# data[].attributes.body
We have selected to research the Siege of Constantinople, which occurred in 626.

# data[].attributes.body
Primary:

Steppe Peoples and Slavs
This primary source was recounted by Nikephoros, who was a Byzantine writer and patriarch of Constantinople.  This was his personal account of the Persian and Avar attack on his city.

The main actors in this story are the Persains, the Avars, the Slav allies, and the Romans. The writer Nikephoros is able to give context to what prompted attack by the Avars and Persians.

It is important to recognize, similar to many primary sources we encounter in history, that the account of this event is written from the perspective of the winning side. Avars are portrayed maliciously, "The Avars, for their part, are scoundrels, devious... their rulers submit them to cruel punishments for their mistakes."

The insider/outsider dynamic is reinforced through Byzantine poet Corippus's highlight of "how carefully staged palace ritual could overawe visitors"

Secondary:

Muhammad and the Believers: The Near East on the Eve of Islam - Donner

The Siege of Constantinople - Byzantium.gr

The Avar Siege of Constantinople in 626 - Martin Hurbanic

# data[].attributes.body
These sources help us understand the geo-politics of the surrounding territories on the eve of Islam. The Avar siege of Constantinople in 626 had repercussions that impacted the political, military, economic and religious structures of all main participants (Byzantine Empire, the Sassanians, and the Avars).

On one hand, the siege put an end to the power politics and hegemony of the Avars in South East Europe and was the first attempt to destroy Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. Besides the far-reaching military factors, the siege had deeper ideological effects on the mentality of the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire, and it helped establish Constantinople as the spiritual centre of eastern Christianity protected by God and his Mother (Hurbanic).

On the other hand, the siege also characterized the tensions between different political and religious groups vying for power  and influence over the regions of Arabia, Eastern Europe, and Asia Minor.

# data[].attributes.body
We chose to tell the story of an attempted siege between 3 dynamic civilizations. The persistent conflict between the these forces reminds us of how military force was used as part of the imperial dynamics to rule in the late antique period. By choosing to focus on this bloody event, construct our audience's perspective of history using a specific lens that emphasizes the fracture of the Arabian peninsula in the late antique period. The primary source we chose has a clear bias toward the Byzantines as we are reading the accounts of interactions with nomadic groups. The Avars are belittled and the insider/outsider dynamic is reiterated.

# data[].attributes.headline
Background: Sassanians and the Byzantines

# data[].attributes.subject
Background: Sassanians and the Byzantines

# data[].attributes.body
The Rivalry:
Throughout the sixth and seventh centuries, the Sassanians and Byzantines faced the challenge of each other. As the two great competitors for dominance in the Near East in the sixth century, their political rivalry had religious, culturalideological, and economic dimensions, the last-mentioned including competition for sources of metals and other resources, for trade revenues, and for taxable lands in an overwhelmingly semiarid region, the Near East, that had relatively few of them. (Donner, 23)

At stake was not merely Byzantine versus Sasanian political control and economic influence, but also Christianity as opposed to Zoroastrianism and Hellenic as opposed to Iranian cultural traditions.

The Century-Long Struggle:
"Between the 500s and the collapse of the Sasanian state in the 630s, the Byzantines and Sasanians fought five wars and were at war almost continuously for the final ninety years of that period (Donner, 23). The siege of Constantinople was part of the final Byzantine-Sasanian war which began shortly after the Byzantine emperor Maurice was murdered by the usurper Phocas in a military coup in 602. This event elicited a swift reaction from Great King Khosro. Ruling from 589-628, Khosro II Parviz launched a great campaign agaist the Byzantine empire that began in 603. Khosro either saw it as an opportunity to take advantage of a moment of Byzantine disarray or to exact revenge for Maurice, who, in 591, had helped him regain the Sasanian throne from a military usurper in Ctesiphon in exchange for border concessions in Armenia and Mesopotamia" (Donner, 25).

The Avars
"From the sixth to the end of the eighth century, the Avars displaced the Huns as the greatest nomadic threat to European peace." The Avars were mounted warriors that were able to create a durable kingdom and control many subsidiary peoples, including Huns and Slavs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Background: Sasanian Encroachment and the Avar-Slav Alliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Background: Sasanian Encroachment and the Avar-Slav Alliance

# data[].attributes.body
Sasanian/Avar Encroachment:
"By 621, fully half of Anatolia, the traditional heartland of the Byzantine Empire, was in Sasanian hands, as well as all of the Caucasus, Armenia, Syria, and Egypt (Donner, 24). The Slavs and Avars have also submerged the Balkans by the mid 620s and are closing in on Byzantium's Asia Minor.

