The Chronicle of 819: Christianity, Caliphate, and Memory at the Crossroads of Empires

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."

Preserved through a fragile and perilous journey across centuries, the Chronicle of 819 — often also called the Chronicle of Qartmin — is one of the most important Syriac Christian historical records from the early Abbasid period. Originally compiled by an anonymous Miaphysite monk living in the Monastery of Qartmin (modern-day Mor Gabriel, in Tur ʿAbdin), it offers an invaluable snapshot of both ecclesiastical and secular events from the birth of Christ up until the early ninth century.

The Chronicle is a relatively concise but remarkably rich text, emphasizing a dual historical consciousness: one that tracks Christian life, especially through the succession of patriarchs and bishops, and another that records Islamic and Roman political affairs, reflecting the evolving realities of the Middle East in the centuries following the rise of Islam.

Discovery and Transmission

In 1911, the learned Syriac scholar and later Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, Aphram Barsaum, discovered this chronicle in an ancient ninth-century codex at the village of Beth Sbirin (Basabrina) in the region of Tur ʿAbdin. Recognizing its historical importance, Barsaum transcribed the text carefully — a decision that would prove critical, as the original manuscript was likely destroyed during the Assyrian Genocide around 1915.

Thanks to Barsaum’s transcript, the Chronicle was later published by J.-B. Chabot in 1920 as part of the series Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO 81), under the title Chronicon anonymum ad annum Domini 819 pertinens. It was printed alongside the later Chronicle of 1234, which famously used the 819 Chronicle almost verbatim as a major source for its early sections.

Today, scholars acknowledge that the Chronicle of 819 heavily drew on the archives of the Monastery of Qartmin itself — a vibrant intellectual and spiritual center of Miaphysite Christianity in Upper Mesopotamia.

Authorship and Perspective

Although the author's personal identity remains unknown, the text’s internal evidence unmistakably reveals a Qartminite monk, deeply concerned with recording the fortunes of his monastery, his bishops, and his people. Out of the 125 historical notices contained within the Chronicle, no fewer than 15 deal directly with events at Qartmin, giving us a unique window into the local ecclesiastical and political life of the Syriac Orthodox world during the early Abbasid era.

The Chronicle is composed in a relatively dry, factual style: short entries tied to specific years, with no attempt at lengthy narrative or theological embellishment. Yet beneath its brevity, the Chronicle preserves a sharp, quietly mournful awareness of the transformations that had reshaped the Middle East after the Muslim conquests, the decline of Roman authority in Syria, and the tense coexistence between Christians and the Abbasid Islamic state.

Relationship to Other Chronicles

The Chronicle of 819 would later be incorporated almost wholesale into the Chronicle of 846, another important Syriac source published by E.W. Brooks. This borrowing demonstrates how later chroniclers depended on the careful record-keeping of earlier generations, and how ecclesiastical archives like those of Qartmin were vital to preserving the collective memory of Christian communities living under Islamic rule.

Historical Value

While not a grand history on the scale of Eusebius or Theophanes, the Chronicle of 819 provides indispensable information on:

The succession of Abbasid caliphs and their interactions with Christians.
Military conflicts, revolts, and famines.
The internal organization and leadership of the Syriac Orthodox Church.
Local events in Tur ʿAbdin and the greater Jazīrah region.
The resilience of Christian monastic communities under new political realities.

In short, the Chronicle offers us a grassroots view of history, one often missing from the grand narratives of emperors and caliphs — and for this reason, it remains a precious relic of the early medieval Middle East.

1. The First Arab King: The Beginning of the Hijrī Era

Latin Text

Et anno 932, regnare coepit Mohammed, rex primus Arabum; et primus fecit sacrificium, et comedendum imposuit Arabibus, praeter eorum morem. Ex inde initium habet apud eos computus annorum.

English Translation

And in the year 932 of Alexander, Muḥammad, the first king of the Arabs, began to reign; and he was the first to institute sacrifice and impose eating [of the sacrificial meat] upon the Arabs, contrary to their earlier custom. From then, their reckoning of years begins.

Detailed Commentary

Year 932 of the Seleucid Era (AG 932)

AG 932 corresponds to 620/621 CE in the Julian calendar.
This slightly predates the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ’s full migration (Hijrah) to Medina in 622 CE, but is very close, reflecting a generalized Near Eastern memory of this pivotal transition.
As we saw in the Chronicle of 705 and Chronicle of 724, Syriac Christian sources often associate the beginning of Muslim political history with the Prophet's emergence as a temporal leader, not merely a prophet.

Muḥammad as "the First King of the Arabs"

The chronicler titles Muḥammad rex primus Arabum ("the first king of the Arabs"), emphasizing his role as both a religious and political founder.
This phrasing reflects a common non-Muslim perception of Islam's founder: not purely as a prophet, but as a monarchical founder, similar to how rulers like Constantine were seen as inaugurating a new imperium.

Sacrifice and the Imposition of New Customs

The chronicle notes that Muḥammad was the first to perform sacrifice and that he imposed the eating of the sacrificial meat on the Arabs, contrary to their earlier custom (praeter eorum morem).

What does this mean?

In pre-Islamic Arabia, sacrifice (dhabḥ) certainly existed — it was a widespread ritual practice among pagans, often involving blood offerings at idols' shrines (e.g., at the Kaʿbah to Hubal, al-ʿUzzā, Manāt).

However, pre-Islamic sacrifice was often:

Polytheistic in intent (offered to multiple gods or spirits).
Unregulated — performed without clear legal rulings.
Associated with superstitions — such as blood rites, omens, and idol offerings.
Sometimes the meat was not eaten properly (left for deities, spoiled, buried, or burned), and in some cases, certain types of meat or animals were considered forbidden for ritual eating among particular tribes.

Muḥammad’s ﷺ reforms radically changed this landscape:

Sacrificial rites were now dedicated solely to God — strict monotheism was enforced.
Eating the sacrificial meat became an obligation rather than optional — as seen clearly in the rulings around ʿĪd al-Aḍḥā (the Festival of Sacrifice).
The Qurʾān itself commands in multiple places (e.g., Sūrat al-Ḥajj 22:36-37) that sacrificial animals’ blood and flesh do not reach God — but that what reaches Him is the piety (taqwā) of the sacrificer — and that the meat should be shared and consumed among the sacrificers and the poor.
Public sharing of meat became a key Islamic ethical act: ensuring that festivals strengthened community ties and helped the needy.

Thus, from a Syriac Christian perspective, the chronicler is accurately observing:

That Muḥammad instituted a new, communal, and monotheistic sacrificial system;
That eating the sacrificial meat was mandated;
And that this stood in contrast (praeter eorum morem) to the older pagan Arab practices, which either mishandled sacrifice, directed it to idols, or did not emphasize communal consumption.

In short:

The Chronicle of 819 captures a real religious revolution:

Not merely a political change, but the profound reshaping of sacred practice itself, as Muḥammad ﷺ re-centered Arab religious life around monotheism, purity of ritual, and social solidarity.

The Beginning of the Arab Reckoning of Years

Most significantly, the chronicler records that the Arab calendar — meaning the Hijrī calendar — begins from this time.
In Muslim tradition, 1 AH (Anno Hegirae) starts with the Prophet’s Hijrah (Migration) to Medina in 622 CE.
Thus, the Chronicle correctly remembers that Islam's own dating system begins with Muḥammad’s rise to leadership, though the exact dating is very slightly off by a year or two.

Historical Significance

This small entry reflects deep layers of historical memory:

Early Syriac chroniclers understood that Islam was not just a new religion, but a new civilization, a community (ummah) organized politically, religiously, and ritually.
The portrayal of Muḥammad as the first Arab king mirrors how non-Muslims perceived the sweeping changes Islam brought: the Arabs were no longer a fragmented tribal people but were becoming a unified nation under a single ruler.
By associating the start of a calendar with Muḥammad’s leadership, the chronicler acknowledges the profound historical rupture that Islam introduced — new faith, new law, new time itself.

In this way, the Chronicle of 819 once again reveals a precise yet selective memory of early Islam, seen through Christian eyes: a dramatic transition from tribalism to kingship, from old sacrifices to new rites, and from timeless desert life to the structured rhythms of history.

2. The Death of Muḥammad and the Succession of Abū Bakr

Latin Text:

Et anno 942, mortuus est Athanasius patriarcha; et etiam Mohammed rex Arabum, et post hunc regnavit Abū Bekr, tres annos et tres menses.

Translation:

"And in the year 942 [Seleucid Era], Athanasius the patriarch died; and likewise Muḥammad, king of the Arabs, and after him reigned Abū Bakr for three years and three months."

Chronological Analysis

Year 942 of the Seleucid Era (AG) = 630/631 CE.
Historical Reality:
- Athanasius I Gammolo, Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, died around this time, though exact dates vary slightly in different sources.
- The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, however, historically passed away in June 632 CE — corresponding to 11 AH — slightly later than 630/631.
This shows a minor chronological error — a common feature in early chronicles that mixed solar, lunar, and regional calendars without full synchronization.

Still, the basic sequence — Muḥammad dies, then Abū Bakr succeeds — is absolutely correct.

Abū Bakr’s Reign:

The chronicle records that Abū Bakr reigned for three years and three months.
Muslim historical tradition typically states two years and three months (from June 632 CE to August 634 CE).

Thus:

The chronicle overstates Abū Bakr’s reign by one year — again, a small but not unexpected inaccuracy in early non-Muslim chronologies.

Key Observations:

Correct Succession:

The chronicler accurately knew that Abū Bakr immediately followed Muḥammad, indicating strong familiarity with Islamic political history.

Recognition of Muḥammad as "King":

Muḥammad is again called "rex Arabum" — king of the Arabs.
This reflects how Syriac Christian chroniclers interpreted Muḥammad’s role primarily as a political and military leader, combining religious leadership with sovereign rule — a standard Late Antique understanding of rulership.

Parallelism:

The chronicler deliberately pairs the death of Athanasius (Christian leader) and Muḥammad (Arab leader), suggesting a sense of two worlds — Christian and Muslim — proceeding in parallel, each with their patriarchs and rulers.

3. The Death of Abū Bakr and the Reign of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb

Latin Text:

Et anno 945°, mortuus est Abū Bekr; et regnavit post eum ʿOmar filius Khattab, undecim annos.

Translation:

"And in the year 945 [Seleucid Era], Abū Bakr died; and after him ʿUmar, son of Khaṭṭāb, reigned for eleven years."

Chronological Analysis

Year 945 AG = 633/634 CE.

Historical reality:

Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (r. 632–634 CE) indeed died in August 634 CE.

Thus, the Chronicle places his death only slightly earlier (in 633/634) — a minor error likely caused by mixing lunar Islamic dating with solar Seleucid reckoning.

ʿUmar’s Reign:

ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb succeeded Abū Bakr in 634 CE.

Islamic tradition records that ʿUmar reigned for ten years and six months, from 634 until his assassination in 644 CE.

The Chronicle states he reigned eleven years — a very close approximation (rounding up by half a year).

Key Observations:

Accurate Succession:

The Chronicle correctly records ʿUmar as the direct successor to Abū Bakr — following the standard Sunni caliphal succession (Abū Bakr → ʿUmar → ʿUthmān → ʿAlī).

Titles and Status:

Again, ʿUmar is described in purely political terms: no religious titles ("caliph" or "commander of the faithful" are not used).

Instead, ʿOmar filius Khattab (Umar, son of Khaṭṭāb) is presented simply as ruler/king — maintaining the Chronicle’s pattern of portraying early Islamic leaders as secular monarchs.

Minor Chronological Smoothing:

Rounding ʿUmar’s reign to eleven years reflects a typical chronicler's habit: favoring round numbers for easier memory and record-keeping, especially when working from oral reports or fragmented records.

Regional Awareness:

ʿUmar’s reign was critically important for the region:

During his rule, the Muslim conquests of Syria, Iraq, Persia, and Egypt were launched and completed.

For a Syriac Christian chronicler writing at Qartmin, ʿUmar’s rule would mark a period of massive political and social transformation.

4. The Arab Conquest of Syria and Damascus

Latin Text:

Et eodem anno Arabes Syriam ingressi sunt et Damaseum expugnaverunt.

Translation:

"And in the same year, the Arabs entered Syria and captured Damascus."

Chronological Analysis

"Eodem anno" (In the same year) refers back to Year 945 AG = 633/634 CE.

Historical Reality:

The Muslim Arab armies began major operations into Syria shortly after the death of Abū Bakr and the accession of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.

Damascus (Dimashq) was besieged and fell to the Muslim forces in 634 CE, according to both Islamic sources and several contemporary Christian chronicles.

The Siege of Damascus traditionally dates from August–September 634 CE, ending with the peaceful surrender of the city after a negotiated agreement.

Thus, the Chronicle’s date is remarkably close — it compresses the broader campaign into a single pivotal year, but this was common in early medieval historiography.

Key Observations:

Recognition of the Syrian Conquest:

The Chronicle rightly emphasizes that the entry into Syria and the capture of Damascus were simultaneous, or at least perceived as part of a unified event.

Simple Language, Major Event:

The description is brief but immensely significant:

Syria was the most prestigious Roman province in the Near East.

Damascus was a leading city — a major administrative, military, and economic center.

Its fall symbolized the collapse of Roman control over the Levant.

Broader Implications:

The conquest of Damascus paved the way for the Arabs to:

Sweep through Syria and Palestine.

Establish their own rule across former Roman territories.

Damascus later became the capital of the Umayyad Caliphate under Muʿāwiya I (r. 661–680 CE).

Perspective of the Chronicle:

From a Syriac Christian viewpoint, the capture of Damascus would mark the first great shock of the new Arab political order.

The Chronicle’s neutral tone — merely recording the event without apocalyptic commentary — reflects a mature, pragmatic historical style compared to earlier alarmist apocalyptic writings.

5. The Arab-Roman Battle at the Yarmuk River and the Conquest of Mesopotamia

Latin Text:

Et anno 947°, Romani et Arabes praelio contenderunt ad Hieromyeen fluvium; et devieti sunt Romani clade completa; et subegit ʿOmar omnes civitates Mesopotamiae. Et dux ex illis primus qui Edessam et Harran ingressus est fuit Abū Bader, et qui Daram, et Amidam, et Tellam, et Rhesainam fuit ʿIyadh.

Translation:

"And in the year 947 [AG], the Romans and the Arabs fought a battle at the Yarmuk River; and the Romans were utterly defeated; and ʿUmar subjugated all the cities of Mesopotamia. And the first of their leaders who entered Edessa and Harran was Abū Badr, and the one who entered Dara, Amida, Tella, and Resaina was ʿIyād."

Chronological Placement

947 AG = 635/636 CE.

This year fits neatly with one of the most crucial moments in Islamic history:

The early Muslim conquest of Syria and Upper Mesopotamia followed the decisive victories over the Roman & Persian forces.

Key Elements Explained

1. The Battle at the "Hieromyeen River"

"Hieromyeen" is a Latinized form referring to the Yarmūk River (Arabic: نهر اليرموك, Nahr al-Yarmūk).
Battle of Yarmūk (August 636 CE):
- A cataclysmic clash where the Muslim army, under Khalid ibn al-Walid and others, decisively crushed the Roman army.
- This victory opened the gates of the Levant to Muslim rule.
Although the Chronicle's year (947 AG / 635–636 CE) is slightly early compared to standard Muslim chronology (Yarmūk in August 636), the precision is striking for a distant monastic chronicler.

2. Total Defeat of the Romans

"Clade completa" ("complete disaster"): The wording captures how massive the Roman defeat was.
After Yarmūk, Roman power in Syria and northern Mesopotamia collapsed almost immediately.

3. ʿUmar’s Subjugation of Mesopotamian Cities

Although ʿUmar himself did not lead armies personally, under his caliphate (634–644 CE) Muslim generals began systematic conquests eastward, targeting Mesopotamia (modern Iraq/Syria borderlands).

4. Arab Commanders: Abū Badr and ʿIyādh

Abū Badr:
Likely a corruption or variant of Abū ʿUbayda ibn al-Jarrāḥ (d. 639 CE), one of the Prophet’s leading companions and a major general in Syria.
- He led campaigns into Edessa (modern Urfa) and Harran.
ʿIyādh:
ʿIyād ibn Ghanm al-Fihrī, a key commander famous for his conquests in Upper Mesopotamia:
- He captured Dara, Amida (modern Diyarbakır), Tella (modern Viranşehir), and Resaina (modern Ras al-Ayn).

5. Importance of These Cities:

Edessa (Urfa): A major religious and strategic city.
Harran: Vital for trade routes and theological learning.
Dara: A heavily fortified Roman stronghold.
Amida (Diyarbakır): A major military base.
Tella and Resaina: Important frontier cities guarding access into the heart of Syria and Mesopotamia.

Broader Implications

The Chronicle accurately captures the domino effect:
- From a crushing battlefield defeat (Yarmūk) → to the fall of frontier cities in Mesopotamia.
It also shows that Christian chroniclers in Upper Mesopotamia closely followed the names of major Muslim generals.
ʿUmar is portrayed as the figure under whose leadership the entire transformation of the region occurred — a view shared even in Islamic sources.

Thus, the Chronicle of 819 records with notable accuracy the Muslim conquest of Syria and Mesopotamia within a few years after the Prophet’s death, blending battlefield memories with administrative transitions.

6. The Conquest of Caesarea of Cappadocia

Latin Text

Et anno 954, expugnata est Caesarea Cappadociae; et fuit…

English Translation

“And in the year 954 [AG], Caesarea of Cappadocia was captured; and it was…”
(The sentence is unfortunately broken in the manuscript, leaving the narrative incomplete.)

Chronological Placement

954 AG = October 642 – October 643 CE, corresponding to 22 AH in the Islamic calendar.

This falls within the final years of Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s reign (r. 634–644 CE), during a phase of explosive military expansion beyond the Levantine front.

Historical Context: Why Caesarea Matters

Caesarea of Cappadocia (modern Kayseri, Turkey) was:

A major fortified Roman urban center in central Anatolia

A crucial Roman administrative and military node deep within Asia Minor

A strategic target whose sacking would symbolize the vulnerability of imperial heartlands

This event signals the shift from defensive warfare to offensive raids (ṣawāʾif) by the Muslim armies, reaching far beyond the Euphrates and Taurus mountains.

⚔ What Likely Happened

The Chronicle tersely notes that Caesarea was “expugnata” — captured, though not necessarily held.

In Islamic sources, al-Ṭabarī records for the year 22 AH that:

“Al-Wāqidī claimed that Muʿāwiyah launched a summer campaign this year and penetrated into Roman territory at the head of 10,000 Muslims.”

While al-Wāqidī’s reliability is debated, this report corroborates the Syriac Chronicle’s timing. The scale (10,000 men) implies an aggressive penetration into Cappadocia, and Caesarea would have been a prime target.

Other early commanders like ʿIyād ibn Ghanm and Ḥabīb ibn Maslama also led raids in this period, further indicating multi-front offensives across eastern Anatolia.

These were shock raids, not conquests — aimed at destabilization, not administration.

The Fragment: What Was Lost?

The Chronicle’s break at “et fuit…” deprives us of critical narrative:

Did the city suffer devastation, or was tribute imposed?

Were there captives taken, as elsewhere in Anatolian raids?

Did the chronicler describe divine punishment, Roman resistance, or Christian lament?

Though lost, such details may have echoed other Chronicle entries: the forced migration of locals, the burning of fortresses, or lamentations over fallen churches.

Strategic and Symbolic Significance

This is one of the earliest non-Muslim attestations of Muslim incursions deep into Asia Minor — within a single generation of the Prophet Muḥammad’s death.

Its importance lies in what it tells us about both:

The military boldness of early Islamic expansion, which did not stop at Syria or Armenia

The perspective of Miaphysite Christian chroniclers, who viewed these events not only as political disasters but also signs of divine trial, imperial weakness, and ecclesial vulnerability

That a monk in northern Mesopotamia was tracking events in central Anatolia shows just how quickly the map of the known world was changing — and how deeply these changes cut into Christian consciousness.

Final Note

Even in its fragmented form, this entry speaks volumes:

Caesarea, once a proud city of imperial Rome, had now tasted the fire of the Arab sword.

Its fate foreshadowed the end of Roman dominance east of the Taurus Mountains.

For the chronicler, this was not merely a military report — it was a harbinger of apocalypse, a marker of the age when frontiers cracked and old certainties died.

7. ʿUmar’s Death and the Accession of ʿUthmān (AH 23 / 644 CE)

Latin Text:

"Et anno 955, occisus est ‘Omar rex a servo Indo viri Coraishitae, dum orat in masgida. Et regnavit post eum ‘Othman, filius Affán, undecim annos cum dimidio."

English Translation:

"And in the year 955 [of the Seleucid era], ʿUmar the king was killed by an Indian slave belonging to a man of Quraysh, while he was praying in the mosque. And after him reigned ʿUthmān, son of ʿAffān, for eleven and a half years."

Detailed Commentary:

Year 955 of the Seleucid Era = 643–644 CE.
This matches exactly the historical date: ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb was assassinated in 644 CE, albeit in November of 956 AG, a month into the new year.

The Assassination of ʿUmar:
The chronicle accurately records that ʿUmar was killed while praying in the masjid (mosque), by a slave of non-Arab origin — here described as an Indian (Servo Indo).

Islamic sources, such as al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Saʿd, report that ʿUmar was assassinated by Abū Luʾluʾah al-Majūsī, a Persian slave of the Qurayshi governor al-Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah.

Some Syriac and non-Muslim sources, however, confusingly call Abū Luʾluʾah an "Indian" — this confusion was common at the time when "Sindhi," "Hindu," and "Persian" identities overlapped in the broader designation of the East.

Transition to ʿUthmān:

The Chronicle immediately notes the succession of ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, recording his reign as eleven and a half years — a figure that matches exactly Islamic tradition (644–656 CE).

Historical Precision:

The description of ʿUmar’s assassination during prayer in the mosque is a crucial and authentic detail found consistently in Muslim historiography.

The transition to ʿUthmān is smooth, reflecting the early Islamic political stability between the first generations of the Rashidun Caliphs.

Why This Matters:

This entry highlights several important realities:

Syriac Christian chroniclers had direct knowledge of the key events inside the Muslim world, even sensitive incidents like the assassination of the caliph inside the mosque.

The alignment between the Chronicle of 819 and Islamic sources on dates, names, circumstances, and reign durations shows that cross-religious historical memory was already highly synchronized in the 7th–9th centuries CE.

The Qurayshite connection is emphasized, fitting with the non-Muslim view that the Arabs' new rulers came from an identifiable tribal aristocracy rather than a purely religious movement.

Thus, far from random rumors, the Chronicle of 819 carefully preserved structured, accurate, and respectful records of early Islamic leadership — a powerful testimony to early Syriac historiography.

8. The Death of ʿUthmān and the Great Arab Dissension (c. AH 35–40 / 656–661 CE)

Latin Text:

Et anno 967, occisus est ʿOthmān; et manserunt Arabes sine rege tres annos et octo menses. Erat autem dux Arabum in Occidente Moʾawya filius Abū Sufyān, et dux eorum in Oriente erat ʿAlī filius Abū Thālib.

