the direct subordination of the prefects of the praetorium were the civil rulers of the dioceses - vicars (vicarii). Their power was mainly control-judicial and appellate. They exercised general supervision over the activities of the rulers of the provinces, who served as the main link in the system of civil administration. The rulers were also endowed with great administrative, fiscal, judicial and police powers. Twice a year they sent detailed reports to the praetorian prefect on the state of the provinces and on their activities. The rulers were responsible for collecting taxes. They were also judges of first instance in all civil and criminal cases (hence their second name - iudex, judge). At the disposal of the rulers, whose residence was in the main city of the province, there was a significant staff, divided into departments - the chancellery.

The cities with their territories and extra-urban lands that were part of the province were administratively subordinate to the provincial authorities. Curia became in the IV century. an appendage of the bureaucratic apparatus of the empire. Rural communities were in a similar position.

Constantinople, together with its nearest district (up to 100 miles), was separated from the jurisdiction of the praetorian prefects into an independent territorial unit. The civil ruler of the city was its prefect (eparch), who reported directly to the emperor. He led the civil administration of the capital, exercised control over the activities of trade and handicraft corporations, was in charge of urban improvement, supply, monitored the maintenance of order through the city police subordinate to him. The prefect possessed the highest judicial power in the territory of Constantinople and its environs. As the ruler of Constantinople, he was responsible for the security of the imperial palace and was the custodian of the state treasury, and as a representative of the senate, he was considered its chairman and official "defender" of the rights of the senate and senators.

The central administration of the empire was concentrated in the palace (sacrum palatium). One of the most important posts in the central administration was occupied by the master of offices - the head of the palace and palace services 12 . Having a staff of officials and translators, he directed the foreign policy of the state, was in charge of organizing embassy receptions and relations with ambassadors through the reception office. Another important function of the Master of Offices was to guard the Emperor's security. The master of offices was the head of the palace guard, the emperor's personal guard in the arsenals of Constantinople. At the same time, he was in charge of the police. He owned control over administration, supervision of the court and bureaucratic administration (in each diocese and province there was a princeps - the head of the ruler's office, directly connected with the master of offices).

The entire organization of the state post office was also under the authority of the master of offices. Arms "factories" were under his control. From 443, the master of offices was entrusted with the duties of an inspector of the border troops - limitani, he was given the right to judge the commanders of the border districts and their officers.

The other highest official of the empire was the quaestor of the sacred palace (quaestor sacri palatii), chairman of the consistory and head of notaries. The value of this position in the V century. gradually increased. The quaestor of the sacred palace was in charge of compiling and distributing imperial decrees. The chief lawyer of the empire, the quaestor, also had judicial power.

Further, two committees of finance belonged to the highest state officials: comes sacrarum largitionum and comes rerum privatarum. The first of them disposed of the treasury, which received all the cash income from taxes, duties, and trade turnover. The second was in charge of the operation and collection of income from private and crown imperial property, palaces, stud farms. Representatives of the trading and usurious elite of the empire were widely involved in the departments of finance committees, whose financial experience the state used.

An important role in the life of the court was played by the office of the imperial chambers (sacrum cubiculum), which provided security and all the personal needs of the emperor and empress. This department was headed by the praepositus sacri cubiculi 13 . Numerous eunuchs, cubicularii, who were in the service of the emperor and empress, were subordinate to him. The eunuch-bedroom of the basileus was the closest confidant of the emperor, one of his closest advisers. Thanks to his constant connection with him, he enjoyed great influence at court.

The total number of officials was colossal. According to researchers, at least 10 thousand civil officials served in the prefectures of the East and Illyricum. Many ministers also lived at the court. In the middle of the IV century. there were 1,000 barbers in the imperial palace alone, and 10,000 couriers.

As already noted, the military organization of the empire was isolated from the civil one. Byzantine army 14 at the beginning of the 5th century. numbered several hundred thousand people. Part of it was replenished with the children of veterans who had land plots, enjoyed tax benefits and were obliged to serve in the army from the age of 18 for 20-25 years; the other - through recruitment kits. In connection with the reduction of the free rural population and the intensified attachment of the urban ordo plebeius to the collegiums, the government was forced> to enlist even columns for military service. In the IV century. in Byzantium, they began to switch to replacing the supply of recruits with cash contributions (from 25-36 nomisms per recruit), the funds from which were spent to hire soldiers.

