The Byzantine Empire as Segmentary Polity

The relationship between the Byzantine imperial core, outlying provinces, and neighbouring kingdoms has been long debated, most famously in Dmitry Obolensky’s The Byzantine Commonwealth (1971). This paper will argue that the core of the problem lies in contemporary European Westphalian approaches to sovereignty, in which territorial control, bureaucratic effectiveness, and recognition of ritual supremacy are considered to coincide. However, in the Middle Byzantine period, these elements did not necessarily coincide. For example, neighbouring kingdoms such as Georgia and Alania recognised the ritual suzerainty of the Byzantine Emperor, as represented by their acceptance of his right to distribute official titles and, in the latter case, the use of the Greek liturgy. However, there is no evidence that kings of these polities recognised the sovereignty of the Byzantine Emperor, in the sense of him being able to determine subordinate appointments or limit their exercise of violence. This paper will introduce a new concept to Byzantine Studies that derives from Central African, South and Southeast Asian studies: the segmentary polity. This may help to resolve this apparent conundrum. Segmentary polities combine a core zone of sovereignty with a wider, outlying sphere of ritual suzerainty, sometimes including an intermediate zone where central sovereignty is delegated to autonomous viceroys. Moreover, this system is explicitly in constant motion, allowing for seasonal and event-driven fluctuations in imperial power, and for regions to lie within more than one zone of imperial suzerainty. This paper will argue that this model provides a solid theoretical basis for understanding the relationship between the Middle Byzantine imperial core around Constantinople with outlying themes, such as Cherson, as well as with neighbouring kingdoms in the Caucasus.