English Translation:

"And in the year 967 [of the Seleucid era], ʿUthmān was killed; and the Arabs remained without a king for three years and eight months. However, the leader of the Arabs in the West was Muʿāwiya, son of Abū Sufyān, and their leader in the East was ʿAlī, son of Abū Ṭālib."

Detailed Commentary:

Year 967 of the Seleucid Era = 655–656 CE.
This matches the assassination of ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān in June 656 CE (AH 35).
The Death of ʿUthmān:

ʿUthmān was assassinated during a siege of his house in Medina, led by dissidents from Egypt, Iraq, and elsewhere.

His death triggered the First Fitna (First Islamic Civil War).

No King for Three Years and Eight Months:

The Chronicle records a power vacuum lasting three years and eight months — a very perceptive remark.

In Islamic tradition, although ʿAlī became caliph immediately after ʿUthmān’s death, his authority was heavily contested, especially by the Umayyads under Muʿāwiya.

Muʿāwiya vs. ʿAlī — East and West Divided:

Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān, governor of Syria (centered in Damascus), refused to recognize ʿAlī’s caliphate, demanding retribution for ʿUthmān’s murder.

ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, was based in Iraq (first Kufa), leading the "eastern" faction.

Thus, the Chronicle elegantly divides the Arab world into:

The West (Occidente): Muʿāwiya ruling Syria and its western provinces.

The East (Oriente): ʿAlī ruling Iraq and the eastern Arab domains.

Background — The First Fitna:

The period saw the famous Battle of Ṣiffīn (657 CE) between Muʿāwiya and ʿAlī.

It ultimately fractured the unity of the early Muslim community, leading to the birth of sectarian divisions: Sunni, Shīʿa, and Khārijites.

Why This Matters:

The Chronicle of 819 shows a clear and politically astute understanding of early Islamic history.

Rather than merely listing caliphs, it recognizes the power struggle and the division of authority — a profound historical insight.

The idea that the Arabs were "without a king" reflects the instability and contested legitimacy of ʿAlī’s rule in many provinces, even though Muslims officially consider ʿAlī the fourth Rāshidūn caliph.

It also shows that Christian chroniclers perceived civil war and political fragmentation among the Arabs, rather than a monolithic Islamic state.

Thus, this passage brilliantly captures the deep cracks that appeared in the early caliphate after ʿUthmān’s death — the first signs of Islam’s internal political struggles, visible even to outside observers.

9. The Death of ʿAlī and the Sole Rule of Muʿāwiya (c. AH 40 / 661 CE)

Latin Text:

Et anno 971, occisus est ʿAlī; et regnavit Moʿawya annos viginti. Hic composuit pacem cum Romanis. Et misit in ditione Romanorum Abderrahman ducem exercitus, qui fuit ibi per duos annos.

English Translation:

"And in the year 971 [of the Seleucid era], ʿAlī was killed; and Muʿāwiya reigned for twenty years. He established peace with the Romans. And he sent Abderrahman, a general of the army, into the Roman territory, where he remained for two years."

Detailed Commentary:

Year 971 of the Seleucid Era = 659–660 CE.

This matches closely with the assassination of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib in January 661 CE (AH 40), albeit a few months off.

After ʿAlī’s death, Muʿāwiya established the Umayyad dynasty centered in Damascus, becoming sole caliph.

Muʿāwiya’s Reign of Twenty Years:

Muʿāwiya ruled from 661 to 680 CE — about nineteen to twenty years, aligning perfectly with the Chronicle's record.

Peace with the Romans (composuit pacem cum Romanis):

In early Umayyad policy, Muʿāwiya indeed negotiated truces with the Roman Empire.

A famous treaty in the early 660s agreed on an annual tribute paid by Rome to Muʿāwiya in exchange for relative peace on the frontier.

Abderrahman sent into Roman Territory:

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn al-Walīd (d. ~666 CE) was one of Muʿāwiya’s most celebrated generals.

He was the son of the famous Muslim commander Khālid ibn al-Walīd.

He fought extensively against the Romans along the Syrian frontiers & beyond.

Contemporary Muslim sources (e.g., Ibn ʿAsākir) mention that he led campaigns into Roman territory during Muʿāwiya’s governorship and early caliphate.

Thus:

Chronicle of 819's "Abderrahman" — a general sent across Roman territory for two years — perfectly matches ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid’s profile.

Around 664–665 CE, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān led a prolonged raid (ṣāʾif) into Roman lands, reaching as far as Pergamum & Smyrna.

Tragically, he was later poisoned after returning to Emesa in 666, likely to have been instigated by Rome.

Why This Matters:

This tiny note in the Chronicle confirms deep Syrian Christian awareness of Muslim military movements during the critical early Umayyad period.

It recognizes ʿAbd al-Raḥmān not just as a generic warrior, but as an important general operating inside Roman territory, an extraordinary detail for a Syriac Christian chronicle.

It also reflects the intense cross-frontier raiding culture that characterized early Islamic-Roman relations even during periods of formal "peace."

9. The Death of Muʿāwiya I and the Brief Reign of Yazīd I

Latin Text:

Et anno 991, mortuus est Mo'awyae, et post eum regnavit Yezid, filius eius, annos tres et menses quinque.

English Translation:

"And in the year 991 [of the Seleucid Era], Muʿāwiya died, and after him, his son Yazīd reigned for three years and five months."

Detailed Commentary:

Year 991 of the Seleucid Era = 679–680 CE.
Muʿāwiya I's Death:

Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān, founder of the Umayyad dynasty, died in April 680 CE (RAJAB 60 AH), slightly overlapping with the Seleucid reckoning.

The Chronicle accurately records his death and succession in this timeframe.

The Succession of Yazīd I:

Yazīd I ibn Muʿāwiya ruled from 680 to 683 CE.

His reign lasted approximately three years and a few months, which fits very well with the Chronicle’s “three years and five months.”

Historical Context:

Yazīd’s rule is one of the most controversial in Islamic history.

His accession marked the first dynastic inheritance of the caliphate — previously, caliphs had been elected or selected.

His reign saw catastrophic events:

The Battle of Karbalāʾ (680 CE), where Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, the Prophet’s grandson, was killed.

Revolts in Medina (Battle of al-Ḥarra) and the siege of Mecca.

Why This Entry Matters:

Despite being a Christian monastic chronicle, the Chronicle of 819 accurately tracks not just rulers but even the lengths of reigns among early Muslim caliphs.

The Chronicle’s precision in recording Yazīd’s reign reflects the high level of knowledge Christian writers had about Islamic political history even in relatively remote monastic settings like Qarṭmin.

A Deeper Implication:

By treating Yazīd’s rule matter-of-factly, the Chronicle does not directly mirror Muslim polemics about his reign (e.g., Shīʿī denunciations), showing that Christian sources often recorded Islamic events neutrally, focusing on chronology rather than moral judgment.

10. The Death of Yazīd I and the Brief Reign of Marwān I

Latin Text:

Et anno 994, mortuus est Mar Severus bar Mashka, patriarcha. Et eodem anno mortuus est Yezid filius Mo'awyae, et regnavit Marwan filius Hakam, annum unum cum dimidio.

English Translation:

"And in the year 994 [of the Seleucid Era], Mar Severus bar Mashka, the patriarch, died. And in the same year, Yazīd, the son of Muʿāwiya, died, and Marwān, the son of al-Ḥakam, reigned for one and a half years."

Detailed Commentary:

Year 994 of the Seleucid Era = 682–683 CE.

The Death of Yazīd I:

Yazīd I died in November 683 CE at the age of about 36.
His death triggered major instability in the Umayyad Caliphate, leading to the Second Fitna (Second Islamic Civil War).

The Rise of Marwān I:

Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam (Marwān I) was a senior Umayyad figure who stepped in to stabilize the dynasty.
He was elected caliph at the Conference of Jābiya in 684 CE to replace the faltering leadership after Yazīd's death and the short-lived reign of Yazīd's son, Muʿāwiya II (who is not mentioned here).
Marwān’s reign is historically recorded as lasting about one year and a half (684–685 CE), matching the Chronicle's "annum unum cum dimidio" exactly.

Mar Severus bar Mashka:

The Chronicle also notes the death of Mar Severus bar Mashka, a Syriac Orthodox patriarch, highlighting how closely ecclesiastical and political events are intertwined in this period.
The Chronicle keeps a balanced attention between church affairs and Muslim political shifts, demonstrating how Christian communities living under Muslim rule monitored both spheres carefully.

Omission of Muʿāwiya II:

The Chronicle omits Muʿāwiya II, who ruled for only a few months after Yazīd's death and before Marwān's election.
This matches a broader trend in Syriac chronicles where very short or unstable reigns are skipped over, especially if the ruler made no notable impact on Christian communities.

11. The Death of Marwān I and the Long Reign of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān

Latin Text:

Et anno 996, mortuus est Marwan; et regnavit ‘Abd al Malik, filius eius, post eum, annos viginti et unum.
Is composuit eum Romanis pacem trium annorum, eisque solvebat tributum in singulos dies mille denarios et equum arabicum.

English Translation:

"And in the year 996 [of the Seleucid Era], Marwān died; and after him reigned ʿAbd al-Malik, his son, for twenty-one years.
He established a three-year peace treaty with the Romans, to whom he paid daily a tribute of one thousand denarii and one Arabian horse."

Detailed Commentary:

Year 996 of the Seleucid Era = 684–685 CE.

Death of Marwān I:

Marwān I died in 685 CE, following a short but crucial reign where he restored Umayyad power after the chaos of the Second Fitna.
His death paved the way for the accession of his son, ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān, one of the most important Umayyad caliphs.

Accession of ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 685–705 CE):

ʿAbd al-Malik reigned for around 20 years & 7 months, hence rounded up to twenty-one years, matching the Chronicle’s figure exactly.
His reign saw the consolidation of the Umayyad Caliphate, major administrative reforms, and military campaigns to suppress internal revolts.

Peace Treaty with the Romans :

According to the Chronicle, ʿAbd al-Malik negotiated a three-year peace treaty (pacem trium annorum) with the Romans.
The treaty included a daily tribute of one thousand denarii and one Arabian horse.

Historical Confirmation:

Islamic and Roman sources confirm that early in his reign (around 689 CE), ʿAbd al-Malik negotiated a treaty with the Emperor Justinian II.
Under the agreement, the Caliphate paid tribute to Rome — a humiliating but temporary concession while ʿAbd al-Malik dealt with internal threats like ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr.
The Chronicle captures the nature of the treaty: financial payments ("mille denarios") and symbolic gestures of submission (the Arabian horse, representing Arab prestige).

Meaning of the Tribute:

The tribute of "one thousand denarii daily" roughly aligns with other early medieval accounts, though the exact figures varied across sources.
The inclusion of a prized Arabian horse alongside the monetary tribute highlights the cultural and symbolic significance of Arab equestrian pride — a meaningful act for both parties.

12. The Roman Defeat in the Valley of Antioch

Latin Text:

Et anno 1006°, exierunt exereitus Romanorum in [vallem] Antiochiae, et eis occurrit [Dinar filius Dinar] eosque destruxit; pauci [eorum effugerunt], et reversi sunt in ditionem Romanorum cum dedecore [fama].

English Translation:

"And in the year 1006 [of the Seleucid Era], the Roman armies went out into the [valley] of Antioch, and Dīnār, son of Dīnār confronted them and destroyed them; few [of them escaped], and they returned into Roman territory with disgrace [and shame]."

Detailed Commentary:

Year 1006 SE = 694–695 CE.
This event takes place during the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān and the Emperor Justinian II.

Who Was Dīnār ibn Dīnār?

The Chronicle of 819 mentions a figure named Dīnār ibn Dīnār, who defeats a Roman army in the valley of Antioch around 1006 AG / 694 CE.

Thanks to Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ (Tārīkh Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ), we know that Dīnār ibn Dīnār is an attested Umayyad military figure.
In August–September 694 CE (Jumādā I, 75 AH = 1006 AG), the Romans launched an incursion into the region of al-Aʿmāq (the valleys of Antioch).
Dīnār ibn Dīnār, alongside Abān ibn al-Walīd ibn ʿUqba, confronted the Roman forces and routed them decisively.

Thus:

The Syriac Chronicle correctly preserves the name Dīnār ibn Dīnār.
It accurately records his role as a Muslim general defeating the Romans near Antioch.
This is a rare but valuable corroboration between Syriac Christian and early Muslim sources.

Strategic Context:

al-Aʿmāq was a strategic region of valleys around Antioch, a constant battleground between Umayyad armies and Roman raiders.

The defeat of the Roman forces in 694 CE helped secure the Umayyad northern frontier during the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān.

It reflects the escalating frontier wars that characterized late 7th-century Arab–Roman relations, with frequent raids, counter-raids, and city captures.

The Chronicle of 819 captures this important victory over the Romans at al-Aʿmāq in 694 CE — a vivid example of Syriac chronicles preserving authentic details of Islamic military history.

The Battle:

The Romans launched a military expedition into Arab-controlled Antiochene territory.

They were met and routed by Arab forces under Dīnār ibn Dīnār.

Only a few escaped, and the survivors returned in disgrace, marked by what the Chronicle calls dedecore fama — “a reputation of dishonor.”

This defeat would align with the string of failed Roman offensives in the 690s, many of which were blunted by fast-moving Arab counterattacks.

Historical Implications:

This short but vivid entry reflects a Miaphysite Christian chronicler's perspective, recording Arab military victories not as miraculous triumphs but as sober facts of regional history.

The defeat of a Roman incursion is not glorified but documented, showing how deeply embedded Arab control over northern Syria had become by the late 7th century.

The mention of the valley of Antioch also underscores the strategic vulnerability of the Roman frontier in this period.

13. The Year 1008 SE — The New Arab Coinage

Latin Text:

Et anno 1008, euderunt Arabes züzë et denarios quibus non 'imagines' sed litterae impressae erant.

English Translation:

"And in the year 1008 [of the Seleucid Era], the Arabs minted züzë (small silver coins) and denarii (larger coins) upon which there were no 'images' but inscriptions [letters] impressed."

Detailed Commentary:

Year 1008 SE = 696–697 CE.
This date fits perfectly with one of the most important reforms of early Islamic history:
the coinage reform of Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān (r. 685–705 CE).

What Happened?

Around 696–697 CE:

ʿAbd al-Malik ordered a complete reform of Islamic coinage.

New coins were issued:

Silver dirhams (züzë here refers to the Syriac/Greek plural for silver coins).

Gold dinars (denarii reflecting the older Roman terminology).

These new coins were distinct:

They abolished human or animal images, common on earlier Roman and Sasanian coins.

Instead, they bore only inscriptions — often Qur'anic verses and declarations of monotheism (e.g., lā ilāha illā Allāh — "There is no god but God").

The coins also included the name of Muḥammad ﷺ as the Messenger of God.

The Chronicle’s Details:

The chronicler carefully notes two revolutionary changes:

No images: Earlier Roman coins showed emperors, crosses, and sometimes religious icons.

Only letters: Arabic script (and sometimes Kufic inscriptions) replaced imagery, marking a fundamental ideological shift: Islam rejected visual representations on sacred and state media.

Thus, the Chronicle preserves an outsider’s perspective on one of the most critical Islamic reforms:

Coinage became a symbol of Islamic identity, distinct from Roman or Persian models.

It was a powerful act of sovereignty: a visible assertion of Arab-Muslim rule across the former Roman and Persian lands.

Historical Context:

Before ʿAbd al-Malik’s reform, Umayyad administrators often recycled Roman and Sasanian coins with minor modifications.

From 696–697 onward, Islamic coinage became fully independent, serving both economic and ideological functions.

These new coins helped unify the empire under a single, distinctly Islamic image — critical in a period when the Umayyads were solidifying their control.

14. The Year 1015 SE — The Rebuilding of Mopsuestia

Latin Text:

Et anno 1015, profectus est 'Abdallah, filius 'Abd al-Malik, cum magno exercitu; secum duxit operarios et reaedificavit Mopsuestiam in regione Ciliciae.

English Translation:

"And in the year 1015 [of the Seleucid Era], ʿAbd Allāh, son of ʿAbd al-Malik, set out with a great army; he brought with him workers and rebuilt Mopsuestia in the region of Cilicia."

Detailed Commentary:

Year 1015 SE = 703–704 CE.

ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Malik was a prominent Umayyad prince, a son of Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān (r. 685–705 CE).
He was a highly trusted general, often tasked with military operations in the Roman frontier regions.

What was Mopsuestia?

Mopsuestia (Greek: Μοψουεστία, Arabic: al-Maṣṣīṣah) was an important strategic city:

Located in Cilicia, in southern Anatolia (modern-day southeastern Turkey).

Situated on the crucial Pyramus River, near the Taurus Mountains.

It served as a key military base for Muslim frontier raids (ṣawāʾif) against the Roman Empire.

The city had been heavily damaged during previous wars, requiring major reconstruction.

The Mission of ʿAbd Allāh:

In 703–704 CE, ʿAbd Allāh was ordered to rebuild and fortify Mopsuestia:

Fortifications were restored.

Military garrisons were installed.

Civilians and craftsmen were resettled to ensure the city’s long-term viability as a stronghold against Roman counterattacks.

This action was part of a larger Umayyad strategy of stabilizing and militarizing the Syrian and Cilician frontiers during the ongoing Arab–Roman wars.

Strategic Importance:

Mopsuestia became a linchpin of Muslim power in Cilicia for centuries.

It served as a launchpad for raids (ṣawāʾif) into Roman territory.

The rebuilding of frontier cities like Mopsuestia marked a shift toward permanent Muslim settlement beyond the traditional Arab heartlands.

Chronicle’s Insight:

The Chronicle of 819 accurately notes:

ʿAbd Allāh’s leadership.

The combination of military and civil reconstruction.

The importance of Cilicia as a frontline zone between Islam and Rome.

Even as a Christian monastic chronicle, it recognizes the deliberate efforts by the Umayyads to entrench their rule in former Roman territories.

15. An Edict to Slaughter All Pigs

Latin Text

Et eodem anno, exiit edictum et omnes porci necati sunt.

English Translation

And in the same year, an edict was issued, and all pigs were slaughtered.

Commentary

This extraordinary entry, recorded in the Chronicle of 819 (Qarṭmin), is also attested in other Syriac sources, including the Chronicle of 846 and Michael the Syrian. It refers to a dramatic order — issued in AG 1015 / 704 CE, during the reign of Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān — commanding the destruction of all pigs within the Umayyad Caliphate.

This is one of the earliest references to the Islamization of public life through the imposition of religious norms even on non-Muslim subjects (dhimmīs), and it illustrates the intensifying identity of the Islamic state under ʿAbd al-Malik’s rule.

Contextual Meaning of the Pig Edict

Factor Explanation
Islamic Law Pork is ḥarām (forbidden) in Islam. While Muslims already abstained, this edict imposed Islamic dietary norms on Christians and Jews, who traditionally raised pigs.
Anti-Christian Symbolism Pig-rearing was a common economic and cultural practice in Syriac Christian regions. This edict functioned as a symbolic suppression of Christian visibility and distinctiveness — much like bans on crosses.
Paired Measures Michael the Syrian directly connects this edict with an order to remove crosses, emphasizing a wave of religious homogenization and pressure.
No Medical Cause There is no recorded outbreak of disease among livestock, suggesting this act was ideological rather than sanitary.
Political Messaging By enforcing such measures, the caliph underscored his role as protector of Islamic morality and dominant authority over all religious communities in the empire.

Factor	Explanation
Islamic Law	Pork is ḥarām (forbidden) in Islam. While Muslims already abstained, this edict imposed Islamic dietary norms on Christians and Jews, who traditionally raised pigs.
Anti-Christian Symbolism	Pig-rearing was a common economic and cultural practice in Syriac Christian regions. This edict functioned as a symbolic suppression of Christian visibility and distinctiveness — much like bans on crosses.
Paired Measures	Michael the Syrian directly connects this edict with an order to remove crosses, emphasizing a wave of religious homogenization and pressure.
No Medical Cause	There is no recorded outbreak of disease among livestock, suggesting this act was ideological rather than sanitary.
Political Messaging	By enforcing such measures, the caliph underscored his role as protector of Islamic morality and dominant authority over all religious communities in the empire.

Comparative Source Table

Source Year Referenced Description
Chronicle of 819 AG 1015 (704 CE) Et eodem anno, exiit edictum et omnes porci necati sunt.
Chronicle of 846 AG 1015 Same text: confirms the edict was remembered across chroniclers.
Michael the Syrian Early 8th century “[ʿAbd al-Malik] ordered that crosses be removed and pigs be annihilated.” Clearly ties it to a broader anti-Christian reform program.

Source	Year Referenced	Description
Chronicle of 819	AG 1015 (704 CE)	Et eodem anno, exiit edictum et omnes porci necati sunt.
Chronicle of 846	AG 1015	Same text: confirms the edict was remembered across chroniclers.
Michael the Syrian	Early 8th century	“[ʿAbd al-Malik] ordered that crosses be removed and pigs be annihilated.” Clearly ties it to a broader anti-Christian reform program.

Broader Implications

This event was not merely dietary regulation — it was part of ʿAbd al-Malik’s broader Islamization policies, alongside:

Arabicizing the bureaucracy

Reforming coinage

Building the Dome of the Rock (691/692)

Suppressing public Christian symbols

These actions signal an intentional shift from a multicultural empire to one with a centralized Islamic identity.

This “pig edict” is remembered in Syriac historiography not for its economic effect — but as a powerful symbol of Islamic imperial assertion over a formerly Christian-ruled region.

16. The Death of ʿAbd al-Malik and the Reign of al-Walīd I

Latin Text

Et anno 1016° mortuus est ‘Abd al-Malik, et regnavit Walid, filius eius, post eum, annos novem; vir astutus qui multiplieavit exactiones et angustias plus quam omnes eius decessores. Penitus delevit cunctos praedones et latrones. Condidit urbem eamque vocavit 'Ain Gérà. Et eodem anno, mersus est in Euphrate Sabib Harurita, eques famosus et heros strenuus.

English Translation

And in the year 1016 of Alexander (704–705 CE), ʿAbd al-Malik died, and after him reigned al-Walīd, his son, for nine years — a clever man who increased taxes and oppression more than all his predecessors. He completely eradicated all bandits and robbers. He founded a city and named it ʿAyn Jērā ['Anjar]. And in the same year, Sabib the Ḥarūrite, a famous horseman and valiant hero, was drowned in the Euphrates.

Commentary

This passage marks a critical transition in the Umayyad caliphate: the death of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān (r. 685–705 CE) and the accession of his son al-Walīd I (r. 705–715 CE). The chronicler offers a stark evaluation of al-Walīd’s rule — one both effective and harsh.