Even then, barbarian contingents played an ever greater role in the army. Partly these were hired squads of neighboring barbarian peoples, and mainly barbarian settlers, or federati (foederati), according to an agreement (foedus) stationed in the border territories with the obligation to perform military service for money or allowances. The federates were independent military units, under the command of their own commanders, their leaders. By the end of the IV - the beginning of the V century. the barbarization of the army assumed very wide proportions. The barbarians were the main force not only of the army, but also of the court guards (palatini), who guarded the palace and the emperor.

However, in Byzantium, significant formations from the local population, mainly from the Illyrians and Isaurians, continued to be preserved, which made the army more reliable and obedient to the government.

The heavy infantry, which had previously been the backbone of the Roman army, gradually lost its importance. The cavalry was separated from the infantry: singled out from the legions into an independent combat unit, it gradually became the main force of the army. In the infantry, an ever-increasing part of it was made up of lightly armed mobile warriors. In the IV-V centuries. in the infantry, the role of archers is especially enhanced. The number of soldiers in the legions was reduced to 1-2 thousand people, and in the cavalry - up to 300-500 horsemen, who were under the command of prefects or tribunes.

The organization of the army was basically the same as in the days of Diocletian and Constantine. It was divided into border units located in the border areas, and active, mobile troops. The total size of the army at the beginning of the 5th century. reached 550 thousand people. 16

The entire territory of Byzantium was divided into 13 border districts, headed by the duces, who were the supreme representatives of the military authorities in the territories of these districts. The high command of the army was concentrated in the hands of five magistri militum. Two of them were commanders-in-chief of the active army: one - infantry (peditum), the other - cavalry (equitum) 17 - and were in Constantinople. The other three masters commanded troops located in three military districts - the East, Illyricum and Thrace.

In addition, along with the masters, there were 2 committees rei militaris, one of which was at the head of the detachments stationed in Lower Egypt, the other in Isauria. The bulk of the border troops were located on the Danube and the Euphrates.

The fragmentation of army command weakened the threat of usurpation, although it did not always have a positive effect on the conduct of hostilities. The supply and armament of the army was in the hands of the civilian rather than the military administration. From the 5th century in the Byzantine army, private squads of generals began to play a certain role. The emperors, in addition to their guards, also had private detachments, mounted and on foot. Large landowners and officials also maintained their detachments of soldiers and "police". The government prohibited such formations. However, since the number of mercenaries in the army increased, in order for the commanders to successfully use this motley and undisciplined mass, it was necessary to have private squads. They were the most reliable part of the army.

Byzantine navy 18 as an independent force in the IV-V centuries. didn't exist. Since the Mediterranean became a "Roman lake" and piracy was eliminated, there was no need for any significant navy. If necessary, the ships of the naviculari were armed and used. However, the formation of barbarian states, and later, already in the 7th century, the naval raids of the Slavs, the capture of the eastern provinces by the Arabs prompted the Byzantine government to create its own permanent navy. It began to be built in the VI century.

Soldiers and officers of the Byzantine army received state support. The salaries of the soldiers were very low, and the payment of money to them was often delayed by the government, which served as one of the constant causes of discontent, unrest and mutiny in the army. Motley, multilingual, weakened by ethnic contradictions, the Byzantine army was undisciplined, difficult to manage on the battlefield and, due to the constant betrayals of barbarian allies, unreliable.

However, a well-organized military organization, numerous command (especially lower) staff, perfect weapons, including various siege and throwing machines, well-thought-out strategy and tactics provided the army with a fairly high combat capability.

The maintenance of a huge bureaucracy and a colossal army was carried out on the basis of a masterly developed fiscal system 19 . The main tax was the land tax - annona (annona militaris et civilis), levied annually from the entire rural population of the empire. The taxation was based on a special fiscal unit (iugum), which took into account both the size of the area (as well as its quality and the cultivated crop) and the number of employees,

In Byzantium, as in the Late Roman Empire, there was a complex system of taxation, consisting of a combination of poll tax and land tax (iugatio - capitatio). Every 5 years, a general tax census of the entire population and property was carried out, and after 15 years (this procedure has been in effect since 312) - a general revision of the amount of taxation (indictio). A new cadastre (census) was compiled for the next 15 years. The land tax was collected, as a rule, in kind (products, livestock) in three terms annually (September 1, January 1, May 1). Tax revenues were concentrated in state vaults (horrea publica). In the 5th century Often the tax was collected in cash.

A heavy addition to the land tax in the 5th century. for many landowners, there was an “estimate” (epibole), common on state lands, - the obligation of fellow villagers to pay for neighboring, abandoned or empty, plots.

The main monetary tax that fell on the free non-agricultural population of the empire was khrisargir. It was levied on all persons engaged in any trade, except for agriculture. Khrisargir met once every 4-5 years. In addition to chrisargir, there were various trade duties 20 .

