.png)
In the turbulent aftermath of Rome’s bloodiest palace coup, when the emperor Maurice and five of his sons were executed on the shores of the Bosporus in November 602 CE, one figure slipped into legend: Theodosius, the eldest son and his heir. Roman sources assure us of his death—Theophylact Simocatta closes the story with a neat finality, and later Constantinopolitan memory consigned him to the same fate as his brothers. Yet, like a shadow cast across the records of three civilizations, reports continued to surface that Theodosius escaped.
It is in the Syriac Chronicle of Khuzistan, in the Armenian History of Sebeos, in the Greek of Theophanes the Confessor, and most strikingly in the Arabic annals of al-Ṭabarī and the fragments of Theophilus of Edessa, that a different story emerges: the prince was spared, spirited eastward, and found refuge at the Persian court of Xusro II in Dastgird. This claim is no mere rumor of exiles. It sits at the center of Sasanian political theater. Xusro, who owed his throne to Maurice’s intervention a decade earlier, proclaimed Theodosius alive and used him as both a symbol of legitimacy and a diplomatic weapon in his long war against Phocas and Heraclius. Theodosius became, in essence, a living banner: the last Roman heir, sheltered in Persia, a dagger held at Constantinople’s throat.
Skeptics have long dismissed these accounts as Persian propaganda, yet the consistency of independent traditions—Armenian, Syriac, Arabic, and Greek—suggests something more than invention. As James Howard-Johnston notes, the Persian deployment of Theodosius was too effective, too resonant, to be a fabrication without basis. The prince’s presence at Dastgird, whether as a fugitive claimant or captive guest, explains both the credibility of Xusro’s demands and the alarm felt in Roman circles whenever his name reappeared.
In this post, we will argue that Theodosius did not die on the Bosporus in 602, but escaped to Persia, where his existence continued to shape the last great war of antiquity. To make this case, we will:
-
Examine the silence of Theophylact Simocatta against the echoes of Theophanes, showing how court histories erased inconvenient survival tales,
-
Trace the references to Theodosius in the Chronicle of Khuzistan, Sebeos, and Theophilus of Edessa, demonstrating their convergence,
-
Analyze al-Ṭabarī’s Persian-derived traditions that preserve the memory of a Roman heir at Xusro’s side,
-
And assess how his figure functioned as a diplomatic and ideological weapon in the Roman–Persian war, until his eventual disappearance from history.
Theodosius may not have reigned, but his ghost haunted the century’s struggle. He was the “lost heir of Rome,” alive in the Persian heartland, a prince whose uncertain fate became a fulcrum of propaganda, legitimacy, and fear. His story reveals not only the brutality of Rome’s palace coups, but the porousness of imperial borders, where dynastic blood could flow eastward and become entangled in the destinies of rival empires.
Section I - The Emperor in Winter: Maurice, His Sons, and the Burdens of a Broken World
1. Justinian’s Ambition and Its Aftershocks (527–565)
When Maurice was born in 539, the empire was ruled by Justinian I, a man convinced that God had entrusted him with nothing less than the renewal of Rome’s dominion and the perfection of its Christian order. Yet the very triumphs of Justinian’s reign were built upon fragile foundations, and their hidden costs would echo into Maurice’s lifetime like aftershocks of an imperial earthquake.
Already in the 510s and 520s, Constantinople’s relationship with Italy had hardened into hostility. The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theoderic, outwardly Roman in its administration and institutions, had begun pressing the Danubian frontier, colliding with Eastern power. In this tense climate, imperial intellectuals such as Marcellinus Comes manufactured the notion that “Rome had fallen in 476,” when Odoacer deposed the boy Romulus Augustulus. This was no neutral chronicle: it was propaganda crafted in Constantinople to delegitimize the Gothic regime and build ideological momentum for an Eastern reconquest. By rebranding Theoderic’s successors not as Roman rulers but as barbarian usurpers, the court laid the groundwork for Justinian’s claim that Rome must be restored by Rome.
That restoration began in North Africa. In 533, under the command of Belisarius, imperial armies toppled the century-old Vandal kingdom, paraded its king Gelimer in chains through Constantinople, and reclaimed Carthage as a Roman city. Justinian staged the victory as a providential act of liberation: Orthodox Romans freed from Arian barbarian masters, treasures seized in the sack of Rome in 455 triumphantly returned. The conquest was swift, dazzling, and deceptively cheap. It emboldened the emperor to pursue an even greater prize—Italy itself.