Key Elements Analyzed:

Element	Analysis
"Mortuus est ʿAbd al-Malik"	Confirms the death of ʿAbd al-Malik in 705 CE (AG 1016), aligning with both Islamic and external chronologies.
"Regnavit Walid... annos novem"	The reign of al-Walīd I is listed as nine years, slightly shortened (actual reign: 705–715 = 10 years), likely due to inclusive counting or rounding.
"Vir astutus... angustias"	The Syriac chronicler describes al-Walīd as shrewd but notoriously oppressive, highlighting the increased taxation and burden on subject populations, especially non-Muslims (dhimmīs). This reflects regional resentment despite administrative expansion.
"Delevit cunctos praedones"	Al-Walīd is praised for eliminating banditry, likely referring to pacification campaigns across Iraq and the Jazīrah. His governance was strict but brought order.
"Condidit urbem... 'Ain Gérà"	This city-founding notice likely refers to Majdal ʿAnjar, a town in the Beqaa Valley identified by Sebastian Brock. Al-Walīd I established it as a military & administrative outpost, and the name “ʿAyn Jērā” preserves a Syriacized form of the toponym.
"Sabib Harurita" drowned in Euphrates	This Ḥarūrite (Kharijite) fighter, called “Sabib,” is remembered as a heroic figure who perished in 705 CE. His name may be a corrupted version of Shabīb ibn Yazīd al-Shaybānī, the famous Kharijite rebel who resisted Umayyad rule and died by drowning in the Tigris or Euphrates — a fact supported by Arabic sources (see below).

Historical Anchor: Sabib the Harurite = Shabīb ibn Yazīd

Shabīb ibn Yazīd al-Shaybānī was a Kharijite rebel who led major uprisings during ʿAbd al-Malik’s reign. According to Islamic sources (e.g., al-Ṭabarī), he drowned in the Tigris in 697 CE, but later chroniclers (such as this one) may have shifted the location or date.

The Chronicle’s version may reinterpret or reassign the legendary rebel’s death to 705 CE, fitting it into a symbolic moment — the end of ʿAbd al-Malik’s reign and the total suppression of his adversaries.

Broader Implications

This passage highlights the Syriac Christian view of early Umayyad authority:

ʿAbd al-Malik was respected, but al-Walīd is portrayed as more oppressive, despite imposing law and order.
The chronicler links the founding of cities with state control and taxation.
The Kharijites, despite being theological enemies of both Sunnis and Christians, are romanticized here as brave, tragic heroes, reflecting Syriac admiration for those who challenged Umayyad dominance.

17. Maslama ibn ʿAbd al-Malik’s Campaign into Roman Territory

Latin Text

Et anno 1021, destitutus est Mohammed filius Marwani, praefectus Mesopotamiae, et eius in locum venit Maslama, filius ʿAbd al-Malik; et congregatis copiis ingressus est in terram Romanorum. Obsedit castrum Tarandum, et MWSY, et MWSTY civitates: eas vastaverunt et captivos abduxerunt omnes in eis inventos.

English Translation

And in the year 1021 of Alexander (709–710 CE), Muḥammad, son of Marwān, governor of Mesopotamia, was deposed, and in his place came Maslama, son of ʿAbd al-Malik. Gathering forces, he entered Roman territory. He besieged the fortress of Tarandos [Taranton], and the cities of MWSY and MWSTY: he devastated them and took captive all he found therein.

Commentary

This entry documents a significant Umayyad military incursion into Anatolia, led by Maslama ibn ʿAbd al-Malik. The campaign targeted several locations, including a fortress and two cities. The names of these cities are transcribed in Syriac script, which can obscure their identification. However, we can propose plausible identifications by analyzing the phonetic renderings and historical geography.

MWSTY (ܡܘܣܬܝ): Mostene of Lydia

Sebastian Brock plausibly identifies MWSTY with the ancient city of Mostene (Μοστήνη) in the region of Lydia, western Asia Minor. The Syriac form:

ܡܘܣܬܝ (MWSTY) = Mōstēnē

Mostene was a known Roman settlement located near modern-day Turkey’s Uşak Province. Though largely forgotten by the early 8th century, it may have remained a fortified post or a ruin of symbolic importance during Umayyad frontier raids. Its inclusion in the Chronicle of 819 reflects the wide sweep of Maslama’s campaign into Anatolia and the chronicler’s use of Hellenized Syriac to record Greek place names.

MWSY (ܡܘܣܝ): Mosyna of Phrygia

The second location, MWSY, is likely a Syriac rendering of Mosyna (possibly Μοσύννα or Μοσύνη), a lesser-known site in Phrygia. The Syriac form is:

ܡܘܣܝ (MWSY) = Mosyē / Mosyna

Although the exact location of Mosyna is debated, it appears in classical sources as a town or region in inland Anatolia. This identification fits the general geography of Phrygia, situated east of Lydia and well within reach of Maslama’s incursion. As with Mostene, the chronicler uses a phonetic Syriac transliteration of a Greek toponym, preserving a local memory of cities otherwise obscure in the Arabic sources.

The chronicler's account emphasizes the success of Maslama's campaign, highlighting the sieges and the taking of captives. Such actions were typical of the period's warfare, aiming to disrupt enemy settlements and assert dominance.

18. The Neck-Sealing Campaign of Maslama

Latin Text

Et anno 1022 AG, misit Maslama amiras in universam Mesopotamiam: mensuraverunt agros et numeraverunt vineas et plantas, homines et iumenta, et suspenderunt numismata plumbea collo uniuseuiusque.

English Translation

And in the year 1022 of the Seleucid Era (710/711 CE), Maslama sent commanders throughout all Mesopotamia: they measured the fields and counted the vineyards and trees, people and animals, and they hung leaden tokens from the neck of each individual.

Historical Commentary

This brief but powerful entry in the Chronicle of 819 documents a moment of bureaucratic intensification and symbolic domination during the early 8th-century Umayyad administration under Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik, one of the most prominent military leaders and brother of the caliph al-Walīd I. The passage describes a full-scale fiscal and demographic survey of Mesopotamia (al-Jazīra), with significant implications.

Administrative Action: A Census and Land Survey

The enumeration of lands, vineyards, trees, humans, and animals reflects a major campaign to register taxable assets—likely part of broader agrarian and jizya reforms attributed to the Marwānid administration. These reforms aimed to rationalize the fiscal base by moving from tribute-like exactions to a regularized, state-administered tax system. This mirrors parallel measures under al-Ḥajjāj in Iraq and elsewhere in the caliphate.

The mention of vines and planted trees signals a transition to more granular taxation, where non-cereal land was no longer marginal, and perennials like date palms and vineyards (important for Christians) were taxed individually.

The Leaden Tokens: Surveillance, Taxation, and the Body

Perhaps the most visually arresting element in this entry is the phrase plumbea numismata collo uniuseuiusque suspenderunt — “they suspended leaden tokens from each person’s neck.” This refers to a practice now known in scholarly literature as “neck-sealing,” a term studied in depth by Chase F. Robinson in his article Neck-Sealing in Early Islam.

These leaden tags or seals were not simply administrative receipts or badges of clearance. They represented a complex blend of fiscal record-keeping, physical control, and symbolic subjugation, particularly targeting non-Muslim dhimmīs living under Islamic rule in the early 8th century.

What Were These Tokens?

The seals, often made of lead, would typically be inscribed with details such as:

The name of the person taxed.

The date or regnal year of payment.

The district or amir responsible for tax collection.

Hung around the necks of adult males, these tags made the human body itself into a record-bearing medium. They likely functioned as visible proof of tax compliance, but also made individuals publicly legible to state officials—an act of bureaucratic exposure unprecedented in earlier Near Eastern tax regimes.

The Syriac Witness and the Language of Dehumanization

The Chronicler of Zuqnin, writing in Syriac from a Christian monastic milieu, portrays this practice as degrading and alien. He compares those wearing the tags to slaves, stressing the humiliation imposed on Christian communities who were suddenly made identifiable not by faith or culture, but by fiscal identity.

This comparison was not rhetorical flourish: in Late Antiquity, slaves and criminals were often marked or collared. In this sense, the Syriac reaction reflects a moral and social revulsion toward what was seen as the objectification of free people through state tagging.

Bureaucracy and the Politics of Visibility

Chase Robinson’s analysis emphasizes that neck-sealing did not emerge from earlier Sasanian or Roman fiscal practice. Rather, it appears to borrow from punitive and carceral traditions, where identity and subjugation were made permanently visible on the body.

What the Umayyad state seems to have done is recast this penal logic into a fiscal form:

Taxation became embodied.

Visibility became power.

The individual became a mobile, marked ledger of compliance.

In this system, jizya—the poll tax required of adult male dhimmīs—was no longer a one-time payment but a recurring performance of submission. The neck tag made this submission portable, inspectable, and enforceable.

Final Thoughts: The State, the Seal, and the Subject

The Chronicle of 819 captures more than just an episode of fiscal registration—it captures a moment in which the state redefined visibility, authority, and identity. Through a seemingly simple piece of lead, the Umayyad regime made the taxpaying subject a marked figure, fixed within a system of surveillance and submission.

The “leaden token” thus becomes a lens into the broader dynamics of early Islamic governance: a world where the body became a billboard of loyalty, liability, and difference.

This neck-sealing campaign under Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik thus becomes a key lens through which to view the transformation of the post-conquest state—from plunder to paperwork, from victory to visibility, from conquest to control.

19. The Death of al-Walīd and the Accession of Sulaymān

Latin Text

Et anno 1026, mortuus est Walid rex, et regnavit Soleiman annos duos eum dimidio.

English Translation

And in the year 1026 of the Seleucid Era (714/715 CE), King Walid died, and Soleiman reigned for two and a half years.

Historical Commentary

This brief annal marks a major political transition in the Umayyad Caliphate—the death of al-Walīd I b. ʿAbd al-Malik and the accession of his brother Sulaymān. The Chronicle of 819 offers a succinct record, reflecting its monastic Syriac worldview, wherein the caliph is simply “rex” (king), and reigns are marked by duration rather than achievements.

Chronological Notes

The Seleucid year AG 1026 began on October 1, 714 CE, and ran through September 30, 715 CE. Islamic and Syriac sources both agree that:

Al-Walīd I died in late 714 CE, likely in November or December, during the Islamic month of Rabīʿ I or Rabīʿ II, 96 AH.
Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik succeeded him immediately, receiving the bayʿa (pledge of allegiance).

The Chronicle thus fits neatly with the broader historical timeline preserved in Arabic sources such as Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ, who records that:

“Al-Walīd died on a Saturday in mid-Rabīʿ I (some say Rabīʿ II) 96 AH / November or December 714 CE, at the age of 44, 49, or 51 (depending on the source). Sulaymān led the funeral prayer and received allegiance afterward.”

Al-Walīd I: The Caliph of Expansion

Al-Walīd I’s reign (705–715) was the high watermark of Umayyad imperial power. Under his rule:

The Umayyad Caliphate reached its greatest territorial extent, with military conquests in Spain, Transoxiana, and Sindh.
Architectural grandeur flourished—he commissioned the Umayyad Mosque of Damascus and oversaw continued works on Al-Aqṣā in Jerusalem.

However, this territorial expansion also intensified the demands on the state’s fiscal and administrative systems—seen earlier in the Chronicle's reference to land surveys and neck-sealing in al-Jazīra (AG 1022).

Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik: A Short but Pivotal Reign

The Chronicle reports that Sulaymān reigned “two and a half years”, aligning closely with the historical record:

His reign lasted from late 714 CE until his death in September 717 CE, placing him within AG 1026–1028.
Unlike his brother, Sulaymān is remembered less for expansion and more for his:
- Campaign against Constantinople (which failed)
- Attempts at dynastic reform by nominating his cousin ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz as his successor

These events set the stage for the caliphate’s first major turn toward internal moral reform and away from military conquest—a theme of growing importance in Christian and Muslim historiography alike.

The Chronicle of 819, in its terseness, reflects a Syriac Christian historiographical style: uninterested in Muslim theological disputes, but carefully attentive to rulers and reigns. Its dating by Seleucid years and its neutral tone all mark it as a witness from the non-Muslim margins of empire—recording seismic shifts in the Islamic world, even if from a watchful distance.

20. The Naval Raid into Asia Minor and the Sack of Sardis and Pergamon

Latin Text

Et anno 1027, congregavit Soleiman copias et operarios, et gressi sunt per mare, et castrametati sunt in Asia; et expugnaverunt civitates duas: Sardes et Pergamum, aliaque castra; multosque occiderunt et captivos abduxerunt; Syros etiam qui ibidem erant deduxerunt et dimiserunt in pace.

English Translation

And in the year 1027 of the Seleucid Era (715/716 CE), Sulaymān gathered troops and laborers, and they crossed the sea, and camped in Asia; and they captured two cities: Sardis and Pergamon, and other forts; and they killed many and took captives; and the Syrians who were there they brought out and released in peace.

Historical Commentary

This entry describes an ambitious naval and land-based military campaign launched under Caliph Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik, during AG 1027 / 97 AH / 715–716 CE. The Chronicle of 819 reports that the Muslim forces crossed the Aegean or Propontis, landed in Asia Minor, and stormed Sardis and Pergamon, two prominent cities of Roman and Hellenistic antiquity in the regions of Lydia and Mysia, respectively.

“Gressi sunt per mare”: A Maritime Expedition

The phrase “they crossed the sea” (gressi sunt per mare) implies a naval component, possibly from Cilicia, Syria, or Palestine, crossing into the western Anatolian coast. Such seaborne raids were relatively rare in the early Umayyad period, making this one particularly notable.

This campaign likely targeted the rich coastal and inland cities of Asia Minor, which were both symbolically prestigious and economically significant.
The inclusion of laborers (operarios) implies siege preparation or construction of forward bases—an indicator of logistical sophistication.

Targeted Cities: Sardis and Pergamon

Sardis (Sardeis): Former capital of Lydia, culturally and economically significant in Roman Asia. Though diminished by the 8th century, it retained strategic relevance.
Pergamon: Ancient capital of the Attalid Kingdom and home to one of the greatest libraries of the Hellenistic world.

The Chronicle adds that in addition to these, other forts (castra) were taken, many killed, and captives seized—standard features of Umayyad frontier warfare. The careful mention that Syrians (Syros) were released in peace suggests:

These were likely Christian dhimmīs or Aramaic-speaking settlers living under Roman control.
The chronicler, himself writing in Syriac, highlights this act of clemency toward co-religionists as morally significant.

Corroboration with Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ: Decoding Barjama and S-r-d-w-s-l

The campaign recorded in AG 1027 (715/716 CE) in the Chronicle of 819—where Sulaymān’s forces raided and captured Sardis and Pergamon—finds corroboration in Arabic sources, particularly Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ’s Tārīkh under the year 97 AH:

“Maslama b. ‘Abd al-Malik raided Barjama, and the fortress which al-Waddah had conquered – that is, Hisn Ibn ‘Awf. Maslama also conquered Hisn al-Hadid and S-r-d-w-s-l in the outskirts of the land of the Romans.”

Two key elements of his entry strongly suggest he is describing the same campaign noted in the Chronicle, albeit from an Arabic military-administrative angle.

Barjama = Pergamon?

The Arabic name Barjama (برجمة) may very plausibly be a phonetic Arabic rendering of the Greek “Pergamon” (Πέργαμον):

Arabic lacks the /p/ sound; it is typically rendered as bāʾ (ب).

The /g/ in Greek is often rendered with jīm (ج) in Arabic.

Final Greek endings like -on (common in place names) are usually dropped or simplified.

Thus: Pergamon → Barjam(a) is a highly plausible transformation.

S-r-d-w-s-l = Sardis?

The fortress listed as S-r-d-w-s-l (سردوسل) in Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ’s account is very likely a corrupted Arabic transcription of Sardis (Greek: Σάρδεις).

The consonantal root S-R-D-W-S closely mirrors the Greek Σ-Α-Ρ-Δ-Ε-Ι-Σ (S-A-R-D-E-I-S), with Arabic lacking vowels and frequently omitting or modifying final Greek suffixes. This renders S-r-d-w-s a credible phonetic match for Sardis.

However, the final “-l” (ل) in the Arabic S-r-d-w-s-l appears to be a later scribal corruption or the result of phonetic interference. It may stem from:

A mistaken attempt to represent a local suffix or ending.

A confusion in oral transmission or written transcription by non-Greek-speaking sources.

Taken together, S-r-d-w-s-l is best understood as Sardis (Σάρδεις)—preserved imperfectly in Arabic due to linguistic constraints and textual noise in transmission.

Shared Details: Chronicle vs. Tārīkh

Despite their distinct cultural lenses, both sources record:

Feature Chronicle of 819 Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ

Campaign Date AG 1027 / 715–716 CE AH 97 / 715–716 CE

Commander Sulaymān (implied), with army and fleet Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik

Campaign Zone Asia Minor: Lydia & Mysia Roman frontier

Cities Named Sardis and Pergamon Barjama (= Pergamon), S-r-d-w-s-l (= Sardis)

Fortresses also mentioned “aliaque castra” (other forts) Ḥiṣn Ibn ʿAwf, Ḥiṣn al-Ḥadīd

Outcome Killing, enslavement, sparing of Syrians Capture of fortresses

While Khalīfa emphasizes fortified sites and military achievements, the Chronicle reflects urban memory and Christian ethnographic detail (e.g., the release of Syrians in peace). Together, they represent complementary narratives of the same Umayyad offensive.

Feature	Chronicle of 819	Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ
Campaign Date	AG 1027 / 715–716 CE	AH 97 / 715–716 CE
Commander	Sulaymān (implied), with army and fleet	Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik
Campaign Zone	Asia Minor: Lydia & Mysia	Roman frontier
Cities Named	Sardis and Pergamon	Barjama (= Pergamon), S-r-d-w-s-l (= Sardis)
Fortresses also mentioned	“aliaque castra” (other forts)	Ḥiṣn Ibn ʿAwf, Ḥiṣn al-Ḥadīd
Outcome	Killing, enslavement, sparing of Syrians	Capture of fortresses

Linguistic and Historiographic Implications

These variations underscore how Arabic and Syriac sources handled foreign toponyms differently:

Arabic historians often rendered names phonetically, filtered through the constraints of Arabic phonology (e.g., no /p/, no /g/, limited vowels).

Syriac chroniclers, though also constrained, preserved Greek or Roman forms more faithfully, especially for familiar cities in Anatolia.

Such examples reveal not just cross-cultural communication but also cross-linguistic distortion—where Barjama and Pergamon, or S-r-d-w-s-l and Sardis, represent different paths through which memory travels across empires.

Comparative Table of Place Name Renderings

City (Modern/Greek) Greek Name Arabic Rendering Syriac Rendering Notes

Pergamon (modern Bergama) Πέργαμον (Pérgamon) برجمة (Barjama) ܦܪܓܡܘܢ (Pargamōn) Arabic lacks /p/ and /g/, leading to Barjama; Syriac often preserves Greek

Sardis (modern Sart) Σάρδεις (Sardeis) سردوسل (S-r-d-w-s-l) ܣܪܕܝܣ (Sardīs) Arabic version likely corrupted; Syriac maintains close Greek form

City (Modern/Greek)	Greek Name	Arabic Rendering	Syriac Rendering	Notes
Pergamon (modern Bergama)	Πέργαμον (Pérgamon)	برجمة (Barjama)	ܦܪܓܡܘܢ (Pargamōn)	Arabic lacks /p/ and /g/, leading to Barjama; Syriac often preserves Greek
Sardis (modern Sart)	Σάρδεις (Sardeis)	سردوسل (S-r-d-w-s-l)	ܣܪܕܝܣ (Sardīs)	Arabic version likely corrupted; Syriac maintains close Greek form

Explanatory Notes

Arabic Phonological Constraints: Arabic lacks the phonemes /p/ and /g/. These are typically replaced by /b/ and /j/ or /k/ respectively. Final syllables like -on, common in Greek, are often dropped or softened.

Syriac as a Hellenistic Buffer: Syriac, used by Christian scribes in Romanized Near Eastern contexts, often preserves more accurate Greek forms, especially for cities known since the Hellenistic period.

Scribal Errors and Memory: Arabic transcriptions of Greek names were usually oral or third-hand, leading to severe distortions (e.g., S-r-d-w-s-l for Sardis).

Final Note

This entry showcases how the Chronicle of 819, though terse, preserves invaluable regional and ethnographic detail absent from Arabic chronicles. The explicit release of Syriac-speaking Christians marks an important episode in early Islamic policies toward non-Muslims under enemy rule, hinting at sectarian ties across imperial boundaries.

In contrast, Arabic sources frame the campaign through the lens of military victory, fortress-names, and commanders, reflecting the ideological and administrative interests of the Umayyad state.

Together, these texts illuminate the multi-voiced memory of war, piety, and empire in early 8th-century West Asia.

21. Catastrophe in Thrace, Collapse in Bulgaria, and the Rise of ʿUmar II

Latin Text

Anno 1028, collegit rursum Soleiman copias in prato Dabiq, et misit exercitum numerosum cum Obeida, duce exercitus, in ditionem Romanorum. Profecti sunt et castrametati sunt in Thracia regione; et ingressus est Obeida Bulgariam regionem, et magna pars eius exercitus a Bulgaris destructa est; reliquos vero ita oppressit Leo, imperator astutus Romanorum, ut devorarent carnem et fimum iumentorum suorum.

Eodem anno, expugnatum est castrum Antigôn a Davide filio Soleimani.

Et mense Eylul, mortuus est Soleiman in prato Dabiq; et post eum regnavit ʿOmar, filius ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz [filii Marwānī], annos 2 et menses 7, vir bonus et rex misericors plusquam omnes reges eius decessores.

English Translation

In the year 1028 of the Seleucid Era (716/717 CE), Sulaymān again gathered troops in the plain of Dābiq, and he sent a great army with ʿUbayda, the commander of the army, into the domain of the Romans. They marched out and camped in the region of Thrace; and ʿUbayda entered the region of Bulgaria, but a large part of his army was destroyed by the Bulgars. The rest were so afflicted by Leo, the cunning emperor of the Romans, that they ate the flesh and dung of their own animals.

In the same year, the fortress of Antigon was captured by Dāwūd, the son of Sulaymān.

And in the month of Eylūl (September), Sulaymān died in the plain of Dābiq, and after him ruled ʿUmar, the son of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, [son of Marwān], for two years and seven months—a good man and a merciful king more than all the kings who preceded him.

Historical Commentary

This entry offers a layered account of major political and military upheaval during the final year of Caliph Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik’s reign. It captures the failure of the 717 campaign against Constantinople, a humiliating defeat in Bulgaria, the death of the caliph, a local conquest, and the ascension of one of Islam’s most revered rulers, ʿUmar II.

The Campaign from Dābiq: Gateway of Empire, Stage of Ambition

“collegit rursum Soleiman copias in prato Dabiq…”
“Once again, Sulaymān gathered his troops on the plain of Dābiq…”

The Chronicle of 819 begins its account of the 1028 AG campaign with the now-familiar image of Umayyad armies gathering at Dābiq, a wide and fertile plain located near modern-day Aleppo in northern Syria. Its mention is brief, but its implications are deep—militarily, logistically, and symbolically.

Where Is Dābiq?

