Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

anastasius 61
ruler whose policies by and large served to stabilize the empire, which at
his death was in most respects in a stronger position than it had been for
more than a century.
Religious policy also played a part in preserving the emperor’s position.
Regular pronouncements throughout the century against pagans, Jews or
heterodox Christian groups served to re-emphasize imperial piety, a virtue
which helped to offset the less martial character of imperial life in the fifth
century. Like non-campaigning, however, religious policy could be twoedged
in its potential consequences. Chalcedon undoubtedly brought
Marcian immediate political benefits in certain vital quarters, but it was also
the catalyst for a polarization of opinion within the eastern church which
caused increasing difficulties for his successors. Arguably the most important
success of Zeno’s reign was his holding of the resultant tensions in
balance, albeit temporarily, through the Henotikon; arguably the most
important failure of Anastasius’ reign was his inability to sustain that
balance, though as we have seen he was to a considerable extent at the
mercy of pressures beyond his control. Interestingly, this was one area
where western emperors had far less to worry about, but recognition of
that serves only to pose the basic question all the more acutely.
In foreign relations, the east undoubtedly faced some serious tests, particularly
in the Balkan provinces, whose security and economy were placed
under severe strain by the Huns during the first half of the century and
then by the Goths in the second half. Against these difficulties, however,
must be set the experience of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, which
remained securely under government control and suffered only occasional
disruption, if any. This situation owed much to the geographical
configuration of the region – Asia Minor and Egypt were both well insulated
from serious external threat – and to the overall stability of relations
with the empire’s most powerful neighbour, Persia, despite the existence of
the tensions discussed earlier. In addition to circumstances specific to the
fifth century such as the preoccupation of both powers with dangers on
other fronts, this stability may also in part be attributed to the general constraint
imposed by the sheer difficulty both powers faced in mounting a
major invasion without its being anticipated by the other. 160
It is in their implications for the area of imperial finances that these considerations
have their greatest significance: compared with the west, the
eastern empire suffered only limited erosion of its tax base. Above all, the
revenues of Egypt, whose importance in the eastern economy paralleled
that of North Africa in the western, remained at the uninterrupted disposal
of Constantinople. Thus even when financial crises occurred, such as
those precipitated by Attila’s demands in the late 440s or by the failure of
160 Cf. Lee (1993b) 18–20, 112–20, 139–42.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008