Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

478 17. armies and society in the later roman world
stirred to revolt in 529 by religious persecution, managed to proclaim a
brigand leader, Julian, as emperor and capture Neapolis. It took a little time
for Theodore, dux of Palestine, to co-ordinate the official reaction with
John (probably a fellow dux) and the leader of a local Arab tribe, but the
Samaritan resistance in the mountains was then suppressed with considerable
bloodshed. A Samaritan revolt in 556 appears to have been confined
to Caesarea, although the death of the local governor during the troubles
again illustrates the fact that authorities rarely had sufficient forces on hand
to quell violence immediately. 28
Many eastern provinces were afflicted by lower levels of disorder, as is
indicated by Justinian’s overhaul of provincial administration that began in
the 530s. The intention was to strengthen administrative control by eliminating
conflicts between civilian and military authority: in Pisidia and Lycaonia
the governor was upgraded to the rank of praetor, an enlarged Paphlagonia
also received a praetor, while a moderator was appointed to an enlarged
Helenopontus – salaries were higher, and civil and military power combined.
In Thrace the amalgamation of two vicariates into a praetorship was
intended to stop quarrelling and improve the defence and administration of
the hinterland of Constantinople. Brigandage, however, remained a
problem, as malefactors migrated across provincial boundaries to evade
justice: in 548 a supra-provincial authority had to be introduced in the Pontic
provinces, a vicar who controlled soldiers as well as financial and civil
officials, and in central Asia Minor a biokolutes, preventer of violence, was to
co-ordinate action in Lycaonia, Lycia, Pisidia and the two Phrygias. 29 In some
parts of the empire, such as the Sinai peninsula, where wandering Arabs
caused problems, troops regularly had to provide protection for travellers. 30
Brigandage could describe various activities, and the diverse nature of
the challenge to authority is indicated by a Justinianic law relating to
Honorias and by the problems of Cappadocia. A law concerning the suppression
of brigands was addressed to the large and small proprietors of
the city of Adrianople: this stipulated that no landowner was to have more
than five men in his retinue, whereas ten had been allowed at the time of
an earlier investigation. These retinues of lance-bearers or horsemen
allowed the individual landowner to take the law into his own hands. In
Cappadocia there were large imperial estates managed by the praepositus sacri
cubiculi, whose influence at court might have guaranteed efficient control,
but the province also contained several very wealthy landowners whose
armed retainers might annex imperial property and intimidate the local
governor and his subordinates. 31
28 Just. Nov. 103; Malalas 445.19–447.21; 487.10–488.3.
29 Jones, LRE 280–2, 294; in 553 the biokolutes’ authority was confined to Lycaonia and Lycia.
30 Isaac, Limits of Empire 205.
31 Feissel and Kaygusuz (1985) 399–401, 410–15 (cf. Nov. 30); Just. Nov. 30.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008