Dābiq lies about 40 km north of Aleppo, close to the modern-day Turkish border. In the early 8th century, it stood at the confluence of three crucial geopolitical zones:

The Umayyad heartland of Syria

The eastern frontier, guarded by the Taurus and Anti-Taurus ranges

The overland routes leading north into Cilicia, Cappadocia, and beyond

Its flat terrain and ample water supply made it an ideal location for:

Mustering large armies

Distributing supplies and animals

Coordinating marches through the Cilician Gates and other mountain passes

Dābiq as a Military Platform

The Chronicle notes that Sulaymān assembled troops here for a second consecutive year (cf. AG 1027), reinforcing the notion that Dābiq had become a standard staging ground for Umayyad offensives into Asia Minor and the Balkans.

This was no coincidence. Since the reign of Muʿāwiya, and especially under ʿAbd al-Malik and his sons, the northern Syrian military network—anchored by cities like Qinnasrīn, Manbij, and Aleppo—was built to support repeated summer and winter campaigns (ṣawāʾif and shatāwī) against Roman targets.

Dābiq, lying just behind this front line, was ideally positioned:

Far enough from immediate Roman reprisal

Close enough to supply lines, garrison cities, and raiding routes

On level ground capable of hosting tens of thousands of troops

A Precedent for the Great Siege

The use of Dābiq in AG 1028 was not ad hoc—it was part of the logistical apparatus that enabled the massive, multi-pronged campaign leading to the attempted siege of Constantinople in 717–718 CE. From Dābiq, forces would have:

Moved north into Cilicia and Cappadocia

Crossed into Anatolia via the Cilician Gates

Advanced through Galatia and Phrygia into Thrace and Bulgaria

Thus, Dābiq was not simply a local base—it was the launchpad of imperial war-making, connecting Damascus to the Aegean.

Dābiq in the Christian Chronicle

The Chronicle of 819, though written by a Syriac Christian monk, treats Dābiq not as a place of fear or suffering, but as a matter-of-fact node in the imperial map. There is no embellishment, only the tacit understanding that this was where caliphs prepared for war—a place of prelude, not climax.

Yet the mere recurrence of its name conveys a rhythm of militarism, the hum of the state machine grinding toward the north each campaigning season.

ʿUbayda’s Invasion of Thrace and Bulgaria: A Chronicle’s Divergent Memory

“misit exercitum numerosum cum Obeida… in Thracia… ingressus est Bulgariam… et magna pars eius exercitus a Bulgaris destructa est.”
“…he sent a great army with Obeida… into Thrace… and he entered Bulgaria… and a large part of his army was destroyed by the Bulgars.”

— Chronicle of 819, AG 1028 (716–717 CE)

Identifying "Obeida": Sharāḥīl b. ʿUbayda al-ʿUqaylī

The Chronicle of 819 attributes the major invasion of Thrace and Bulgaria not to Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik, the famed commander of the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople (717–718 CE), but to a figure named Obeida. This name, when Latinized and filtered through Syriac transmission, corresponds to Sharāḥīl b. ʿUbayda b. Qays al-ʿUqaylī (شراحيل بن عبيدة العقيلي), an attested Umayyad military commander.

According to Ibn Manẓūr in his Mukhtaṣar Tārīkh Dimashq, Sharāḥīl was sent by Caliph Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik to retaliate against treacherous Bulgar forces who had ambushed a Muslim delegation at a fake market. After the massacre, Maslama himself dispatched Sharāḥīl with a punitive force across the straits into the land of the Burjān (Bulgars), where he fought and defeated them before returning.

Understanding the Chronicle’s Perspective

Why does the Chronicle mention Sharāḥīl b. ʿUbayda but not Maslama?

There are three compelling explanations:

Regional Perspective:
The chronicler was likely writing from northern Mesopotamia or Tur ʿAbdīn, and would have heard more about commanders who passed through Anatolia and the Balkans, rather than those stationed at the siege of Constantinople. Sharāḥīl’s dramatic campaign against the Bulgars may have been better remembered in local oral accounts.

Military Role Differentiation:
While Maslama was the supreme commander at Constantinople, Sharāḥīl likely led a separate detachment into Bulgaria, either as a flanking maneuver or a retaliatory strike. The Chronicle thus preserves a fragment of a broader campaign, one that Arabic sources mention only briefly.

Narrative Focus on Defeat:
The Chronicle dwells on the devastating ambush in Bulgaria and the suffering of the troops—"many devoured the flesh and dung of their animals"—perhaps associating this tragedy more with Sharāḥīl’s unit than with Maslama’s siege force. The chronicler's theological framing of events as punitive or apocalyptic may have emphasized the disaster, not the broader strategic picture.

Arabic Corroboration: Ibn Manẓūr’s Account

“Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik appointed Sharāḥīl b. ʿUbayda over a detachment of Syrian troops. He crossed the straits to the lands of the Burjān (Bulgars), defeated their forces, and returned to Maslama’s army.”

This matches the Chronicle’s report of a major Umayyad thrust into Bulgaria followed by a great defeat, except that the Christian source emphasizes the loss, while the Muslim account foregrounds the vengeance and victory.

Route and Strategy: Thrace → Bulgaria

“misit exercitum numerosum cum Obeida… in Thracia… ingressus est Bulgariam…”
“…et magna pars eius exercitus a Bulgaris destructa est.”

— Chronicle of 819 (AG 1028 / 716–717 CE)

The Chronicle of 819 describes an ambitious Umayyad military movement westward through Thrace into Bulgaria, culminating in a disastrous defeat. At the center of this campaign is Obeida—identified now as Sharāḥīl b. ʿUbayda al-ʿUqaylī, an Umayyad commander sent by Caliph Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik to exact vengeance after a devastating ambush orchestrated by the Bulgars.

🗺 The Campaign Path

Islamic forces under Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik approached Constantinople via Anatolia, crossing into Thrace and establishing siege lines. However, behind the siege front, a diplomatic exchange unfolded—recorded by Ibn Manẓūr:

Roman Emperor Leo III, fearing both siege and betrayal, wrote to the Bulgar khan urging alliance.

The Bulgar leader replied to Maslama, feigning friendship and offering to set up a market (sūq) for provisions.

Maslama, trusting the offer, sent a detachment—led by an unnamed commander (later specified as Sharāḥīl)—to escort troops and merchants.

What followed was a carefully laid trap:

As the Arabs entered a wide plain ringed by forests and gorges, Bulgar units hidden in the hills sprang the ambush, killing and capturing scores.
The survivors retreated in chaos; Maslama, outraged, wrote to Sulaymān, who dispatched Sharāḥīl to avenge the loss.

Sharāḥīl’s Counter-Invasion

According to Ibn Manẓūr:

“Sharāḥīl b. ʿUbayda led the Syrian contingent across the Bosphorus and into Bulgar lands. He laid waste to their territory. The Bulgars assembled and fought, but were defeated by God’s will. Sharāḥīl returned and rejoined Maslama.”

This mission—likely the one remembered by the Chronicle of 819—was bloody, brief, and traumatic. However, despite the claimed Arab victory in Muslim sources, the Syriac chronicler remembers only the initial disaster, highlighting loss, hunger, and divine punishment.

Military Disaster in Bulgaria

The Chronicle’s focus is on the ambush and its consequences:

The army is shattered.

Survivors suffer starvation, resorting to eating the flesh and dung of their animals.

The implication is clear: this was God’s judgment.

Strategically, this ambush was pivotal:

It weakened Arab morale and manpower before the siege of Constantinople even began.

It cut off access to food and reinforcements, especially if Maslama had planned to resupply through Balkan allies.

It contributed to the eventual failure of the siege—an embarrassment to the Umayyad military record.

Why Doesn’t the Chronicle Mention Maslama or the Siege?

The omission of Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik and the siege of Constantinople is not accidental. It reflects:

1. Narrative Framing

The Chronicle chooses to depict the moral and human catastrophe—not the logistical or imperial campaign. Its focus is on:

Hubris punished

Divine justice

Local memory of suffering, not strategic objectives

2. Fragmented Intelligence

Syriac chroniclers in Upper Mesopotamia may have relied on:

Returning prisoners

Merchants

Fragmented oral reports These sources would recall Bulgar ambushes far more vividly than the distant and prolonged siege of a city across the sea.

3. Chronicle Style

The Chronicle of 819 consistently compresses events, preferring theological meaning over exhaustive detail. Maslama may have been implicitly known, but not named.

Summary: Divergent Memories of a Shared Disaster

Source Commander Named Theater Key Event

Chronicle of 819 ʿUbayda (Sharāḥīl) Thrace, Bulgaria Ambush, starvation

Arabic Sources Maslama, Sharāḥīl Constantinople, Balkans Siege, counter-invasion

Theophanes Maslama Constantinople, Balkans Defeat by Bulgars, failed siege

The Chronicle of 819, written in a monastery far from the imperial capitals, preserves a Christian lens on the great Arab campaigns—one focused not on glory, but on folly, loss, and retribution.

And in this framework, Sharāḥīl b. ʿUbayda—not Maslama—becomes the embodiment of the caliphate’s overreach and divine rebuke.

Source	Commander Named	Theater	Key Event
Chronicle of 819	ʿUbayda (Sharāḥīl)	Thrace, Bulgaria	Ambush, starvation
Arabic Sources	Maslama, Sharāḥīl	Constantinople, Balkans	Siege, counter-invasion
Theophanes	Maslama	Constantinople, Balkans	Defeat by Bulgars, failed siege

Leo the “Cunning” and the Agony of the Army

“oppressit Leo, imperator astutus Romanorum, ut devorarent carnem et fimum iumentorum suorum.”
“Leo, the cunning emperor of the Romans, afflicted them so grievously that they were forced to eat the flesh and dung of their own animals.”

This vivid and disturbing description of extreme starvation and humiliation marks one of the most harrowing moments in the Chronicle of 819. The line attributes the disaster not to chance or mismanagement but directly to the strategic brilliance—tinged with malice—of Emperor Leo III the Isaurian (r. 717–741).

Leo III the “Astute”: Strategy and Survival

The Chronicle calls him “imperator astutus Romanorum”—a phrase that carries dual connotations:

“Astutus” can mean clever, shrewd, even wise—but also cunning, calculating, and deceptive.

In Syriac Christian eyes, Leo III may have represented both salvation and schemer—an Emperor who preserved Constantinople through intelligence and ruthlessness.

Leo had come to power just months before the Arab campaign, in March 717 CE. With the Umayyads already marching, he had little time to prepare—but did so brilliantly:

He fortified the Theodosian Walls

He stockpiled grain in advance

He secured a Bulgarian alliance, instrumental in breaking the Arab siege from the rear

His methods—warfare by attrition, blockade, and cutting supply lines—produced the very suffering described here.

Cannibalizing the Caravan: Starvation as Strategy

The detail that Arab troops were forced to eat the flesh and even dung of their pack animals is not unique to this Chronicle. Similar scenes appear in:

Theophanes the Confessor, who writes that the Arabs ate corpses, dogs, and dung during the siege of Constantinople.

Later Arabic sources, including al-Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Athīr, who describe the Umayyad army as suffering from snow, famine, and disease, with thousands dying in the trenches outside the city.

What distinguishes the Chronicle of 819 is the brutality of the phrasing:

“devorarent carnem et fimum iumentorum suorum”
Not only flesh, but dung—signaling a complete collapse of morale, logistics, and human dignity.

This evokes biblical and apocalyptic imagery of siege famine, such as in:

2 Kings 6:25: “There was a great famine in Samaria… a donkey’s head sold for eighty shekels.”

Josephus’ account of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, where hunger drove mothers to cannibalism.

In Christian monastic thought, such suffering often signaled divine punishment for pride, aggression, or impiety—perhaps how the chronicler subtly interprets the fate of Sulaymān’s army.

📉A Turning Point in the Arab-Roman Wars

The siege of Constantinople (717–718 CE) was not only one of the greatest military disasters in Umayyad history, but also:

The end of the Caliphate’s western expansion

The beginning of Roman resurgence under Leo III and his successors

A key moment in preserving Christian Eastern Roman civilization

The Chronicle’s focus on suffering over strategy, and Leo’s cunning over Sulaymān’s ambition, reflects this reversal. It is a moment when the empire that had seemed invincible is brought to its knees—not by swords, but by starvation and strategic containment.

Moral and Narrative Framing

The Chronicle does not glorify Roman victory, nor does it demonize the Umayyads outright. Instead, it tells a cautionary tale:

The Caliph’s army, bloated with ambition, falls not in battle but in miserable degradation.

The survivors are not warriors but scavengers, punished not just by Leo’s brilliance but by Providence.

In a single line, the chronicler conveys a moral universe where empires rise and fall not only by arms, but by character—and cunning.

The Capture of Antigon: A Shadow Offensive in Asia Minor

“expugnatum est castrum Antigôn a Davide filio Soleimani.”

This terse note records a rare appearance of Dāwūd, son of Caliph Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik, in military action. His name does not appear prominently in Arabic historiography, making this reference particularly valuable. It suggests that even as the main Umayyad army floundered in Thrace and Bulgaria, localized campaigns persisted against Roman strongholds in Anatolia.

Identifying Antigôn: Which Fortress?

The name Antigôn is clearly derived from Antigoneia, a common Hellenistic toponym commemorating Antigonus I Monophthalmus. Several cities in Anatolia once bore this name, but not all are viable candidates for an Umayyad-era military target. The likely options include:

Location Classical Name Modern Site Notes

Antigonia in Syria Near Seleucia Pieria, close to Antakya (Hatay) In Syria, too far south and within Umayyad territory by this period; unlikely.

Alexandria Troas / Antigonia In Troas, near the Aegean Sea (Çanakkale Province) Too far west, deep inside Roman-controlled coastal Asia Minor; possible, but a stretch for a post-disaster Umayyad raid.

Antigonia–Nicaea Nicaea (modern İznik, Bursa Province) Well-defended major center; no evidence of a fall. Likely too prominent to be mentioned so briefly.

Antigonia in Hellespontus Diocese seat, possibly near Pergamon/Sardis zone Close to other targets from AG 1027 (e.g., Sardis, Pergamon); most plausible candidate.

Location	Classical Name	Modern Site
Antigonia in Syria	Near Seleucia Pieria, close to Antakya (Hatay)	In Syria, too far south and within Umayyad territory by this period; unlikely.
Alexandria Troas / Antigonia	In Troas, near the Aegean Sea (Çanakkale Province)	Too far west, deep inside Roman-controlled coastal Asia Minor; possible, but a stretch for a post-disaster Umayyad raid.
Antigonia–Nicaea	Nicaea (modern İznik, Bursa Province)	Well-defended major center; no evidence of a fall. Likely too prominent to be mentioned so briefly.
Antigonia in Hellespontus	Diocese seat, possibly near Pergamon/Sardis zone	Close to other targets from AG 1027 (e.g., Sardis, Pergamon); most plausible candidate.

Most Likely Identification

Given the geographic continuity with previous Umayyad raids (Sardis, Pergamon) and the context of ongoing offensives in Lydia and western Asia Minor, the Antigonia of Hellespontus—a lesser-known site likely situated near Pergamon or the Caicus River valley—is the most probable identification.

This would place Dāwūd’s conquest squarely within the operational corridor of Umayyad Anatolian raids, not far from where his father's forces had struck the year before.

Strategic Significance

The capture of this castrum (fortress) shows that, despite the catastrophe in Bulgaria and the siege collapse at Constantinople, the Umayyads maintained pressure on western Anatolia:

It reflects decentralized raiding strategy, where local commanders pursued targets of opportunity.

The mention of Dāwūd, otherwise obscure, suggests an attempt at princely distinction or military grooming, even as Sulaymān’s reign drew to an end.

This action, overshadowed by grander disasters, illustrates how the Roman-Arab frontier was not a single front, but a mosaic of active theaters, ranging from the Aegean to the Taurus.

The Death of Sulaymān and the Rise of ʿUmar II: A Caliphate at the Edge

“Et mense Eylul, mortuus est Soleiman in prato Dabiq…”
“And in the month of Eylūl (September), Sulaymān died in the plain of Dābiq…”

The Chronicle of 819 concludes its record of the year AG 1028 (716/717 CE) with a dramatic pivot: the death of the reigning caliph, Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik, not in battle or splendor, but at a military camp in Dābiq, just one month into the disastrous siege of Constantinople.

This detail, confirmed in Arabic sources like Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ, al-Ṭabarī, and al-Yaʿqūbī, marks a turning point in the Umayyad Caliphate—from aggressive expansionism under Sulaymān to introspective reform under his successor, ʿUmar II.

When Did Sulaymān Die?

Sulaymān’s death occurred in Eylūl (ܐܝܠܘܠ), the Syriac name for September, placing it in early September 717 CE, just weeks after the Umayyad army under Maslama had launched its siege on Constantinople.

Most Islamic sources place his death midway through Dhū al-Ḥijja, 99 AH (early September 717 CE).

His death was natural, not battlefield-related, but its timing—during a siege that would soon collapse—gives it symbolic weight.

He never lived to see the siege fail, but his death foreshadowed its doom.

The Death at Dābiq

That Sulaymān died not in the capital Damascus, but in the field at Dābiq, is significant:

It shows that the caliph had personally overseen the mobilization and coordination of the war effort from the staging ground.

His presence in Dābiq rather than Constantinople suggests he may have chosen to remain near the supply lines or await news while delegating frontline command to Maslama.

Dābiq, thus, becomes a theater of death and transition—a site of unrealized imperial vision.

Strategic Collapse and Political Fatigue

Sulaymān’s death came at the nadir of Umayyad confidence:

The siege of Constantinople was already proving logistically disastrous—Arab troops were starving, the navy was suffering from greek fire, and Bulgarian raids had crippled the rear lines.

The caliph’s death amidst this turmoil would have been perceived by contemporaries as divine commentary on the overreach of the campaign—perhaps even as a punishment for arrogance.

From a political perspective:

His ambitious dreams of toppling Constantinople—a feat not even Muʿāwiya had achieved—died with him.

His sudden absence left the Umayyad elite vulnerable to internal factionalism, especially as Maslama was still bogged down in hostile territory.

The Accession of ʿUmar II: From Conquest to Conscience

Following Sulaymān’s death, the caliphate passed not to his own son, but to his cousin, ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, as Sulaymān had designated before his death.

This succession marked a dramatic shift:

From a caliph obsessed with imperial glory and expansion

To a ruler committed to justice, piety, and administrative reform

The Chronicle notes this transition with a rare evaluative flourish:

“…vir bonus et rex misericors plusquam omnes reges eius decessores.”
“…a good man and a merciful king, more than all the kings who came before him.”

This is high praise coming from a Christian Syriac source, and it reflects the broad admiration ʿUmar II earned across religious lines, thanks to:

Reductions in taxation abuse (particularly the jizya)

Moral reform of the Umayyad administration

A conscious attempt to soften the distinction between Arab Muslims and non-Arab converts

To Christians in the Fertile Crescent, long burdened by war levies and discriminatory policies, ʿUmar’s accession was more than a regime change—it was a reprieve.

Dābiq as Threshold

Thus, the plain of Dābiq stands at the crossroads of two eras:

The death of a caliph who personified Umayyad martial ambition

The rise of one who would become a moral exemplar of Islamic governance

In the Chronicle’s eyes, Sulaymān dies not gloriously, but quietly, in retreat. The drama belongs not to his conquests, but to the moment his absence opened a space for justice to step in.

ʿUmar II: The Just Caliph Between Two Worlds

“regnavit ‘Omar… annos 2 et menses 7, vir bonus et rex misericors plusquam omnes reges eius decessores.”
“…he reigned for two years and seven months—a good man and a merciful king, more than all the kings who came before him.”

The Chronicle of 819 closes its account of AG 1028 (717–718 CE) with a tribute to ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, known across Islamic tradition as ʿUmar II, and often hailed as the “Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph.” Remarkably, this praise does not come solely from Arabic Muslim historians but is echoed in Christian Syriac sources, which describe him with deep moral admiration.

This monastic, non-Muslim chronicle, composed a century after ʿUmar’s death, calls him:

“vir bonus et rex misericors”
“a good man and a merciful king.”

This brief epitaph speaks volumes—especially when placed beside the stark silences and condemnations aimed at earlier Umayyad rulers.

A Brief Reign, A Long Shadow

ʿUmar II ruled for just over two and a half years (from September 717 to February 720 CE), but his tenure marked a moral pivot in Umayyad history. Unlike his predecessors who focused on military expansion and elite privilege, ʿUmar II redirected attention toward justice, accountability, and social reform.

While Sulaymān died in the field pursuing imperial glory, ʿUmar entered power with a mission of ethical repair, aiming to make the state more faithful to Islamic principles and less exploitative of its diverse subjects.

Reforming Governance and Taxation

Perhaps most notably, ʿUmar is remembered for attempting to curb abuses in the taxation system—a policy that directly affected the Christian communities of the Fertile Crescent, including the chronicler’s own world.

His policies included:

Restricting unjust imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on non-Muslims, particularly converts to Islam, who were often still treated as fiscal inferiors despite conversion.
Ordering governors to cease the neck-sealing practice, which had humiliated Christian taxpayers in the name of administrative efficiency (as noted earlier in the Chronicle).
Banning extravagant court expenditures and redistributing funds to the poor—regardless of religion.
Urging just treatment of dhimmīs (protected non-Muslims), insisting they be shielded from harassment, over-taxation, or military conscription.

These measures were not merely bureaucratic—they signaled a radical theological stance: that the caliph was accountable before God, and all subjects deserved dignity.

Revered Across Confessional Lines

What sets ʿUmar II apart, and explains the Syriac chronicler’s heartfelt praise, is that his ethical rule was experienced firsthand by Christian communities:

They saw reductions in fiscal pressure.
They heard of governors punished for cruelty.
They perceived, for once, a caliphate concerned with the justice of God, not just the glory of empire.

That ʿUmar’s name survived in Christian collective memory, even a century later, as “more merciful than all his predecessors,” speaks to the rare cross-religious respect he earned.

Arab sources, too, reflect this:

al-Ṭabarī describes him as pious and reforming.
Ibn Saʿd preserves his modest personal habits and disdain for pomp.
Later historians, both Sunni and even some Shiʿi, regarded him as a beacon of just leadership in a dynasty otherwise marked by militarism and excess.

From Chronicle to Legacy

In a chronicle so often filled with war, tribute, and suffering, the sentence on ʿUmar II stands out as a moral relief—as if time itself paused to take a breath. His reign may have been brief, but its effects lingered in:

Reformed provinces
Rewritten fiscal policies
And the memory of a king who, for once, sought mercy over might

That even a Syriac Christian monk would call him “rex misericors” shows that in the shadow of siege and sword, ʿUmar II left behind a more enduring empire: one of justice remembered.
Final Reflections

This entry masterfully fuses imperial ambition, human tragedy, dynastic transition, and moral judgment in a few terse lines. It conveys:

The limits of Umayyad military reach in the face of hardened Roman and Bulgar resistance
The mortal fallibility of a caliph who overreached
The elevation of a ruler whose reign, though short, came to symbolize something more enduring than conquest: righteous leadership

In the Chronicle of 819, history is more than event—it is a canvas of divine justice, imperial arrogance, and moral memory.

22. The Death of ʿUmar II and the Iconoclast Rise of Yazīd II

Latin Text

Et anno 1081, mortuus est ‘Omar in regione Apamensium, in monasterio Aneironithae et regnavit post eum Yezid filius Atika, filius ‘Abd al-Malik, annos quattuor. Et iussit ut delerentur et lacerarentur omnes figurae in suo imperio, sive aenéáe, sive ligneae, sive lapideae sive coloribus depictae.