The Sasanian/Avar Alliance:
By the early 620s, Khosro had concluded an alliance with the chief of the nomadic Avars, who were simultaneously attacking Constantinople from the northwest. "The Avars, for thier part, broke the treaty which Herakleios, before taking up arms aginst Persia, had confirmed by means of gifts - indeed, he promised to pay them 200,000 gold coins and them as hostages on e of his sons as well as his nephew" (Nikephoros).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Avars submerging the Balkans and advancing towards Constantinople in the summer of 626.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Seige: Plan, Strategy and Complications

# data[].attributes.subject
The Seige: Plan, Strategy and Complications

# data[].attributes.body
The Plan and Strategy:
"Dividing, as it were, between themselves the Thracian Bosporos, the Persians destroyed the Asiatic part. while the Avars devastated the Thracian side, and they made a mutual agreement to capture Byzantium" (Nikephoros). Arriving on June 29, the Avars and Slavic tribes arrived at Constantinople. At about the same time, a Persian army under Shahrbaraz arrived from Asia Minor and encamped at Chalcedon.

The Complication at the Bosphorus Strait:
The Persian army was on the Asian side of the city, while the Avars with the Slavs, numbering 80,000, were on the European side (where they destroyed the Valens’ aqueduct). In the meantime, emperor Heraclius due to his campaign deep im Mesopotamia was not able to help, but he sent a small part of his army back, mainly to raise the morale of the besieged. The defenders in Constantinople numbered about 12,000 men, mostly cavalry. However, the Byzantine navy retained control of the Bosphorus Strait. This development proved vital in two ways for the Romans as the Persians could not send troops or siege engines to the European side to help their allies:

1. The advantage of the synergy of the attackers was neutralized and the effectiveness of the siege was reduced, because the Persians had high know-how and experience in sieges and if they could participate more actively, they would cause serious problems.

2. The siege was essentially carried out by the Avars, with the Persians simply participating in the blockade from the east and at times attempting to intervene with limited effectiveness.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Seige: Tools and Weaponry for Attack

# data[].attributes.subject
The Seige: Tools and Weaponry for Attack

# data[].attributes.body
Siege Weaponry:
"The Avars constructed siege engines, namely, wooden towers and "tortoise shells" (Nikephoros).

Naval Warfare:
"The Patrician, Bonos, he, too, fitted out biremes and triremes, which he armed..." (Nikephoros).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The siege of Constantinople in 626 depicted on the murals of the Moldovița Monastery, Romania

# data[].attributes.headline
The Seige: Constantinople's Great Walls Withstood the Seige

# data[].attributes.subject
The Seige: Constantinople's Great Walls Withstood the Seige

# data[].attributes.body
On June 30, the siege engines of the Avars took position in front of the walls on the Thracian side of the city. Despite the constant attacks and the hits on the walls by catapult shots for a month, morale remained high within the walls, mainly due to Patriarch Sergius who with religious zeal was constantly on the walls with the image of the Virgin Mary and encouraged the defenders with the assurance that the Byzantines were under divine protection as they fought against pagans. As Nikephoros recounts: "When these machines approached the walls, a divine force undid them and destroyed the Avar soldiers who were inside."

# data[].attributes.headline
The Seige: Avar's Infiltration Strategy 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Seige: Avar's Infiltration Strategy 

# data[].attributes.body
"The Avars had brought along a multitude of Slavonic allies and gave the the following signal, namely, that when the latter saw pyres kindled by the forward wall of the Blachernai, the one called Ptero, they would immediately set out in thier hollowed-out caonoes with a view to producing a mighty disturbance in the City by thier sea-borne sortie, while the Avars, seizing this opportunity, would climb up the walls and so get inside the City" (Nikephorus). On August 6, the Avars managed to enter and occupy the church of Panagia at Vlachernae by attacking a vulnerable point in the walls. They remained there, waiting for the Slavic attack from the sea with triremes, which was planned to take place the next day.

# data[].attributes.body
Somehow, Byzantine spies learned the signal of the Slavic attack. "When these moves became known to the patricain Bonos, he, too, fitted out biremes and triremes, which he armed and stationed at the spot where the signal was to be given, he also drew up some biremes near the opposite shore and immediately directed them to light fires" (Nikephorus).

# data[].attributes.body
The Salvs, upon seeing the fire, put out from the river called
When Bonos ordered fires to be lit at Pteron, it provoked the untimely attack of the Slavic boats and the Byzantines caught them by surprise. Upon seeing the fires, the Slavs "put out from the river called Barbysses and advanced upon the City; but the Roman ships moved out against them and, catching them in the middle, slughtered them forthwith so that the sea was dyed with much blood" (Nikephorus).

# data[].attributes.body
As the Romans decimated the Slavs and Avars, the same fate befell boats with Persian soldiers from Chalcedon, which were sunk by the Byzantine navy. Around 4,000 Persians lost their lives. "Among the dead bodies one could observe even those of Slave women. When the barbarians beheld this, they gave up the siege and returned home" (Nikephorus).

# data[].attributes.body
Discouraged by these developments, the Avar leader, suffering from a lack of supplies as well, was forced to end the siege and retreat westward. The Persian general Shahrbaraz no longer had a reason to stay in Chalcedon and left, humiliated by the complete failure of the ambitious attack on the Byzantine capital (Byzantium.gr).

In summary, the crucial factors that contributed to Constantinople's victory was the bad preparation and lack of supplies for both attacking troops, the strength of the city walls and the Byzantine naval supremacy, which prevented the Persian forces to actually assist in the siege and to combine effectively with the Avars.