Along with these basic taxes, there were also some estate taxes. Extraordinary and extraordinary requisitions were also often carried out.

In addition to taxes, the Byzantines were burdened with all sorts of property and personal duties. Taken together, all these taxes and duties placed a heavy burden on the vast majority of the population of the empire.

Part of the money - proceeds from basic taxes - went to the state treasury. Duties from domestic and foreign trade went to the imperial treasury; this money was at the personal disposal of the emperor.

The presence of a huge mass of products received in the form of requisitions in kind, as well as significant funds, allowed the Byzantine state to have sufficient material resources.

Concentrating in their hands the income from their own property and the income that the public service gave (payment for military officials and court positions), the ruling elite naturally rallied around the imperial power. This fairly broad exploitative stratum (large landowners - senators, officials, military, clergy) enjoyed large tax exemptions and exemptions, while the masses languished under the burden of continuously increasing in the IV-V centuries. tributes and duties. According to Themistius, in the 40 years preceding the reign of Valens, taxes doubled 21 . Themistius praises this emperor for the fact that under him there was no further increase in the tax burden. However, this author forgot to mention that instead of raising taxes, Valens took a different path - ruthlessly extorting arrears from the population that had accumulated since the end of the 3rd century. From the second half of the 4th c. both extraordinary and extraordinary requisitions grew rapidly. The prisons were constantly overflowing with Fisk debtors. The collection of taxes, according to the law, was often carried out with the help of military force.

The severity of taxes was further aggravated by the abuses of officials and tax collectors that flourished in Byzantium, which was favored both by the omnipotence of the bureaucracy and the lack of rights of the population, and more and more widely used in the 5th century. sales practice. To a large extent, this phenomenon was facilitated by the very position of ordinary officials: if the highest and middle officials and courtiers had colossal salaries, then a huge mass of representatives of the lower rank bureaucracy received extremely meager salaries and largely lived off "additional" levies from the population. Similar orders existed in the army, where, in contrast to the excellently paid commanders, the soldiers were paid an insignificant salary, a significant part of which, moreover, was appropriated by their superiors. Meager content, irregular payment of salaries, theft of commanders - all this forced the soldiers to maintain their existence, mainly by robbing the population. Therefore, it is not surprising that the inhabitants of the provinces considered the appearance of agents of the fiscus or soldiers as a disaster no less terrible than the invasion of the enemy.

The theft of a huge army of officials and courtiers was one of the deepest ulcers of the Byzantine state G from the very beginning of its existence. To the slave-owning Byzantium IV-V centuries. F. Engels' statement about the Late Roman Empire is fully applicable: "The more the empire fell into decay, the more taxes and duties increased, the more shamelessly the officials robbed and extorted" 22 .

The Byzantine state was formed at the end of the fourth century AD as a result of the separation of part of the Roman Empire (its eastern part). Byzantium lasted over a thousand years. The development of this state was distinguished by its originality and went through several independent stages.

The first stage (the fourth - the middle of the seventh century) was the period of the collapse of the slave system, as well as the emergence of elements of early feudal relations in the depths of Byzantine society. The state of this era was a centralized monarchy with a well-developed military-bureaucratic apparatus, however, with restrictions (albeit not great) of imperial power.

The second stage (the end of the seventh - the end of the twelfth centuries) is the time period of the formation of the feudal order. It was in this era that Byzantium acquires the completed forms of an unlimited monarchy, which was different from the monarchies of the feudal West and the despotic Eastern monarchies. During this period, the power of the emperor in Byzantium reached its highest level.

Third stage (thirteenth-fifteenth centuries). During this period, there is a deepening political crisis in Byzantine society, which was caused by increased feudalization in the face of increased Turkish military aggression. This era is characterized by a sharp weakening of the authority of the Byzantine state, as well as its actual collapse, which led it to complete destruction in the fifteenth century.

Byzantine law was a unique phenomenon in medieval Europe. It was characterized by a high degree of internal integrity, stability and the ability to adapt to constantly changing political and socio-economic conditions.

In the early period of the development of Byzantium, a peculiar legal system was formed, which grew directly from Roman law, but was influenced by specific critical relations in society, which in this state was distinguished by great ethnic and social simplicity.

Under the influence of local conditions and time, Roman legal institutions began to evolve, but the fundamental foundations of legal culture and Roman law did not undergo radical changes and were not thereby undermined.

The main source of law was the imperial legislation, and the first official code of laws was the Code of the Emperor.