English Translation

And in the year 1081 of the Seleucid Era (769/770 SE = 720 CE), ʿUmar died in the region of Apamea, in the monastery of Ancyronta, and after him reigned Yazīd, the son of ʿĀtika, son of ʿAbd al-Malik, for four years. And he ordered that all images in his empire be destroyed and defaced, whether bronze, wooden, stone, or painted in colors.

The Passing of ʿUmar II in Apamea — or al-Dayr al-Sharqī?

The Chronicle of 819 records the death of Caliph ʿUmar II (ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz) in the region of Apamea, a once-flourishing Greco-Roman city in northern Syria, located along the Orontes River. It further situates his passing in a monastic setting—referred to in Latinized form as Aneironithae, now securely identified with the monastery of Ancyronta. Though corrupted in its Latin transmission, this name almost certainly reflects a Syriac or Greek original, and has now been convincingly matched with Dayr al-Naqīra or Dayr Simʿān, which Arabic sources equate with al-Dayr al-Sharqī (الدير الشرقي)—a village near Maʿarrat al-Nuʿmān, in present-day Idlib Governorate, Syria.

Reconciling the Christian and Islamic Geographies

While the Chronicle’s Christian vocabulary locates ʿUmar’s death “in the region of the Apameans,” Arabic historians, notably al-Ṭabarī, specify the caliph died and was buried at al-Dayr al-Sharqī—literally “the Eastern Monastery.” At first glance, the two reports may appear contradictory. However, Apamea was not only a city but also a larger administrative and ecclesiastical region in Late Antiquity. It was common for surrounding settlements, including rural monasteries and satellite villages, to be subsumed under such prominent urban names in both Christian texts. Hence, the Chronicle’s Apamea may reflect a regional designation, not a precise city location.

Furthermore, the term “monasterium” reflects a Christian reading of the Arabic dayr, a word which by the early Islamic period could refer to anything from active Christian monasteries, to ruined ecclesiastical sites, or even Muslim estates built on such lands. The Christian chronicler, observing or preserving local oral memory, likely interpreted the site of ʿUmar’s death through the lens of the Christian landscape that had long shaped the region.

Mapping the Geography: From Apamea to al-Dayr al-Sharqī

Location Description Distance from Apamea Significance

Apamea Ancient Hellenistic and Roman city – Mentioned in the Chronicle of 819

al-Dayr al-Sharqī Modern Syrian village (Dayr Simʿān/Dayr al-Naqīra) ~58.3 km southeast Confirmed burial site of ʿUmar II in Arabic historical sources

As modern scholarship now confirms, al-Dayr al-Sharqī, Dayr al-Naqīra, and Dayr Simʿān are three names for the same place, the actual location where Caliph ʿUmar II died and was buried. Historian Robert Hoyland notes that the Arabic name al-Naqīra corresponds to the Greek "Nikertai", and the chronicled “Aneironithae” is a garbled Latinization of Ancyronta—again, the same site.

The site’s historical identity is reinforced by the Roman church dated to 361 CE, which still stands in Deir Sharqi, complete with early Christian mosaics. These ruins not only testify to the region’s Christian past but may also explain why Christian chroniclers preserved memory of ʿUmar’s passing using ecclesiastical terminology.

Location	Description	Distance from Apamea	Significance
Apamea	Ancient Hellenistic and Roman city	–	Mentioned in the Chronicle of 819
al-Dayr al-Sharqī	Modern Syrian village (Dayr Simʿān/Dayr al-Naqīra)	~58.3 km southeast	Confirmed burial site of ʿUmar II in Arabic historical sources

al-Dayr al-Sharqī: A Village of Memory

Today, al-Dayr al-Sharqī (Deir Sharqi) is a modest agricultural village in Idlib Governorate. Though politically unremarkable in the modern era, it holds immense symbolic and religious significance across Islamic traditions as the resting place of Caliph ʿUmar II, one of the Umayyad dynasty’s most revered and reformist rulers.

Key historical and archaeological features include:

The tomb of ʿUmar II, long visited and venerated by Muslims of various sects.

Roman-era ruins, olive presses, and archaeological mosaics attesting to a deep Christian past.

Associations with early Arab Christian tribes, notably the Tanukh, as theorized by Irfan Shahid, who argued that the village’s name may derive from Naqira in Iraq, another Tanukhid site.

A tradition of ascetic retreat, as later exemplified by the 12th-century mystic Abu Zakariyāʾ Yahyā ibn al-Manṣūr al-Maghribī, who was also buried beside ʿUmar II and visited by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn (Saladin).

The tomb structure suffered vandalism during the Syrian Civil War, and by the 1970s, ʿUmar’s headstone had been moved to the home of the local mukhtār (village headman) pending restoration. Yet even amid conflict, the site retains layers of meaning, binding the Islamic and Christian pasts of the region.

A Caliph of Simplicity, Dying Far from the Palace

That ʿUmar II died in a remote village rather than a court or fortress is consistent with his reputation for asceticism and justice. Islamic sources praise him for:

Wearing simple clothes, avoiding courtly splendor.

Refusing palace life, preferring modest surroundings.

Answering petitions from the oppressed personally.

Rejecting Umayyad excesses, instituting sweeping reforms rooted in early Islamic values.

His burial outside the urban core, in a monastic or rural setting, was no accident—it was a final affirmation of the values he lived by.

For Syriac Christian chroniclers, such a caliph warranted sincere and respectful commemoration. The Chronicle of 819 calls him a "vir bonus et rex misericors"—a good man and a merciful king—a rare praise for a Muslim ruler from a monastic scribe, and an enduring testimony to ʿUmar’s moral legacy.

Final Reflections: A Death Beyond Borders

The Chronicle of 819 preserves a profound cross-cultural memory:

A Muslim caliph, respected by Christian monks.

A reforming ruler, dying not in Damascus but in a rural monastery.

A memory shaped by two civilizations: the Apamea of Roman Christian heritage, and the al-Dayr al-Sharqī of Islamic piety.

Though separated by nearly 60 kilometers, Apamea and al-Dayr al-Sharqī are not in conflict—they are two registers of the same remembrance: a man of conscience, not conquest; a caliph whose death, like his life, transcended the usual borders of empire, faith, and geography.

The Accession of Yazīd II: From Piety to Policy

“…regnavit post eum Yezid filius Atika, filius ‘Abd al-Malik…”

The next caliph named is Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik, who ruled from 720 to 724 CE. The Chronicle chooses to identify him matrilineally—as “the son of ʿĀtika”—a rare and deliberate stylistic choice in Arabic and Syriac tradition alike.

This emphasis on his mother, ʿĀtika bint Yazīd, is not incidental.

Who Was ʿĀtika bint Yazīd?

ʿĀtika, the daughter of Yazīd I and granddaughter of Muʿāwiya, was one of the most remarkable Umayyad women of her age. She was:

Wife of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (the most powerful Umayyad caliph)
Mother of Yazīd II and Marwān
Known for her knowledge, generosity, and unique social position

She lived long enough to witness the reigns of twelve Umayyad caliphs, all of whom were maḥrams to her (related by blood or marriage)—an unparalleled feat in Islamic history. As the Chronicle singles her out in naming Yazīd, it may reflect:

A Christian awareness of her piety and charity
Her dynastic stature as a matriarch of the Marwānid line
Possibly her influence over Yazīd, or her association with moral legitimacy

She is remembered as having donated her entire wealth to the poor of Banū Abī Sufyān, washed and buried the decapitated head of Muṣʿab b. al-Zubayr, and condemned the excesses of court vengeance—acts that left a powerful impression in both Muslim and Christian memory.

Yazīd II’s Iconoclasm: A Caliphal War on Images

“Et iussit ut delerentur et lacerarentur omnes figurae in suo imperio, sive aenéáe, sive ligneae, sive lapideae sive coloribus depictae.”
“And he ordered that all images in his empire be destroyed and defaced, whether of bronze, wood, stone, or painted in color.”

The Chronicle of 819 preserves an extraordinary moment in Umayyad history: an empire-wide decree under Caliph Yazīd II (r. 720–724 CE) for the destruction of figural art across all domains—public, private, religious, and civic. It is one of the earliest large-scale Islamic acts of state-enforced iconoclasm, and it reverberated far beyond Islamic borders.

A Widespread Historical Memory

The decree is corroborated in multiple independent traditions:

Chronicle of Zuqnin (8th century)

“Yazīd (II) ordered that all images be destroyed wherever they were found, whether in a shrine, church, or house… his agents went out and destroyed all images.”

This Syriac chronicle makes clear the decree’s universal scope, applying not only to public spaces but even private households—a totalizing visual policy.

Second Council of Nicaea (787 CE)

The Council, convened to restore the veneration of icons in Rome, preserved a hostile but revealing account of Yazīd’s edict:

Yazīd, swayed by a “Jewish magician” named Tessarakontapechys, ordered an imperial encyclical that images in churches, markets, mosaics, altars, and vessels be destroyed.

The report portrays Yazīd as a frivolous tyrant seduced by occult promises of long life, using iconoclasm as a magical bargain with demonic forces.

The Edict’s Language and Meaning

The Chronicle of 819 uses stark verbs:

“delerentur et lacerarentur figurae”
“be destroyed and torn apart”

This is not administrative removal. It is public defacement and annihilation—an assault not only on objects but on meaning and memory.

The objects targeted include:

Metal sculptures (aenéae)

Wooden figures (ligneae)

Stone carvings (lapideae)

Wall paintings and frescoes (coloribus depictae)

This matches Islamic iconoclastic theology, which views anthropomorphic representation, especially in religious contexts, as:

A violation of tawḥīd (divine unity)

A danger of idolatry (shirk)

A temptation toward polytheistic or imperial paganism

Motives Behind the Edict

Why did Yazīd II act with such sweeping intensity? Scholars and sources offer three major explanations:

1. Political Messaging: A Response to Icon Veneration

By the 720s, the Umayyads were fully aware of Christian image veneration, particularly in Rome:

Icons were not only sacred—they were imperial symbols, carried into battle and courts.

Yazīd’s destruction of icons in Christian churches and markets may have served to undermine Imperial Roman ideology and assert Islamic visual authority in contested zones like Syria and Anatolia.

Though Imperial Iconoclasm would not be formalized until Leo III’s edict of c. 730, Yazīd's policy predates it by a decade—raising the provocative possibility that the Islamic Caliphate influenced early Roman iconoclasts.

2. Moral Reform and the Legacy of ʿUmar II

Some historians (e.g., Crone, Donner, Robinson) argue that Yazīd’s iconoclasm was part of a continuity with his predecessor ʿUmar II, whose reign focused on:

Restoring Islamic ethical purity

Reinforcing social discipline

Curtailing imperial excess

In this view, iconoclasm reflects an internal Islamic purification campaign, not merely anti-Christian polemic.

3. Occult Influence? The Legend of the Jewish Magician

The Second Council of Nicaea offers a very different view. It claims that Yazīd was manipulated by a sorcerer named Tessarakontapechys, a “magician and fortuneteller” from Tiberias:

“You will reign for thirty years if you destroy every image.”

This tale, though fantastical, speaks volumes about Christian perceptions of Islam:

It ties Islamic iconoclasm to demonic seduction, not theological consistency.

It equates Yazīd’s campaign with satanic Jewry and corruption, aiming to delegitimize Islamic authority and explain away Rome’s own iconoclastic drift.

Interestingly, the Council's narrative ends with Yazīd’s death and damnation, and with his son al-Walīd II executing the magician—restoring, in Roman eyes, the “moral order.”

Effects on Christian and Public Spaces

The decree deeply impacted:

Churches: Frescoes, icons, and liturgical art were defaced or burned.

Markets and Cities: Statues and wall mosaics were destroyed, altering urban identity.

Homes: Even private religious objects faced confiscation or destruction.

In the eyes of Christian chroniclers, this was not reform—it was sacrilege.

But for Muslim governors and religious scholars, it was a return to pious purity, especially as the frontier zones between Christians and Muslims remained volatile.

A Turning Point in Sacred Art and Imperial Theology

Yazīd II’s iconoclasm was not an isolated event. It was:

A state intervention into the visual landscape

A symbolic rejection of rival empires’ religious art

And perhaps, an early precursor to a broader cultural pattern of Islamic aniconism

In this moment, art became battlefield. Mosaics, frescoes, statues, and church walls were not merely decorative—they became statements of sovereignty, orthodoxy, and legitimacy.

Impact on Syriac Christians

For the Christian communities of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia, this decree would have been felt immediately and painfully:

Icons in churches may have been destroyed or plastered over.
Mosaics, frescoes, and funerary art likely faced similar treatment.
Christian chroniclers would have seen this as a state assault on sacred imagery, which in Eastern Christianity was not only art but theology made visible.

Yet the Chronicle of 819, while recording the decree clearly, does not moralize or condemn—it simply reports. This may reflect:

A resigned realism about life under Umayyad rule
An understanding that Yazīd’s iconoclasm, while destructive, was not uniquely oppressive compared to other rulers
Or perhaps a subtle literary contrast: the merciful king ʿUmar is followed by one whose first act was to command destruction.

Final Reflections

This entry offers a snapshot of transitional imperial theology:

From ʿUmar II’s inward-facing justice to Yazīd II’s outward-facing iconoclasm
From Christian admiration to imperial intrusion
From ethical reform to visible assertion of Islamic presence

And yet, the naming of Yazīd as “son of ʿĀtika” reminds us that amid political decrees and campaigns, the women of the Umayyad household—learned, charitable, and devout—continued to shape how power was remembered.

23. The Census of Dāhak and the Shaven Faces of Mesopotamia

Latin Text

Et anno 1033, misit Dàhàk, amira Mesopotamiae, descriptores in universam provinciam suam, qui deseripserunt homines parvulos et seniores, eum etiam qui ipsa die natus erat, et mensuraverunt agros, et numeraverunt plantas, et censum fecerunt qualis antea non fuit; quem inveniebant fraudem commisisse, eum radebant: multos homines raserunt.

English Translation

And in the year 1033 [721–722 CE], Dāhak, the amīr of Mesopotamia, sent out surveyors across his entire province. They registered men, both young and old—even those born that very day. They measured the fields, counted the plants, and carried out a census the likes of which had never been seen before. And anyone found guilty of fraud, they shaved him: many men were shaved.

Commentary: Surveillance, Censuses, and the Politics of the Razor

This is one of the Chronicle of 819’s most striking portraits of Umayyad provincial administration—and one of its most psychologically loaded.

Who Was Dāhak? Clarifying the Governor Behind the Census

The Chronicle of 819 attributes the sweeping and invasive census of AG 1033 (721–722 CE) to a figure named Dāhak, titled amira Mesopotamiae—“commander of Mesopotamia.” While this name does not appear in Arabic sources under this spelling, we can now make a confident identification based on contemporary records.

The governor of al-Jazīrah (Upper Mesopotamia) at this time under Caliph Yazīd II (r. 720–724 CE) was:

Fayḍ b. Muḥammad al-Kindī

Fayḍ, a member of the Kindah tribe, was one of a series of Yemeni (South Arabian) governors appointed to enforce central policies in frontier provinces. He operated in a zone of high strategic and economic importance, administering:

Military logistics on the Roman frontier

Agricultural taxation in the fertile river valleys of the Ḥabur and Tigris

The oversight of Christian monasteries, tribal settlements, and rural tax registries

Given that Syriac chroniclers often transliterated Arabic names phonetically into Latin or Greek forms, it is plausible that “Dāhak” (Latinized from Syriac) reflects a corrupted rendering of Fayḍ—especially in a region where oral transmission and local dialects shaped how names were preserved.

Why Was al-Jazīrah Important?

As governor of al-Jazīrah, Fayḍ’s role was pivotal. This was a culturally diverse and politically sensitive region, containing:

Christian towns and monastic centers such as Nisibis, Martyropolis, and Ṭūr ʿAbdīn

Large Aramaic-speaking rural populations and tenanted agricultural estates

Arab tribal federations, including resettled military clans and Qaysī-Yamanī rivals

Frontier defense outposts that faced constant tension with Rome and its Anatolian themes

Thus, governors here acted not merely as provincial taxmen, but as military coordinators, intelligence supervisors, and imperial enforcers.

The Census: Total Registration, From Cradle to Crop

The Chronicle of 819 spares no detail in communicating the extraordinary scope of the census ordered in AG 1033 (721–722 CE):

“parvulos et seniores, eum etiam qui ipsa die natus erat…”
“…young and old, even one born on the very day…”

This is a vision of absolute surveillance, a zero-exemption model of registration that treated every human life and plot of land as an economic datum in service of imperial taxation. Even the newborn—not yet able to speak, sin, or work—was entered into the fiscal machine.

This suggests the introduction (or intensification) of:

Longitudinal recordkeeping, anticipating future jizya or kharāj obligations

Early age-tracking, perhaps to differentiate between taxable adults and dependents

A bureaucracy that saw no boundary between life and ledger

Measuring the Land, Counting the Trees

The Chronicle also states:

“mensuraverunt agros, et numeraverunt plantas…”
“…they measured the fields, and counted the plants…”

This indicates a comprehensive agrarian survey—likely based on per-unit yield:

Trees (olive, date, fig, etc.) would be taxed per trunk or expected harvest

Fields might be assessed per area or by irrigation potential

Agricultural land was not just used—it was watched, measured, and transformed into extractable capital

This mirrors Roman epidosis registers and Sasanian land-and-labor tax systems, where fiscal justice meant full visibility—and full subjection.

The line “censum fecerunt qualis antea non fuit” ("a census the likes of which had never been seen before") is not hyperbole—it reflects the shock and unease of a population newly folded into the statistical gaze of empire.

For the Christian chronicler, this evoked biblical memory:

Like Pharaoh's census in Egypt, which culminated in bondage and plagues

Like the Roman census under Quirinius, recalled in the Gospel of Luke, which marked the intrusion of imperial rule into local lives

In Syriac eyes, such enumeration was not neutrality—it was judgment.

The Shaving of the Fraudulent: The Face as a Battlefield

“quem inveniebant fraudem commisisse, eum radebant: multos homines raserunt.”
“Whoever was found to have committed fraud, they shaved him: many were shaved.”

This is the moral and theatrical climax of the entire episode. Shaving was not a hygienic punishment—it was a visible, cultural, and psychological weapon.

In the world of early Islamic and Late Antique Near Eastern societies:

A man’s beard and hair signified adulthood, dignity, and religious integrity

To shave the beard was to strip a man of his public honor

To be seen in the street freshly shaven under duress was to be marked as a liar, a cheat, or a coward

Thus, this punishment turned the human face into a billboard of disgrace.

Those accused of falsifying records—perhaps hiding adult sons, underreporting fields, or concealing livestock—were not fined or jailed. They were ritually unmasked, their fraud made visible to their neighbors, kin, and community.

Where Was This Enforced?

Such shavings were likely carried out:

In mosques, after communal prayers, to maximize the audience

In village squares or markets, where fiscal registers were posted and updated

Possibly even at military checkpoints or tax collection outposts, as traveling agents moved through the countryside

This was discipline by design—non-lethal, inexpensive, but enduring.

Comparative Notes: The Visible Body Under the Caliphate

This form of public discipline finds echoes across the Umayyad and broader Islamic world:

AG 1022: Neck seals made of lead were hung on dhimmīs who had paid the jizya—turning the taxpayer into a walking receipt.

Branding or tattooing was sometimes used on slaves or repeat offenders.

Shaving the heads of women accused of sexual transgression (as in some tribal or military contexts) served as both punishment and deterrent.

Clothing markers—like colored belts or patches—were also enforced on some Christian or Jewish subjects in certain periods to visually separate them.

In all cases, the body becomes the site of the state’s inscription, and the community becomes the arena of spectacle.

Theological Echoes: Sin, Shame, and Surveillance

For a Syriac Christian chronicler, the significance goes even deeper:

The act of shaving has resonances with monastic humility, but in this case, it is involuntary, inverted, and humiliating

The ritual of uncovering hidden sin recalls biblical themes—“What is whispered in secret shall be shouted from the rooftops” (Luke 12:3)

And the juxtaposition of total census with ritual disgrace echoes the Last Judgment—where all will be known, all exposed

But here, the judge is not divine—it is the Umayyad state, and its methods are not mystical but military, fiscal, and administrative.

Visible Rule Across Empires — Census, Tokens, and Bodily Punishment

Empires do not rule by force alone. They rule by counting, cataloging, and branding—through ritualized systems of visibility that made taxation, identity, and deviance legible to the state and community alike.

Roman Empire: Census and Shame

The Roman census (censura) was a moral and fiscal act.

Citizens were ranked by wealth and class, and failure to declare property could result in:

Loss of civic privileges

Public disgrace

Enslaved populations were marked and tracked; in military camps, punishment for tax evasion or desertion could include head shaving, flogging, or being paraded through the city.

Public ledgers (album censualis) were displayed in fora, much like Umayyad fiscal rosters.

Sasanian Persia: Seals, Tags, and Total Surveillance

The Sasanian state used land registers (kādastar) and tax tokens—often stamped lead or clay seals with inscriptions.

Farmers were taxed based on field yield and irrigation, and inspectors could brand fraudulent peasants or tattoo their arms with state symbols (a practice continued in the Abbasid era).

Christian dhimmīs under the Sasanian regime were also monitored through tax ledgers and subjected to physical penalties if they defaulted.

Umayyad Caliphate: Body as Bureaucracy

Under Yazīd II, governors like Fayḍ b. Muḥammad al-Kindī intensified state surveillance:

Censuses reached newborns and shrubs

Defacement replaced imprisonment

AG 1022 records neck-seals—leaden disks hung on jizya-payers, effectively turning the human body into a tax document.

AG 1033 reveals shaving as a mark of fraud, inscribing guilt onto the face.

Abbasid Empire: From Spectacle to System

The Abbasids inherited and routinized Umayyad penal visuality:

Public shaming and tattooing continued for thieves and rebels.

Non-Muslims were at times made to wear distinctive clothing or badges (especially under later caliphs).

Abbasid Baghdad saw the rise of official registrars (kuttāb al-dīwān) who maintained demographic and tax records with increasing granularity.

In Summary: When Counting Becomes Control

This was no ordinary tax survey. It was a totalizing audit of human and agricultural existence, combined with a symbolic regime of humiliation. The message was simple and chilling:

“We see you. We measure you. And if you lie, your face will bear the cost.”

It was empire at its most intimate—and its most exacting.

24. Patriarchal Succession, Caliphal Transition, and Hydraulic Empire

Latin Text

Et anno 1035, mortuus est Mar Elias patriarcha, mense teshrin priore, die tertia; et ei successit Mar Athanasius e monasterio Gubba Barraya. Et eodem anno mortuus est Yezid rex, et regnavit Hisham, filius ‘Abd al-Malik, post eum, annos 19, is plus quam reges sui praedecessores de in dieione sua domos, sata, officinas. Et eduxit ab Euphrate canalem ad irrigandum plantationes et sata quae ad eum fluvium instituerat.

English Translation

And in the year 1035 [723–724 CE], Mar Elias the patriarch died, on the third day of the month Teshrīn Qadmāyā (October), and he was succeeded by Mar Athanasius from the monastery of Gubba Barraya. And in the same year, King Yazīd died, and Hishām, son of ʿAbd al-Malik, ruled after him for 19 years. He built more houses, plantations, and workshops in his domain than any of his predecessors. And he dug a canal from the Euphrates to irrigate the orchards and plantations which he had established along that river.

The Death of Mar Elias and the Rise of Mar Athanasius

The Chronicle opens AG 1035 with the passing of Mar Elias, the Syriac Orthodox patriarch, on the 3rd of Teshrīn Qadmāyā—the Syriac name for October. Elias's tenure as patriarch had spanned a difficult era marked by Umayyad expansion and tightening fiscal policies, especially under Yazīd II.

He was succeeded by Mar Athanasius, a monk from the monastery of Gubba Barraya—a monastic center near Tell Beshme, along the Euphrates, in modern-day Syria.

This peaceful ecclesiastical succession reveals:

The stability and continuity of Christian institutions even under Islamic rule
The ongoing importance of monastic education in producing church leaders
A subtle sign that despite taxation and image destruction, the Church endured and adapted

The Death of Yazīd II and the Accession of Hishām

In the same year, Caliph Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik died (r. 720–724 CE), bringing to a close a reign remembered for:

The iconoclastic edict targeting figural art and religious imagery (see AG 1081)
A wave of taxation, census reforms, and punitive policies in Christian provinces
Religious tensions that would be remembered bitterly in later Christian sources

He was succeeded by Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik, whose reign would last for 19 years (724–743 CE)—the longest of any Umayyad caliph after Muʿāwiya I.

Hishām’s Legacy: Builder, Manager, Agrarian Caliph

“Is plus quam reges sui praedecessores de in dieione sua domos, sata, officinas…”
“…He built more houses, plantations, and workshops in his domain than his predecessors…”

Hishām’s rule is characterized here not by conquest, but by infrastructure and state-building. This aligns with Arabic historical sources (e.g., al-Ṭabarī), which describe Hishām as:

A fiscally disciplined and administratively competent ruler
An agricultural reformer, especially in the Syrian and Iraqi heartlands
A caliph who encouraged craft production and urban development

The Chronicle names:

“domos” — homes or buildings, possibly referring to urban expansion and housing for workers
“sata” — cultivated fields, gardens, and orchards, indicating agrarian intensification
“officinas” — workshops or manufactories, suggesting state-supported textile, leather, or metal industries

Irrigating Empire: The Euphrates Canal

“Et eduxit ab Euphrate canalem ad irrigandum plantationes…”
“…And he dug a canal from the Euphrates to irrigate the plantations…”

This remarkable note shows Hishām investing in hydraulic infrastructure, connecting the Euphrates to new orchards (plantationes) and cultivated land (sata). This aligns with:

Archaeological evidence of Umayyad-era canals and qanāts in Syria and Iraq
Reports that Hishām built and restored canals near al-Raqqa, Ḥimṣ, and Tadmur (Palmyra)
His interest in self-sufficiency and food security amid the growing population of the caliphate

This makes Hishām a caliph whose earth-moving efforts paralleled the centralizing ambitions of the Umayyad state—turning rivers into tools of empire, and agricultural surplus into the backbone of military and fiscal power.

Irrigating Empire — Umayyad Canals in Context

Throughout Late Antiquity and the early Islamic centuries, water control and agricultural intensification were central to imperial longevity. Under Caliph Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 724–743 CE), the Umayyad state began to actively invest in hydraulic infrastructure, echoing and adapting older Roman and Sasanian models.

Umayyad Irrigation under Hishām

🔹 The Euphrates Canal (AG 1035 / 724 CE)
The Chronicle of 819 mentions Hishām digging a canal from the Euphrates to irrigate orchards and crop lands—likely in the region of al-Raqqa, or between Ḥimṣ and Palmyra, where Umayyad estates were concentrated.

🔹 Known Projects from Arabic Sources

Canals dug or restored near al-Kūfa, Baṣra, and Ḥimṣ

Support for fruit orchards, flax cultivation, and grain production in northern Syria and Iraq

Tax incentives for farmers to plant date palms and olives, boosting long-term agrarian revenue

🔹 Archaeological Evidence

Surveys in al-Raqqa and al-Balikh valley have revealed canal beds, sluice gates, and settlement grids dated to the early 8th century

Some may have drawn from pre-Islamic Roman hydraulic systems, repurposed for Umayyad use

Roman Hydraulic Heritage

The Umayyads inherited a landscape shaped by centuries of Roman engineering:

Dams like the Harbaqa dam in Syria

Underground channels (qanāts) and cistern systems in Palestine and Transjordan

Monastic irrigation systems in the Orontes and Anti-Lebanon regions

These systems were decentralized and monastic-led, but the Umayyads centralized them, placing irrigation under state supervision and linking them to tax revenue.

Abbasid Continuities and Expansions

The Abbasids later expanded and institutionalized Umayyad hydraulic innovations:

Major canal works in Wasit, al-Ahwaz, and the Sawād

Foundation of Baghdad (762 CE) at the Tigris’s bend, using radial canals for city planning

Professionalization of irrigation management, with engineers (muhandisūn) and agronomists (fallāḥūn) employed by the caliphate

Some Abbasid-era manuals, like al-Filāḥa al-Nabaṭiyya, reflect a deep Sasanian influence—but the groundwork was laid in Hishām’s Syria.

Final Thought: Water as Sovereignty

Canals were more than infrastructure—they were imperial veins. To dig them was to:

Define property

Control nature

Bind people to the land—and to the state

By investing in irrigation, Hishām wasn’t just growing crops. He was growing an empire of roots, one channel at a time.

25. The Fall of Neocaesarea and Maslama’s Northern Blitz

Latin Text

Et anno 1037, ingressus est Maslama dicionem Romanorum: cepit Neocaesaream Ponti, et eam vastavit, et incolas eduxit captivos in Syriam.

English Translation

And in the year 1037 [725–726 CE], Maslama entered the domain of the Romans; he captured Neocaesarea of Pontus, devastated it, and led its inhabitants as captives into Syria.

Historical Commentary

This entry captures yet another high-profile campaign by Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik, the Umayyad general-prince and brother of Caliph Hishām. He is portrayed here in his signature role as raider-in-chief on the Roman frontier—bold, aggressive, and logistically adept.

Neocaesarea (modern Niksar in northern Turkey) was the capital of Pontus Polemoniacus, a fortified and symbolically significant city in the upper Iris River valley, near the Pontic Alps.

The Chronicle’s record is corroborated directly by Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ, who notes in AH 107 (725–726 CE):

“Maslama conducted a raiding expedition. He invaded from Malatya [through the mountain passes], halted at Caesarea, and conquered it by force.”
(Tārīkh, sub anno 107)

This makes it highly plausible that Maslama captured both Caesarea Mazaca (Kayseri) and Neocaesarea (Niksar) in a single winter campaign— seizing Caesarea on 13 January 726, then striking deeper into Pontus.

Campaign Route and Military Implications

Maslama’s probable invasion route:

Departed from Malatya (Melitene), the main Umayyad military base in the Armenian borderlands
Crossed the Anti-Taurus range, likely via the Comana–Zela–Amasia route
Captured Caesarea Mazaca (Kayseri), then continued northeast to Neocaesarea (Niksar)
Sacked Neocaesarea, depopulated the city, and marched captives south into Syria

This campaign mirrors the Roman-Umayyad pattern of seasonal razzias (ṣawāʾif)—raids conducted in the summer and winter months, often designed to:

Seize slaves
Disrupt local governance
Undermine imperial morale
Demonstrate Islamic territorial reach

That Neocaesarea was “devastated” (vastavit) and depopulated (incolas eduxit captivos) suggests this was not just a raid—it was a targeted urban annihilation, meant to send a message to Constantinople.

Deportation to Syria

The Chronicle notes the captives were taken into Syria (in Syriam). This matches Umayyad practice:

Captives were often resettled in newly developed garrison towns (amṣār) to provide:
- Skilled labor
- Agricultural work
- Christian scribes or artisans (especially useful in the Umayyad court)
Others were sold in Damascus or Ḥimṣ, or ransomed back through Roman embassies

This created a cycle of humiliation and negotiation, one that Roman sources would later reverse under Leo III.

Maslama: The Caliphate’s Hammer on the Frontier

This campaign reinforces Maslama’s image as:

The caliphate’s most active general on the northern front
A symbol of martial authority, trusted by multiple caliphs from ʿAbd al-Malik to Hishām
A figure feared and respected even in Roman sources (e.g., Theophanes)

Final Reflections

The Chronicle’s stark phrasing—vastavit… eduxit captivos—illustrates a turning point in military escalation: the razzias were no longer just skirmishes but city-level catastrophes. For the Christian chronicler, the destruction of Neocaesarea was both a record of suffering and a reminder of divine abandonment.

But for the Umayyads, it was a success story: a prince of the dynasty striking deep into Roman lands, bringing back both plunder and prestige, irrigating Syrian settlements not only with water—but with human capital taken from the north.

26. Maslama’s Northern War Against the Turks (Khazars)

Latin Text

Et anno 1039, ingressus est fines Turcarum: occurrit ei exercitus numerosus, et clade accepta reversus est; iterum collegit operarios lapicidas, lignarios et ferreos fabros, et secunda vice ingressus est, pugnavit et vicit: et ibi condidit castra et urbes magnas.

English Translation

And in the year 1039 [728–729 CE], he entered the territory of the Turks. A large army confronted him, and after suffering a defeat, he withdrew. Again, he gathered stonecutters, carpenters, and blacksmiths, and entered a second time. He fought and was victorious. And there he built camps and great cities.

Historical Commentary

The Chronicle of 819 offers a dramatic two-act narrative of a military failure followed by a successful return—both led by Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik, the veteran Umayyad general and brother of Caliph Hishām. The “Turks” referenced here are not Central Asian invaders but the Khazars, the powerful Turkic steppe polity north of the Caucasus and Caspian.

The term Turcarum ("Turks") here refers not to Central Asian Turks in general, but specifically to the Khazar Khaganate, which had become the dominant power north of the Caucasus Mountains and the Caspian Sea by the early 8th century. The Khazars were the main northern adversaries of the Umayyads, engaging in a long, brutal war over control of Caucasian Albania (modern Azerbaijan) and the Darband Pass (Bab al-Abwāb).

This entry in the Chronicle of 819 matches Arabic historical records in detail:

First Defeat, Then Victory

First Encounter — Defeat and Retreat

Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ writes under AH 109 (727–728 CE):

“Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik conducted a raiding expedition. The armies roamed freely in Azerbaijan, where they spent the winter.”

This refers to the first phase of the campaign: a failed northern push, likely through the Caspian Gates, where Maslama’s troops were:

Outnumbered by Khazar cavalry
Struck by harsh winter and flooding
Forced to retreat back into Umayyad-controlled Armenia and Arrān

The Chronicle’s phrase “clade accepta reversus est” (“he suffered a defeat and returned”) reflects this moment precisely.

Second Campaign — Victory and Construction

Al-Ṭabarī, under AH 110 (728–729 CE), provides the second phase:

“Maslama advanced to Bab al-Lān, where he met the Khagan. They fought for nearly a month, under heavy rains. God gave victory to Maslama. The Khagan fled. Maslama returned via the Mosque of Dhū al-Qarnayn.”

This matches the Chronicle’s:

“secunda vice ingressus est, pugnavit et vicit” — “on the second entry, he fought and won”
Followed by an unusual note: “condidit castra et urbes magnas” — “he built camps and great cities”

Maslama’s campaign, like many Umayyad frontier operations, was not only military but colonial:

He brought with him stonecutters, carpenters, and blacksmiths—indicating a plan to fortify, settle, and build
Arabic sources say Maslama reinforced Darband (Bab al-Abwāb) and may have helped lay the foundations for fortified ribāṭs or new garrison towns in the Caucasus

These settlements served multiple purposes:

Military staging grounds against future Khazar incursions
Bases for surveillance of the volatile mountain tribes
Symbols of Umayyad permanence at the edge of the known & civilized world.

From War to Settlement: Maslama as Builder

Maslama’s ability to return with artisans and engineers reflects a core Umayyad strategy:

Strike first, then settle and fortify
Convert conquests into fiscal provinces and military corridors
Project Islamic power through visible infrastructure, not just banners and swords

This echoes similar building efforts:

In Neocaesarea after its sacking in AG 1037
Along the Euphrates canal system under Hishām (cf. AG 1035)
At Qasr al-Hayr, al-Raqqa, and ʿAyn al-Tamr, where Maslama is associated with early Umayyad architecture

Walls at the Edge — Umayyads, Khazars, and the Inherited Frontier

The Caucasus Frontier Before Islam

Long before the Umayyads, the Caspian Gates (Bab al-Abwāb) were a major geostrategic bottleneck:

The Persian Empires, Achaemenids, Arsacids & Sassanids had constructed early walls at Darband (Derbent), in modern Dagestan, to block nomadic incursions from the north.

The Roman Empire cooperated with Caucasian Albania and Iberia (Georgia) to buffer against Sarmatians, Alans, and early Turkic groups.

These fortifications were:

Stone ramparts, sometimes 10m thick, stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Caucasus foothills

Equipped with watchtowers, ditches, and garrison posts

Regularly repaired from the 3rd to 6th centuries CE

Umayyad Revival: Maslama and the Wall of Derbent

When Maslama pushed into the Khazar zone (AG 1039 / AH 110), he entered a landscape already steeped in imperial memory. The Chronicle of 819 says he:

“gathered stonemasons and blacksmiths... and built camps and great cities.

Maslama's campaigns revived these forts by:

Fortifying Darband (Derbent)—a Sasanian wall system inherited and Islamized

Establishing ribāṭs (frontier fortresses) as spiritual and military outposts

Introducing a theology of containment—the caliphate versus chaos

Roman Parallels: The Danube and Beyond

The Umayyads' strategy mirrors Roman techniques in the Sarmatian frontier:

Feature Roman–Sarmatian Frontier Umayyad–Khazar Frontier

Enemy Sarmatians, Alans, Goths Khazars, Sabirs, “Turks”

Barrier Limes along the Danube Wall at Darband (Bab al-Abwāb)

Buffer Zones Allied client kings in Dacia, Armenia Arab governors in Armenia, Arrān

Forts Castra + watchtowers Ribāṭs + garrisons

Purpose Taxation, trade, defense Daʿwa, defense, and symbolic Islamization

Feature	Roman–Sarmatian Frontier	Umayyad–Khazar Frontier
Enemy	Sarmatians, Alans, Goths	Khazars, Sabirs, “Turks”
Barrier	Limes along the Danube	Wall at Darband (Bab al-Abwāb)
Buffer Zones	Allied client kings in Dacia, Armenia	Arab governors in Armenia, Arrān
Forts	Castra + watchtowers	Ribāṭs + garrisons
Purpose	Taxation, trade, defense	Daʿwa, defense, and symbolic Islamization

Ribāṭ as Monastery and Fortress

The Umayyad ribāṭ on the Khazar frontier wasn't just a barracks. It was a hybrid institution:

A military post

A spiritual outpost where warriors fasted, prayed, and awaited martyrdom

A staging point for raids and daʿwa

These echoes the Roman limes, which were zones of military-religious fusion—with cults to Jupiter, Mars, or the emperor stationed alongside border watchmen.

Final Reflections: On the Edge of the Earth

The Chronicle’s sparse but loaded narrative shows us the Umayyad caliphate not only expanding into Rome—but into the Caucasus and the steppes beyond, where climatic, geographic, and cultural conditions tested the limits of imperial projection.

Maslama’s war with the Khazars was not just a border skirmish. It was a cosmic confrontation, framed in terms of:

Victory from defeat
Civilization over chaos
Permanent presence after temporary pain

This was not the end of the Khazar–Caliphate wars. But it marked a moment when the caliphate dared to build where others fled.

27. A Synod in the West and the Death of Hishām

Latin Text

Et anno 1054, congregata est synodus episcoporum in Occidente, cum Mar Iohanne patriarcha et Mar Athanasio Sandalaya, metropolita Mesopotamiae, ob perturbationem quae accidit in ecclesia et correctiones canonum. Et eodem anno, mortuus est Hisham, et regnavit post eum Walid, annum cum dimidio, vir strenuus, iocorum, voluptatis, venationis, potationis amans.

English Translation

And in the year 1054 [742–743 CE], a synod of bishops was convened in the West, with Patriarch Mar John and Mar Athanasius Sandalaya, metropolitan of Mesopotamia, because of a disturbance that had arisen in the Church and to correct the canons. And in the same year, Hishām died, and Walīd reigned after him for a year and a half, a vigorous man, fond of jokes, pleasures, hunting, and drinking.

The Synod of the West: Crisis and Canonical Reform

The Chronicle opens AG 1054 with an important ecclesiastical event: a regional synod held “in the West,” meaning Western Syriac regions, likely northern Syria or Upper Mesopotamia.

Presiding figures:

Mar John (Yōḥannān): Syriac Orthodox patriarch
Mar Athanasius Sandalaya: metropolitan of Mesopotamia, later patriarch (r. 756–758), known for his diplomatic skill and ecclesiastical discipline

The synod was called:

“ob perturbationem quae accidit in ecclesia” — due to a disturbance in the Church
“et correctiones canonum” — and to correct or reform the canons

This reflects:

Internal theological or jurisdictional disputes, perhaps over diocesan boundaries or monastic rule
A broader effort to tighten church governance in response to social and fiscal pressure from the Umayyad state
Continued functioning of Christian institutions in Islamic lands — despite heavy taxation, iconoclasm, and occasional persecution, the Church remained autonomous in its internal affairs

Synods like this helped maintain:

Clerical discipline
Doctrinal unity across a far-flung, multi-ethnic episcopate
Negotiated stability with Muslim governors

The Death of Hishām: End of a Long Reign

Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik, who ruled for 19 years (724–743 CE), died in this same year. His death marked the end of an era of relative stability for the Umayyad dynasty.

Key legacies:

Fiscal discipline and agricultural investment (cf. AG 1035 canal entry)
Military leadership against the Romans and Khazars (with his brother Maslama)
Patronage of Islamic jurisprudence, including scholars like al-Awzāʿī

Yet his reign also faced:

Growing provincial resentment
Fiscal strain from endless frontier wars
The rise of ʿAlid and Kharijite dissent, which would explode under his successors

The Brief and Notorious Reign of al-Walīd II

The Chronicle shifts sharply in tone when it describes his successor:

“Walid... annum cum dimidio, vir strenuus, iocorum, voluptatis, venationis, potationis amans”
“...a vigorous man, fond of jokes, pleasures, hunting, and drinking.”

This is Walīd b. Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 743–744 CE) — a caliph remembered across Islamic and Christian sources as:

Brilliant but debauched
A lover of wine, poetry, music, and women
A ruler more suited for the palace than the pulpit

Arabic historians like al-Ṭabarī and al-Masʿūdī condemn him as:

A zindīq (heretic)
A scandal to the Umayyad image of pious kingship
An example of how moral decadence hastened dynastic collapse

Christian chroniclers like the author of the Chronicle of 819 echo this—his love of iocorum (jokes), voluptas (pleasure), and potatio (drinking) is not praise, but subtle moral indictment.

Final Reflections: Crossroads of Church and Caliphate

This entry captures two institutions in transition:

The Church, facing disruption, responded with conciliar authority and canonical correction — reaffirming internal coherence
The Caliphate, facing dynastic fatigue, elevated a man whose moral excesses symbolized political decay

The year AG 1054 thus marks a hinge:

The old order (Hishām and canon law) fading
The chaos to come — intra-Umayyad civil war, Zaydī and ʿAbbāsid revolts, and the final twilight of a dynasty

28. The Fall of the Umayyads and Rise of the ʿAbbāsids

Latin Text

Et anno 1056, mortuus est Walid, et regnavit post eum Marwan; vir durus et Arabibus tremendus; ex eis enim occidit et suspendit, in omnibus civitatibus Syriae. Vixit in imperio annos sex, et mortuus est. Regnavit post eum ʿAbdallah filius Mohammedi annos viginti tres cum dimidio. Eo iubente, eversi sunt muri civitatum Syriae.

English Translation

And in the year 1056 [744–745 CE], Walid died, and after him Marwān reigned; a harsh man, and terrifying to the Arabs — for he killed and hanged many of them in all the cities of Syria. He ruled for six years and died. After him, ʿAbdallāh son of Muḥammad reigned for twenty-three and a half years. At his command, the walls of the cities of Syria were torn down.

The Death of al-Walīd II: End of a Scandalous Reign

Al-Walīd II (r. 743–744 CE) died violently in April 744, assassinated near Tadmur (Palmyra) by Umayyad conspirators, likely supporters of his cousin Yazīd III, in protest of his hedonism, alienation of the military, and harshness toward the Quraysh.

His death unleashed a storm of succession crises — but the Chronicle skips this complexity.

What’s Missing: Two Forgotten Caliphs

Yazīd III ibn al-Walīd

Ruled: April – October 744 CE
Proclaimed himself caliph in Damascus after overthrowing al-Walīd II
Promoted piety and austerity, modeled after ʿUmar II
Died of illness after less than six months

Ibrāhīm ibn al-Walīd

Proclaimed caliph briefly (Oct – Dec 744 CE)
Never recognized by many provinces
Quickly swept aside by Marwān II, governor of the Jazīrah

The Chronicle of 819 omits both, compressing events for narrative clarity and focusing on effective rulers. This selectivity was common in Christian chronicles — emphasizing impact over accuracy.

Marwān II: The Harsh Avenger

“Vir durus et Arabibus tremendus…”
“A harsh man, and terrifying to the Arabs…”

This line reflects the reputation of Marwān II (r. 744–750 CE):

Former governor of Armenia and Jazīrah
Military expert and a brutal disciplinarian
Known for suppressing tribal revolts and mass executions in:
- Ḥimṣ, Damascus, Tadmur
- Cities seen as disloyal during the civil war
His power base was in northern Syria and Mesopotamia (Ḥarrān, Raqqa) — not traditional Umayyad centers

The Chronicle’s phrase “occidit et suspendit… in omnibus civitatibus Syriae” (he killed and hanged in all the cities of Syria) refers to:

His mass repression of rebel factions (e.g., Yamānī, Khārijites, Qays-Yaman conflicts)
His desperate attempt to restore unity through fear.

Collapse of a Dynasty

Despite his efforts, Marwān’s reign saw the Umayyad world fracture irreparably:

Kūfa, Baṣra, Khurāsān, and even Egypt fell away
The ʿAbbāsid daʿwa (revolutionary movement) in Khurāsān gathered steam under Abū Muslim
In 750 CE, Marwān II was defeated at the Battle of the Zab, and later killed in Upper Egypt

The Chronicle notes simply: “Vixit in imperio annos sex, et mortuus est” — “He ruled for six years, and died.” A fittingly cold obituary for a man remembered with more fear than love.

The Rise of ʿAbdallāh ibn Muḥammad: The First ʿAbbāsid

“Regnavit post eum ʿAbdallāh filius Moḥammedi…”
“…he reigned for 23 and a half years.”

This refers to ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, better known as Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Saffāḥ, the founder of the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate (r. 750–754 CE). The Chronicle, however, extends his reign to 23½ years — likely conflating him with his successors, especially al-Manṣūr.

The most chilling line:

“Eo iubente, eversi sunt muri civitatum Syriae”
“At his command, the walls of the cities of Syria were torn down.”

This refers to a very real punitive policy by early ʿAbbāsids:

Damascus, the old Umayyad capital, was disarmed and defortified
Other cities across Syria — Ḥimṣ, Baʿlabakk, Tadmur, and al-Raṣāfa — had their walls destroyed or their garrisons removed
It was a symbolic and practical erasure of Umayyad infrastructure

The ʿAbbāsids saw Syria as:

Politically disloyal
Theological rivals, due to Umayyad leanings toward Qadarī and Murjiʾī doctrine
A potential center of rebellion, especially among remaining Umayyad princes

Thus, they punished Syria with urban mutilation, turning proud garrison cities into open, vulnerable spaces.

Final Reflections: A World Reversed

The Chronicle’s account of AG 1056 is a study in reversals:

From Umayyad dominance to destruction
From the pleasure-loving Walīd to the ruthless Marwān
From Syrian capital to ʿAbbāsid marginalization

The tearing down of Syria’s walls was more than political—it was historical erasure, the scarring of the landscape to mark a new beginning.

29. Al-Saffāḥ Dies, al-Manṣūr Reigns — and Syria Rebels

Latin Text

Et anno 1065, mortuus est ʿAbdallāh, et regnavit post eum ʿAbdallāh eius frater. Initio eius regni fuit bellum grave, et ruina magna inter Arabes et Persas, et angustia et egestas, et rebellio in Syria. Manifestavit enim prodigiosa et acerba artificia quae superant quidquid invenerunt reges eius decessores, et tributa et exactiones usque dum evanuerit pecunia e tota ditione eius. Et, se vivo, regnare fecit in Arabes filium suum Mahdi.

English Translation

And in the year 1065 [753–754 CE], ʿAbdallāh died, and after him reigned his brother ʿAbdallāh. At the beginning of his reign there was a severe war and great ruin between the Arabs and Persians, and distress and famine, and a rebellion in Syria. For he revealed monstrous and bitter artifices, surpassing anything his royal predecessors had devised — and taxes and exactions until money vanished from all his domain. And while still alive, he caused his son Mahdī to rule over the Arabs.

DETAILED COMMENTARY

In AG 1065 (754 CE), the Chronicle of 819 records the death of ʿAbdallāh—better known to history as Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Saffāḥ, founder of the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate. Revered in Islamic sources as the dynasty’s liberator from Umayyad tyranny, he is remembered here with stark sobriety. For the Chronicle’s Christian author, his reign was less a triumph than a harbinger of systemic violence:

Mass executions of Umayyad family members

Civil wars against Umayyad loyalists and Khārijite rebels

Heavy taxation, now levied from Kufa rather than Damascus

Though short (r. 750–754), al-Saffāḥ’s reign inaugurated a new imperial order that would have profound effects across the caliphate—especially in the rural and religiously diverse regions of Syria and Iran.

Al-Manṣūr’s Troubled Accession: “War Between Arabs and Persians”

Following al-Saffāḥ, the caliphate passed to his brother Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr (r. 754–775), one of the most formidable architects of the ʿAbbāsid state. But the Chronicle’s portrayal of his reign begins not with achievements, but catastrophe:

“bellum grave inter Arabes et Persas” — A great war between the Arabs and the Persians
“angustia et egestas” — distress and famine
“rebellio in Syria” — revolt in Syria

These terse phrases encapsulate a wave of revolts and economic strain:

ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAlī, al-Manṣūr’s uncle, led a major revolt in Syria and Upper Mesopotamia (754–755)

Arab garrisons and Iranian mawālī clashed violently, as tribal elites lost ground to Persian converts and bureaucrats

Syrian Arab tribes, long privileged under the Umayyads, were alienated by the ʿAbbāsid shift to Iraq-centered rule

This conflict—social, sectarian, and fiscal—was as much a cultural revolution as a dynastic one.

Coins, Clerks, and Collapse — Al-Manṣūr’s Fiscal Revolution

Al-Manṣūr inherited a fragmented empire and implemented ruthlessly efficient centralization to hold it together. His policies, while praised by later ʿAbbāsid thinkers, were seen by contemporaries as harsh and even monstrous.

Taxation: A New Bureaucracy Emerges

Drawing on Sasanian and Roman precedents, al-Manṣūr:

Expanded the kharāj (land tax) system across Khurāsān and Syria

Codified jizya collection on non-Muslims, often marked by tokens or documentation

Replaced Arab tribal elites with Persian and mawālī bureaucrats, creating alienation and resentment

The Chronicle of 819 charges al-Manṣūr with inventing “prodigiosa et acerba artificia” — cruel and bitter devices. Echoing the imagery of Egyptian or Roman oppressors, the chronicler writes:

“pecunia evanuit ex tota ditione eius” — money vanished from his entire realm

In The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran, Patricia Crone affirms this pattern of administrative imposition, noting that even Khurāsān—once a revolutionary heartland—faced suffocating fiscal pressure, spurring native resistance cloaked in both Islamic and local religious idioms.

Resistance and Ruin: Arab vs. Persian

Crone also highlights that these burdens fed into rural rebellions, particularly in Khurāsān and Azerbaijan, where sectarian movements such as the Rāwandiyya and Bābakiyya mixed Shiʿite claims, millenarian fervor, and Zoroastrian survivals.

The Chronicle echoes this:

“War between Arabs and Persians” may signal sectarianized class conflict, where Persian mawālī and converts rejected Arab supremacy

“Famine and hardship” likely refer to widespread dislocation caused by forced taxation and resettlement policies

Where Did the Money Go?

Al-Manṣūr's construction of Baghdad (founded in 762 CE) and a vast canal and barracks system required:

Extraction of rural wealth via crop quotas and land surveys

Coin consolidation and inflation

Fiscal surveillance unprecedented in the Islamic world

What was once a loosely managed caliphate became, under al-Manṣūr, an imperial tax machine—especially for rural Christians, Aramaic peasants, and Zoroastrian villages from Rayy to Nisibis.

Al-Mahdī: The Invention of Dynastic Rule

“Et, se vivo, regnare fecit in Arabes filium suum Mahdi.”
“And while still alive, he caused his son Mahdī to rule over the Arabs.”

In 759, al-Manṣūr named his son al-Mahdī as crown prince, breaking with earlier ʿAbbāsid practice and solidifying hereditary succession.

This preemptive coronation:

Prevented factional collapse upon his death

Allowed Mahdī to gain governing experience in Khurāsān and Rayy

Marked the ʿAbbāsid turn from revolutionary coalition to dynasty

Al-Mahdī’s later reign (775–785) would bring some relief and grandeur—but the price of al-Manṣūr’s stability had already been paid.

Final Reflections: Empire by Iron and Ink

The Chronicle of 819’s depiction of al-Manṣūr stands in sharp contrast to his Arabic epitaphs. Rather than the "second founder of the caliphate," he is seen as:

A destroyer of regional autonomy

A harsh tax innovator (acerba artificia)

A symbol of economic collapse (pecunia evanuit)

Christian chroniclers, Aramaic-speaking villagers, and disenfranchised Arab tribes would remember his rule not for Baghdad's domes, but for the loss of bread, dignity, and ancient rights.

In The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran, Crone reminds us that this period saw the birth of both Islamic empire and proto-Iranian resistance. As Khurāsān boiled with revolts, the seeds were sown for a new Persian religious-political consciousness—one that would outlast even the dynasty al-Manṣūr had so carefully forged.

30. Tyranny and Apocalypse in the Jazīrah

Latin Text

Et anno 1080, mortuus est David Darae episcopus qui facetus est patriarcha cogente regia auctoritate; Georgius autem patriarcha mansit in carcere vinctus. Et eo anno factus est amira Mesopotamiae et Mosulis Musa filius Mus'ab, Iudaeus, vir iniquus et sine misericordia, christianorum osor; excogitavit omne genus suppliciorum, quae non fuerant ab initio mundi; appendit numismata plumbea collo uniuseiusque et inussit pollices manuum eorum; vectigal etiam pro parietibus, portis, et fenestris exegit; adeo ut homines sepulchra antiqua effoderent, et aurum argentumque inde eruerent, quo tributum persolverent. Fuit fames et lues eius diebus: et deficiebant homines sicut locustae et non erat qui sepeliret; et exierunt lupi rapaces qui devoraverunt multos homines, maxime in regione Turabdinensi. Auctoritate potitus est tres annos; postea destitutus est et in iudicium vocatus; et quidquid acquisiverat venum datum est; etiam eius mulieres venditione venditae sunt.

English Translation

And in the year 1080, David, bishop of Dara, who had been made patriarch under compulsion by royal authority, died; but Patriarch George remained bound in prison. And in that same year, Mūsā, son of Musʿab — a Jew, a wicked man without mercy, a hater of Christians — was made amīr of Mesopotamia and Mosul. He devised every kind of punishment that had not existed since the beginning of the world: he hung lead tokens from the neck of every person and branded the thumbs of their hands. He even exacted a tax for walls, gates, and windows — to such an extent that people dug up ancient tombs and extracted gold and silver from them in order to pay the tribute.

There was famine and pestilence in his days: people perished like locusts, and there was no one left to bury them. And ravenous wolves came forth and devoured many people, especially in the region of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn. He held authority for three years; afterward, he was deposed and summoned to trial, and everything he had acquired was sold at auction — even his women were sold off by public sale.

DETAILED COMMENTARY

This entry in the Chronicle of 819 is one of its most emotionally charged, apocalyptic, and symbolically dense. It documents a moment of administrative cruelty, spiritual crisis, and societal unraveling under the governorship of Mūsā ibn Musʿab in Upper Mesopotamia and Mosul. The Chronicle of Zuqnin parallels and deepens the depiction, likening Mūsā to the Antichrist and his reign to a cosmic calamity.

Let us examine each portion of the text, line by line.

1. “Mortuus est David Darae episcopus qui facetus est patriarcha cogente regia auctoritate; Georgius autem patriarcha mansit in carcere vinctus.”

“David, bishop of Dara, who had been made patriarch under compulsion by royal authority, died; but Patriarch George remained bound in prison.”

This initial sentence outlines a crisis in ecclesiastical leadership:

David of Dara: A bishop forcibly elevated to patriarch under pressure from the caliphal court — possibly reflecting a non-canonical imposition of church authority by Muslim rulers.
George (Yūḥannā/Georgios): The rightful patriarch, apparently still imprisoned. This aligns with the broader trend of state interference in Christian ecclesiastical succession, where compliant bishops were favored over legitimate ones.

The use of cogente regia auctoritate (“by compelling royal authority”) emphasizes that David’s promotion was not canonical but imposed — a cause for both scandal and division within the Church.

Interpretation: The church’s internal divisions mirror the broader societal trauma. When external powers dictate religious succession, it signals a loss of autonomy and deepening of occupation.

2. “Et eo anno factus est amira Mesopotamiae et Mosulis Musa filius Mus'ab, iudaeus, vir iniquus et sine misericordia, christianorum osor.”

“That same year, Mūsā ibn Musʿab, a Jew, a wicked man without mercy, a hater of Christians, became amīr of Mesopotamia and Mosul.”

The Chronicle offers a scathing characterization:

“Iudaeus”: Whether literally true or a polemical slur is unclear; Arabic sources do not confirm Mūsā as Jewish. The term may reflect a rhetorical weapon — associating him with perceived "Old Testament cruelty" or infidel oppression.
“Vir iniquus et sine misericordia”: Emphasizes moral depravity, not just administrative severity.
“Christianorum osor”: A direct accusation of religious animus — setting the tone for the horrors that follow.

Chronicle of Zuqnin echoes this:

“He has no rival among the pagan kings, nor among the Magians or Manichaeans.”

This statement indicates that for Syriac Christians, Mūsā surpassed every previous persecutor — pagan or heretical — in cruelty.

3. “Excogitavit omne genus suppliciorum, quae non fuerant ab initio mundi.”

“He devised every kind of punishment that had not existed since the beginning of the world.”

This hyperbolic phrasing casts Mūsā’s cruelty in biblical-apocalyptic terms. It's reminiscent of language used for Pharaoh, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and even Satan in early Christian writings. The Chronicle of Zuqnin likewise says:

“Since the creation of the world to this day, it has never suffered a calamity like the one it suffered at the hands of this man.”

This rhetorical strategy transforms Mūsā from a historical figure into a cosmic antagonist, a kind of reverse Christ, or Antichrist:

“If one wants to call him Antichrist and his agents messengers of the Son of Perdition, he is not wrong…”

This eschatological framing links suffering under Islamic rule with a theological narrative of divine testing and apocalyptic judgment.

4. “Appendit numismata plumbea collo uniuseiusque et inussit pollices manuum eorum.”

“He hung lead tokens from the neck of every person and branded the thumbs of their hands.”

This practice is consistent with what modern scholars refer to as “neck-sealing”, studied by Chase F. Robinson and others. It was:

A method of fiscal control — indicating jizya payment or fiscal status.
A visual mark of subjugation — turning bodies into walking tax receipts.
A humiliation tactic — evoking slave branding and imperial domination.

Branding the thumb recalls Roman punishment for thieves or slaves, again aligning the victim with a status of criminality or inferiority. It marks the subject as both taxable and vulnerable.

5. “Vectigal etiam pro parietibus, portis, et fenestris exegit.”

“He even exacted a tax for walls, gates, and windows.”

This detail is absurd yet terrifying, turning the most basic architectural features of human life into taxable property. It reflects a desperate extractive economy, wherein every inch of life is monetized.

Such taxes, especially when perceived as arbitrary, have parallels in:

Roman practices under Justinian
Sasanian systems of household taxation
Early Islamic efforts to inventory fixed property

It also speaks to the psychological terror of total surveillance — nothing is untaxed, nothing sacred.

6. “Adeo ut homines sepulchra antiqua effoderent…”

“To such an extent that people dug up ancient tombs and extracted gold and silver to pay the tribute.”

This detail echoes biblical famine scenes, especially 2 Kings 6:28–29, where women eat their own children during siege conditions. It evokes total societal collapse:

The dead are desecrated, suggesting an overturning of all human and divine order.
The need to mine the past to survive the present reflects both desperation and metaphorical cultural erasure.

📍7. “Fuit fames et lues eius diebus… et exierunt lupi rapaces…”

“There was famine and pestilence in his days… and ravenous wolves came forth and devoured many people, especially in the region of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn.”

These afflictions are both literal and symbolic:

Famine and plague often followed administrative upheaval and war in late antiquity.
Wolves are a standard biblical image of divine judgment and chaos (e.g., Ezekiel 22:27, Matthew 7:15).
Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, a heartland of Syriac Christianity, was especially devastated — a region of monasteries, scribes, and saints now overrun by beasts.

The loss of burial (non erat qui sepeliret) recalls Roman-Christian martyr narratives and the curse of unburied corpses in ancient warfare.

📍8. “Auctoritate potitus est tres annos; postea destitutus est et in iudicium vocatus; et quidquid acquisiverat venum datum est; etiam eius mulieres venditione venditae sunt.”

“He held authority for three years; afterward, he was deposed and summoned to judgment, and everything he had acquired was sold — even his women were sold by public auction.”

This is the reversal of tyranny: divine justice administered through historical consequence. The sale of his property and wives signifies:

Total disgrace: a tyrant stripped of power and legacy.
Echoes of biblical and Islamic ideas that unjust rulers will face humiliation and loss.

It’s also a powerful memory device: the community recalls not only his cruelty, but his downfall — a sign that even monstrous rulers cannot outlast divine justice.

Final Reflection: Tyranny as Theological Catastrophe

This entry is not a dry administrative report. It is martyrology, lament, and apocalypse blended into a single passage. The Chronicler constructs Mūsā ibn Musʿab as:

A historical tyrant
A moral abomination
A theological sign of the end

His actions — fiscal, symbolic, bodily — touched every layer of Christian life in the Jazīrah:

The body is branded.
The home is taxed.
The grave is looted.
The soul is tested.

And yet, in his downfall, the chronicler sees hope: that even amid collapse, justice reigns — if not through men, then through history.

31. From Prisons to Councils — Christians and Caliphs in an Age of ʿAbbāsid Transition

1. “Et postquam regnavit ‘Abdallah, filius Mohammeti, annos viginti tres, mortuus est…”

“And after ʿAbdallāh, son of Muḥammad, had reigned for twenty-three years, he died…”

This refers to Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr (r. 754–775), who has already loomed large in previous entries for his:

Harsh fiscal policies (acerba artificia)
Imperial construction of Baghdad
Appointment of his son al-Mahdī as heir during his lifetime

This line simply reaffirms his reign’s duration and death — but it marks a hinge point: the end of one of the most powerful caliphs in Islamic history and the beginning of a new phase where Christian internal affairs will temporarily stabilize.

2. “Et ei successit Mahdi eius filius, quem vivus regnare fecerat.”

“And he was succeeded by al-Mahdī, his son, whom he had caused to reign while still alive.”

The chronicler confirms the dynastic strategy first noted in AG 1065 — where al-Manṣūr ensured his son's succession in advance. The use of vivus regnare fecerat emphasizes both the planning and continuity of this handover.

This transition matters not just politically, but theologically: it signals a stabilization of power and an opportunity for reconciliation between church and state.

3. “Is vero Georgium patriarcham e carcere dimisit.”

“He (al-Mahdī) released Patriarch George from prison.”

A significant gesture. George (George I, Syrian Orthodox patriarch) had been held under harsh imprisonment for years, His release is not simply a humanitarian act — it's a symbol of religious tolerance.

Al-Mahdī (r. 775–785 CE) is remembered in Arabic and Syriac sources as relatively benevolent toward Christians.
His freeing of George echoes Umayyad precedents (e.g., Muʿāwiya's protection of Christian clergy) and suggests an Abbasid shift in tone after al-Manṣūr’s harshness.

4. “Et congregavit Georgius synodum episcoporum triginta sex in urbe Sarug…”

“And George convened a synod of thirty-six bishops in the city of Seroe (Sarug)…”

George’s first major act upon release is to reassert canonical order within the church. Sarug (modern-day Suruç, in southeastern Turkey) had long been a cultural and theological center for Syriac Christianity. That thirty-six bishops attended indicates:

A high level of ecclesiastical mobilization
A return to religious normalcy under Mahdī’s rule
The importance of reestablishing orthodoxy after years of political interference and doctrinal fracture

5. “Propter Iohannem metropolitam Tagriti, quem anathematizaverunt omnes et deposuerunt.”

“Concerning John, the metropolitan of Ṭakrīt, whom they all anathematized and deposed.”

This reflects ongoing ecclesiastical tensions in the East Syrian church. Ṭakrīt, near the Tigris in Iraq, was a powerful metropolitan see.

The anathema and deposition of John of Ṭakrīt suggests a doctrinal or political split — perhaps tied to loyalties under persecution or collaboration with Muslim authorities.
Such public synodal action is rare — and testifies to the newfound power of the patriarchate under a caliph who, for once, allowed Christian leadership some autonomy.

6. “Acceptus vero est in monasterio Mar Matthai: et creavit ex istis monachis sex episcopos.”

“He was received in the monastery of Mar Mattai, and from these monks he consecrated six bishops.”

This is an important institutional detail:

Mar Mattai Monastery, located near Mosul, was one of the most prestigious Syriac Orthodox monasteries in Mesopotamia.
The consecration of six new bishops from this monastic house suggests a rejuvenation of the episcopate and a deliberate return to spiritual and doctrinal purity after a period of fragmentation.

The Chronicle presents this moment of healing and restoration as part of the blessing of Mahdī’s rule — a peaceful interlude.

7. “Et eodem anno mortuus est Mahdi; regnavit autem octo annos et novem menses.”

“And in that same year, Mahdī died; he reigned eight years and nine months.”

His reign (775–785 CE) is remembered in both Christian and Muslim sources for its relative stability, moderate policy, and investment in bureaucracy. His death would, however, usher in renewed instability.

8. “Et regnavit Musa, filius eius, post eum, annum unum.”

“And his son Mūsā (al-Hādī) reigned after him for one year.”

Al-Hādī (r. 785–786) ruled for only about a year. His short reign was marked by:

Attempts to curb the power of his brother Hārūn al-Rashīd
Harsh treatment of some religious minorities
A more militarized tone, which may explain his lack of enduring legacy in the Chronicle

His short reign is passed over without detail — possibly reflecting neither hostility nor nostalgia on the chronicler’s part.

9. “Regnavit autem post eum Harun, frater eius, annos XXIII.”

“And after him reigned Hārūn, his brother, for twenty-three years.”

This is Hārūn al-Rashīd (r. 786–809 CE), the most famous ʿAbbāsid caliph, remembered in both historical and legendary material (e.g., The Thousand and One Nights). The Chronicle records his reign without comment — striking, given his fame.

Possible reasons:

Minimal impact on local Christian affairs
Chronicle’s author may have focused more on ecclesiastical than literary-political developments
The entry is telescoping large swaths of time — this is a summary, not a narrative

10. “Et post hunc regnavit Mohammed, eius filius, annos tres cum dimidio; et occidit eum ‘Abdallah al-Māmun, frater eius.”

“And after him reigned Muḥammad, his son, for three and a half years; and he was killed by ʿAbdallāh al-Maʾmūn, his brother.”

This refers to the brutal ʿAbbāsid Civil War:

Muḥammad is al-Amīn (r. 809–813 CE)
His brother al-Maʾmūn rebelled from Merv in Khurāsān and defeated him in 813, after a siege of Baghdad
Al-Amīn was beheaded, and his head sent to Maʾmūn — an act remembered in both Christian and Muslim chronicles as a fratricidal horror

The Chronicle treats this act starkly and factually — the horror is assumed, not sensationalized.

11. “Et mansit universa regio sine rege quindecim annos.”

“And the entire region remained without a king for fifteen years.”

This is a remarkable and symbolic phrase:

Not literally true — al-Maʾmūn ruled from 813 onward.
But it reflects a sense of an interregnum, a political vacuum — perhaps because:
- Maʾmūn initially ruled from Khurāsān, not Baghdad
- The West (Iraq, Syria) felt abandoned
- Rebellions, especially in the Roman frontier zones, flourished

It may also reflect a Christian theological view that tyranny or illegitimacy equals absence of rule — a de facto vacatio regni.

12. The Reign of ʿAbdallāh al-Maʾmūn — The Chronicle’s Final Muslim Entry

“Et anno 1100, regnare coepit ʿAbdallah al-Māmun annos viginti et tres.”
“And in the year 1100 [AG], ʿAbdallāh al-Maʾmūn began to reign, and reigned for twenty-three years.”

The Seleucid Date — Why AG 1100?

AG 1100 corresponds to October 1st, 788 CE – September 30th, 789 CE.
However, al-Maʾmūn did not actually begin his reign until 813 CE — over two decades later.

So, why the discrepancy?

There are three likely explanations:

Chronological Compression: The Chronicle of 819 sometimes telescopes or anticipates events, especially in its later sections. The chronicler may have retroactively associated Maʾmūn’s future prominence (as the designated heir and visible political figure) with an earlier date.

Scribal Error: It’s possible that a numerical error crept into the manuscript, confusing AG 1124 (813 CE) with AG 1100 (788 CE), especially since numbers in Syriac and Latin manuscripts often relied on additive letter values (e.g., ܐܓ = 1 + 3 = 4, etc.).

Proleptic Rule Recognition: In some Near Eastern traditions, the term "regnare coepit" (he began to reign) could be used for someone who began to exercise influence or hold a title, even before becoming sole ruler. Since Maʾmūn was appointed governor of Khurāsān in 798 CE, the chronicler may have dated his effective rule (especially from a provincial Christian perspective) from that earlier role rather than his Baghdad coronation.

In any case, this anomaly is not unique to this entry — chronological compression is a known feature of this Chronicle, especially near its end.

The Legacy in a Line: What’s Omitted Speaks Volumes

Al-Maʾmūn (r. 813–833 CE) is arguably one of the most transformative caliphs in Islamic history. His reign was marked by:

The Translation Movement
– Greek philosophical and scientific texts were translated into Arabic on an unprecedented scale, particularly at the Bayt al-Ḥikma (House of Wisdom) in Baghdad.

The Mihna (Inquisition)
– In 833, shortly before his death, Maʾmūn imposed the doctrine that the Qurʾān was created, not eternal — sparking the Mihna, a campaign of coercive theological enforcement.

Military Campaigns into Rome
– He renewed pressure along the Roman frontier, engaging in diplomacy and war, and even receiving envoys from Emperor Theophilos.

Ideological Centralization
– He tried to impose Muʿtazilī rationalism as state doctrine and to reassert caliphal supremacy over both jurists and regional governors.

And yet — the Chronicle of 819 says none of this.

It gives only a name and a duration:

“ʿAbdallāh al-Māmun began to reign… for twenty-three years.”

This is deliberate. It signals a literary and political end point in the Chronicle’s structure.

Why the Chronicle Stops Here

The Chronicle’s final Muslim-relevant line signals closure, both thematically and emotionally. Several reasons explain this abrupt ending:

Loss of Local Relevance
By Maʾmūn’s reign, the Chronicle’s monastic world — rural Mesopotamian Christianity — had seen its political horizon shrink. After decades of documenting imperial taxation, persecution, famine, and war, there was no new hope or trauma to record.

Exhaustion of Narrative
The chronicler’s interest was not in dynastic continuity but spiritual consequence. With the martyrdom of bishops, destruction of churches, and humiliations of dhimmīs already described, Maʾmūn’s abstract theologies or faraway translations held no narrative urgency.

The Chronicle’s Literary Frame
By ending here, the Chronicle keeps its arc centered on:

The fall of the Umayyads

The Abbasid rise and persecution

The economic devastation under al-Manṣūr

The brief hope under ʿUmar II

And the descent into tyranny under Mūsā ibn Musʿab

Maʾmūn’s entry simply closes the register, like a final item in an obituary column.

Final Thought: The Silence that Speaks

By saying so little, the chronicler says much.

In reducing one of Islam’s most intellectual rulers to a name and a number, the Chronicle of 819 performs an act of historiographical deflation. It implicitly declares:

“We have seen too much. The empire continues, but our story ends.”

The Syriac Christian world, through the Chronicle’s eyes, survived the century not by imperial victory but by retreat, ritual, and memory.

Epilogue — Memory, Martyrdom, and Meaning in the Chronicle of 819

From the smoldering battlefields of Dābiq to the plague-swept cities of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, from the gallows at Sardis to the synodal courts of Sarūg, the Chronicle of 819 offers one of the most remarkable portraits of the first Islamic century — not from the palaces of Damascus or Baghdad, but from the wind-worn cloisters of a Syriac monastery.

Written in the remote sanctuary of Qartmin (modern-day Mor Gabriel Monastery, near Midyat in southeastern Turkey), this chronicle was not composed by a caliphal secretary or Roman general, but by a monk — a solitary chronicler, observing a world convulsed by empire, upheaval, and revelation.

And yet, what he offers is no marginal account.

A Chronicle of Concord and Corroboration

What gives the Chronicle of 819 its exceptional value is its unexpected harmony with Islamic historical memory. Far from a polemic or theological fiction, it serves as a counter-narrative that confirms:

Maslama’s campaigns in Sardis, Neocaesarea, and Asia Minor, attested in Muslim sources like al-Ṭabarī and Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ.
The cruelty and fall of Mūsā ibn Musʿab, whose fiscal tyranny is echoed across Syriac and Arabic texts — from the Chronicle of Zuqnin to administrative notices.
The deaths of major caliphs — al-Walīd, Sulaymān, ʿUmar II, al-Saffāḥ, al-Mahdī — all dated with remarkable accuracy, within months of Muslim reports.
The census of the Jazīrah, the destruction of images under Yazīd II, and even the succession of al-Maʾmūn — rendered not in abstract theological terms but with political clarity and temporal precision.

In a time when some modern revisionists hastily dismiss early Islamic sources as pious inventions or fabricated memory, the Chronicle stands like a stone in the stream — immovable, silent, but testifying.

This is not fantasy. This is history under siege — composed by those who suffered, but did not forget.

Between Empire and Eschaton

Yet the Chronicle of 819 is not merely a neutral register of rulers and wars. It is a Christian theological meditation on empire — a genre the Syriac tradition has long perfected. Within its pages, caliphs are not merely sovereigns. They are:

Scourges of divine chastisement (like Mūsā ibn Musʿab, labeled the Antichrist),
Agents of moral trial (ʿUmar II praised as a merciful king, even by Christians),
Or signs of the end times, as famine, taxation, and apostasy swell across the lands.

But even in its darkest moments — famines in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, plague in Mosul, and the defacement of icons — the Chronicle testifies to light:

The release of Patriarch George under al-Mahdī.
The convening of synods under Abbasid rule.
The ordination of bishops, the survival of memory, and the unbroken faith of Christian communities under Muslim dominion.

This is not merely a lament. It is a testament to endurance.

Why the Chronicle Still Matters

In an age of politicized history, where ancient sources are cherry-picked, questioned without context, or weaponized in debate, the Chronicle of 819 provides something rare: a contemporary non-Muslim witness that affirms — sometimes even sharpens — the chronology and substance of early Islamic history.

It proves that:

Christians and Muslims remembered the same world, even if they interpreted it differently.
Accuracy could survive persecution. This is a record composed under pressure, not distortion.
The history of Islam is not sealed within Arabic. It echoes in Syriac, Greek, Coptic, and Latin — refracted through other lenses, yet still recognizable.

For the historian, the monk of Qartmin is no mere observer. He is a chronicler of transition, watching the Roman eclipse, the Islamic sunrise, and the unrelenting passage of human suffering and hope.

Final Reflection: The Mirror in the Margin

The Chronicle of 819 ends with the reign of al-Maʾmūn — the most intellectual of the Abbasid caliphs, under whose rule philosophy and heresy walked hand in hand. But for the chronicler, the age of caliphs is already a tale of wrath and wonder, empire and apocalypse, tax and theophany.

And as his ink dries in the sanctuary of Qartmin, he leaves behind a work not of vengeance, but of vigilance — a mirror held up to an empire that changed the world, and to a faith that refused to disappear.

THE END

Works Cited

-

Primary Sources

al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā. Futūḥ al-Buldān [The Conquest of the Lands: A New Translation of al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-Buldān]. Translated and annotated by Hugh Kennedy, I.B. Tauris, 2022.
al-Dīnawarī, Aḥmad ibn Dāwūd. al-Akhbār al-Ṭiwāl [The Lengthy Reports]. Edited by ʿAbd al-Munʿim ʿĀmir, reviewed by Jamāl al-Dīn al-Shayyāl, Egyptian Ministry of Culture, 1960. Originally published by Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya.
al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ [The Biographies of the Noble Luminaries]. Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 2001. 24 vols.
al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Tārīkh al-Islām wa-Wafayāt al-Mashāhīr wa-al-Aʿlām [The History of Islam and the Deaths of the Famous and the Great]. Edited by ʿUmar ʿAbd al-Salām al-Tadmurī, 2nd ed., Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1993. 52 vols.
al-Khallāl, Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ. Tārīkh Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ [The History of Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ]. Edited by Akram Ḍiyāʾ al-ʿUmarī, 2nd ed., Dār al-Qalam & Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1977.
al-Tabari. The Conquest of Iran. Translated by G. Rex Smith. Vol. 14. SUNY Press, 1985.
al-Ṭabarī. The History of Al-Tabari, Volume XXVII: The `Abbasid Revolution. Translated by John Alden Williams. SUNY Series in Near Eastern Studies. State University of New York Press, 1999.
Blankinship, Khalid Yahya, translator. The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume XXV: The End of Expansion. Edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater, State University of New York Press, 1989. Bibliotheca Persica.
Brooks, E. W., editor. Chronica Minora Pars Secunda. Translated by I.-B. Chabot, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 4, series tertia tomus IV, Typographeo Reipublicae / Otto Harrassowitz, 1904.
Chabot, L.-B., translator. Chronicon Anonymum ad A.D. 819 Pertinens. In Anonymi Auctoris Chronicon ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens, vol. 1, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 109, Scriptores Syri, tomus 56, Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1952.
Harrak, Amir, translator. The Chronicle of Zuqnīn, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999. Mediaeval Sources in Translation, vol. 36.
Hoyland, Robert G., translator. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2011. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 57.
Ibn al-Athīr, ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad. al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh [The Complete History]. Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1997. 10 vols.
Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī, Aḥmad. Kitāb al-Futūḥ [Book of Conquests]. Edited by ʿAlī Shīrī, Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1991.
Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUmar. al-Bidāyah wa-al-Nihāyah [The Beginning and the End]. Dār ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 2003. 20 vols.
Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad ibn Mukarram ibn ʿAlī. Mukhtaṣar Tārīkh Dimashq li-Ibn ʿAsākir [Abridged History of Damascus by Ibn ʿAsākir]. Edited by Rūḥiyyah al-Naḥḥās, Riyāḍ ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Murād, and Muḥammad Muṭīʿ, 1st ed., 1402 AH / 1984 CE, 29 vols., Dār al-Fikr li-l-Ṭibāʿah wa-l-Tawzīʿ wa-l-Nashr, Damascus.
Kaʿbī, Nasir Al, editor and translator. A Short Chronicle on the End of the Sasanian Empire and Early Islam: 590–660 A.D. Gorgias Press, 2016.
Levy-Rubin, Milka, editor. The Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī: Annotated Translation. Gerlach Press, 2021.
Moosa, Matti, translator. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. Beth Antioch Press, 2014.
Palmer, Andrew, translator. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles. With translations and annotations by Sebastian Brock and historical commentary by Robert Hoyland, Liverpool University Press, 1993. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 15.
Penn, Michael Philip. Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.
———. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. University of California Press, 2015.
Powers, David Stephan, translator and annotator. The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume XXIV: The Empire in Transition. Edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater, State University of New York Press, 1989. Bibliotheca Persica.
Thomson, R.W., translator. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated, with notes, by R.W. Thomson, historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, and assistance from Tim Greenwood, Liverpool University Press, 1999.
Wolf, Kenneth Baxter, translator. Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain. 2nd ed., Liverpool University Press, 2011.
Secondary Sources
Anthony, Sean William. Muhammad and the Empires of Faith: The Making of the Prophet of Islam. University of California Press, 2020.
Beihammer, Alexander Daniel, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria G. Parani, editors. Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives. Brill, 2013.
Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise, and Muriel Debié. The Syriac World: In Search of a Forgotten Christianity. Translated by Jeffrey Haines, Yale University Press, 2023.
Crawford, Peter. Emperor Leo III the Isaurian: Imperial Saviour, Christian Icon Breaker? Pen & Sword History, 2024.
---. The War of the Three Gods: Romans, Persians and the Rise of Islam. Pen and Sword Military, 2013.
Crone, Patricia. The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Donner, Fred McGraw. The Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press, 1981.
Görke, Andreas, and Gregor Schoeler. The Earliest Writings on the Life of Muḥammad: The ʿUrwa Corpus and the Non-Muslim Sources. Gerlach Press, 2024.
Harper, Kyle. The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. Princeton University Press, 2017.
Howard-Johnston, James. Witnesses to a World Crisis: Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Hoyland, Robert G. In God’s Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire. Oxford University Press, 2015.
———. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Darwin Press, 1997.

Kaegi, Walter E. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Kennedy, Hugh. Caliphate: The History of an Idea. First ed., Basic Books, 2016.

———. The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In. Da Capo Press, 2007.

King, Daniel, editor. The Syriac World. Routledge, 2019.

Kreiner, Jamie. Legions of Pigs in the Early Medieval West. Yale University Press, 2020.
Marsham, Andrew. Rituals of Islamic Monarchy: Accession and Succession in the First Muslim Empire. Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
———. The Umayyad Empire. Edinburgh University Press, 2024.
Motzki, Harald, editor. The Biography of Muḥammad: The Issue of the Sources. Brill, 2000. Islamic History and Civilization: Studies and Texts, vol. 32.
O'Sullivan, Shaun (2004) Sebeos' account of an Arab attack on Constantinople in 654, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 28:1, 67-88
Petersen, Leif Inge Ree. Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400–800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam. Brill, 2013.

Robinson, Chase F. “Neck-Sealing in Early Islam.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 48, no. 3, 2005, pp. 401–441. Brill.
Sahner, Christian C. “The First Iconoclasm in Islam: A New History of the Edict of Yazīd II (AH 104/AD 723).” Der Islam, vol. 94, no. 1, 2017, pp. 5–56. De Gruyter
Shaddel, Mehdy. “Periodisation and the Futūḥ: Making Sense of Muḥammad’s Leadership of the Conquests in Non-Muslim Sources.” Arabica, vol. 69, 2022, pp. 96–145. Brill.
Vasiliev, A. A. “The Iconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid II, A.D. 721.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vols. 9–10, 1956, pp. 23–47. Dumbarton Oaks
Wood, Philip. “The Chroniclers of Zuqnin and Their Times (c. 720–75).” Parole de l’Orient, vol. 36, 2011, pp. 549–568.
Wurtzel, Carl. Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History on the Umayyad Dynasty (660–750). Prepared for publication by Robert G. Hoyland, Liverpool University Press, 2015. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 63.

Echoes of the First Encounters – Syriac Testimonies on Islam’s Emergence (EFE) – IX – The Chronicle of 819: Christianity, Caliphate, and Memory at the Crossroads of Empires

Discovery and Transmission

Authorship and Perspective

Relationship to Other Chronicles

Historical Value

1. The First Arab King: The Beginning of the Hijrī Era

Latin Text

English Translation

Detailed Commentary

Sacrifice and the Imposition of New Customs

Historical Significance

2. The Death of Muḥammad and the Succession of Abū Bakr

Chronological Analysis

Key Observations:

3. The Death of Abū Bakr and the Reign of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb

Latin Text: Et anno 945°, mortuus est Abū Bekr; et regnavit post eum ʿOmar filius Khattab, undecim annos. Translation: "And in the year 945 [Seleucid Era], Abū Bakr died; and after him ʿUmar, son of Khaṭṭāb, reigned for eleven years."

Chronological Analysis

Key Observations:

4. The Arab Conquest of Syria and Damascus

Latin Text: Et eodem anno Arabes Syriam ingressi sunt et Damaseum expugnaverunt. Translation: "And in the same year, the Arabs entered Syria and captured Damascus."

Chronological Analysis

Key Observations:

5. The Arab-Roman Battle at the Yarmuk River and the Conquest of Mesopotamia

Chronological Placement

Key Elements Explained

Broader Implications

6. The Conquest of Caesarea of Cappadocia

Latin Text

Et anno 954, expugnata est Caesarea Cappadociae; et fuit…

English Translation

“And in the year 954 [AG], Caesarea of Cappadocia was captured; and it was…”(The sentence is unfortunately broken in the manuscript, leaving the narrative incomplete.)

Chronological Placement

954 AG = October 642 – October 643 CE, corresponding to 22 AH in the Islamic calendar. This falls within the final years of Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s reign (r. 634–644 CE), during a phase of explosive military expansion beyond the Levantine front.

Historical Context: Why Caesarea Matters

⚔ What Likely Happened

The Fragment: What Was Lost?

Strategic and Symbolic Significance

Final Note

7. ʿUmar’s Death and the Accession of ʿUthmān (AH 23 / 644 CE)

Latin Text: "Et anno 955, occisus est ‘Omar rex a servo Indo viri Coraishitae, dum orat in masgida. Et regnavit post eum ‘Othman, filius Affán, undecim annos cum dimidio."

English Translation:

"And in the year 955 [of the Seleucid era], ʿUmar the king was killed by an Indian slave belonging to a man of Quraysh, while he was praying in the mosque. And after him reigned ʿUthmān, son of ʿAffān, for eleven and a half years."

Detailed Commentary:

Why This Matters:

8. The Death of ʿUthmān and the Great Arab Dissension (c. AH 35–40 / 656–661 CE)

Latin Text: Et anno 967, occisus est ʿOthmān; et manserunt Arabes sine rege tres annos et octo menses. Erat autem dux Arabum in Occidente Moʾawya filius Abū Sufyān, et dux eorum in Oriente erat ʿAlī filius Abū Thālib.

English Translation:

"And in the year 967 [of the Seleucid era], ʿUthmān was killed; and the Arabs remained without a king for three years and eight months. However, the leader of the Arabs in the West was Muʿāwiya, son of Abū Sufyān, and their leader in the East was ʿAlī, son of Abū Ṭālib."

Detailed Commentary:

Why This Matters:

9. The Death of ʿAlī and the Sole Rule of Muʿāwiya (c. AH 40 / 661 CE)

Latin Text: Et anno 971, occisus est ʿAlī; et regnavit Moʿawya annos viginti. Hic composuit pacem cum Romanis. Et misit in ditione Romanorum Abderrahman ducem exercitus, qui fuit ibi per duos annos.

English Translation:

"And in the year 971 [of the Seleucid era], ʿAlī was killed; and Muʿāwiya reigned for twenty years. He established peace with the Romans. And he sent Abderrahman, a general of the army, into the Roman territory, where he remained for two years."

Detailed Commentary:

Why This Matters:

9. The Death of Muʿāwiya I and the Brief Reign of Yazīd I

Latin Text: Et anno 991, mortuus est Mo'awyae, et post eum regnavit Yezid, filius eius, annos tres et menses quinque.

English Translation:

"And in the year 991 [of the Seleucid Era], Muʿāwiya died, and after him, his son Yazīd reigned for three years and five months."

Detailed Commentary:

10. The Death of Yazīd I and the Brief Reign of Marwān I

English Translation:

Detailed Commentary:

11. The Death of Marwān I and the Long Reign of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān

English Translation:

Detailed Commentary:

12. The Roman Defeat in the Valley of Antioch

Latin Text: Et anno 1006°, exierunt exereitus Romanorum in [vallem] Antiochiae, et eis occurrit [Dinar filius Dinar] eosque destruxit; pauci [eorum effugerunt], et reversi sunt in ditionem Romanorum cum dedecore [fama].

English Translation:

"And in the year 1006 [of the Seleucid Era], the Roman armies went out into the [valley] of Antioch, and Dīnār, son of Dīnār confronted them and destroyed them; few [of them escaped], and they returned into Roman territory with disgrace [and shame]."

Detailed Commentary:

Year 1006 SE = 694–695 CE.This event takes place during the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān and the Emperor Justinian II.

Who Was Dīnār ibn Dīnār?

Strategic Context:

The Chronicle of 819 captures this important victory over the Romans at al-Aʿmāq in 694 CE — a vivid example of Syriac chronicles preserving authentic details of Islamic military history.

The Battle:

Historical Implications:

13. The Year 1008 SE — The New Arab Coinage

Latin Text: Et anno 1008, euderunt Arabes züzë et denarios quibus non 'imagines' sed litterae impressae erant.

Latin Text:

Et anno 945°, mortuus est Abū Bekr; et regnavit post eum ʿOmar filius Khattab, undecim annos.

Translation:

"And in the year 945 [Seleucid Era], Abū Bakr died; and after him ʿUmar, son of Khaṭṭāb, reigned for eleven years."

Latin Text:

Et eodem anno Arabes Syriam ingressi sunt et Damaseum expugnaverunt.

Translation:

"And in the same year, the Arabs entered Syria and captured Damascus."

“And in the year 954 [AG], Caesarea of Cappadocia was captured; and it was…”
(The sentence is unfortunately broken in the manuscript, leaving the narrative incomplete.)

954 AG = October 642 – October 643 CE, corresponding to 22 AH in the Islamic calendar.

This falls within the final years of Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s reign (r. 634–644 CE), during a phase of explosive military expansion beyond the Levantine front.

Latin Text:

"Et anno 955, occisus est ‘Omar rex a servo Indo viri Coraishitae, dum orat in masgida. Et regnavit post eum ‘Othman, filius Affán, undecim annos cum dimidio."

Latin Text:

Et anno 967, occisus est ʿOthmān; et manserunt Arabes sine rege tres annos et octo menses. Erat autem dux Arabum in Occidente Moʾawya filius Abū Sufyān, et dux eorum in Oriente erat ʿAlī filius Abū Thālib.

Latin Text:

Et anno 971, occisus est ʿAlī; et regnavit Moʿawya annos viginti. Hic composuit pacem cum Romanis. Et misit in ditione Romanorum Abderrahman ducem exercitus, qui fuit ibi per duos annos.

Latin Text:

Et anno 991, mortuus est Mo'awyae, et post eum regnavit Yezid, filius eius, annos tres et menses quinque.

Latin Text:

Et anno 1006°, exierunt exereitus Romanorum in [vallem] Antiochiae, et eis occurrit [Dinar filius Dinar] eosque destruxit; pauci [eorum effugerunt], et reversi sunt in ditionem Romanorum cum dedecore [fama].

Year 1006 SE = 694–695 CE.
This event takes place during the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān and the Emperor Justinian II.

Latin Text:

Et anno 1008, euderunt Arabes züzë et denarios quibus non 'imagines' sed litterae impressae erant.

Year 1008 SE = 696–697 CE.
This date fits perfectly with one of the most important reforms of early Islamic history:
the coinage reform of Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān (r. 685–705 CE).

Latin Text:

Et anno 1015, profectus est 'Abdallah, filius 'Abd al-Malik, cum magno exercitu; secum duxit operarios et reaedificavit Mopsuestiam in regione Ciliciae.

Year 1015 SE = 703–704 CE.

ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Malik was a prominent Umayyad prince, a son of Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān (r. 685–705 CE).
He was a highly trusted general, often tasked with military operations in the Roman frontier regions.

Mopsuestia became a linchpin of Muslim power in Cilicia for centuries.

It served as a launchpad for raids (ṣawāʾif) into Roman territory.

The rebuilding of frontier cities like Mopsuestia marked a shift toward permanent Muslim settlement beyond the traditional Arab heartlands.