The Gothic War (535–554) was no lightning campaign but a twenty-year crucible that consumed Italy’s prosperity. At first, Belisarius advanced rapidly: Sicily and Dalmatia fell, and in 536 Rome opened its gates to the imperial general, welcoming the East as liberators. Yet the Goths regrouped. For nearly two decades the peninsula became a battlefield. Rome itself changed hands four times between 546 and 549, its population reduced to eating vermin and refuse to survive sieges. Milan was obliterated in 538, its male inhabitants massacred, its women enslaved. When the war ended in 554, the Gothic state was shattered, but so too was Italy. Hundreds of thousands were dead, cities ruined, fields abandoned, and the old capital a hollowed ghost of itself.
Spain too briefly beckoned, and imperial troops seized a foothold in the south. On parchment maps, the Mediterranean once more looked like the “Roman lake” of antiquity. Yet this was an illusion. The conquests were brittle: the Lombards would soon tear Italy apart again in the 560s, and Spain was never more than a precarious outpost. The true legacy of Justinian’s wars was not lasting dominion, but a bleeding empire—territories won at staggering human and fiscal cost.
The emperor’s ambition extended beyond war. Between 529 and 534, he remade the Roman legal system with his Corpus Iuris Civilis, a radical rupture with the centuries-old fabric of Roman jurisprudence. No longer was law a living tradition of precedent; it was now the codified will of a Christian emperor, sanctified by divine mandate. At the same time, Justinian’s obsession with orthodoxy fueled religious persecutions. Pagans were expelled from public life, philosophers fled Athens to seek shelter in Persia, Samaritans were massacred after their revolt in 529, Jews stripped of rights, and Christian dissidents exiled or executed. For Justinian, empire and orthodoxy were inseparable: as he declared, rule over the world had been given to him by God precisely to guard the church.
Thus, by the time Maurice drew his first breath, Justinian’s empire appeared resplendent but was inwardly brittle. The treasury strained by wars, the population gutted by plague since 541, the fields chilled by the dimmed sun of the 530s, and the church divided by relentless imperial dogmatism—all these forces converged to create a legacy of grandeur and exhaustion. Justinian had restored Rome, but at the price of hollowing out its strength. Maurice, born amid these contradictions, would inherit the aftershocks of this ambition: a state magnificent in vision, but fragile in reality.
2. The Reign of Justin II (565–578): Breakdown of Balance
If Justinian’s reign embodied the hubris of ambition, the reign of his nephew Justin II revealed the reckoning of exhaustion. When the old emperor died in November 565, his body, as Corippus described, lay under a pall embroidered with his victories: Vandal kings beneath his feet, allegories of Rome and Africa at his side, a portrait of restored dominion shimmering in silk and gold. Yet as James J. O’Donnell acidly observes, the grandeur was a hollow pageant. Justinian’s empire was a ruin disguised in ceremonial cloth: its people drained, its lands scarred, its treasury bled. The transfer of power to his nephew was no smooth transition of a thriving polity—it was, in O’Donnell’s words, “an embarrassment to all who try, still, to praise him.”
Justin II himself was no builder of empire, but the heir of its debris. Elevated by the intrigues of the court and the church, installed in the palace at dawn by the patriarch and the excubitors, he entered office with modest promise. At first, he sought popularity by remitting tax arrears and making a show of financial reform. Yet beneath the surface, the system was already fraying. The great machine Justinian had strained to keep in motion—with subsidies to Persians, gifts to barbarians, and relentless military campaigns—collapsed under Justin’s less cautious hand.
The most immediate test came in the Balkans, where the Gothic kingdom had vanished but new powers emerged in its place. The Avars, steppe nomads pressing into the Carpathian basin, began carving out dominion just as the Lombards advanced westward. In the 560s, Justin’s muddled diplomacy—supporting the Gepids against the Lombards, then abandoning them—allowed the Avars and Lombards to partition the region. By 568, the Lombards, fleeing the Avars under their King Alboin, swept into Italy, undoing Justinian’s hard-won Gothic reconquest and reducing imperial control to Ravenna, Rome, and scattered ports. What remained of Italy was no longer a coherent province but a patchwork of duchies and ruins, overseen from afar by an emperor increasingly powerless to intervene.
Meanwhile, Africa simmered with revolts (569–571), Visigoths pressed Rome’s tenuous enclaves in Spain, and the Balkans slipped into chaos. Justin’s empire was less a dominion than a defensive shell, shrinking at its peripheries, stretched at its core.
The greatest blunder, however, came in the east. Justin II rejected his uncle’s policy of subsidizing Persia, proclaiming loftily that “Rome does not pay for peace.” In 572, on the pretext of defending Armenian Christians from Sasanian coercion, he provoked a war that the empire could not afford. The result was catastrophe. Dara, the great fortress-city Justinian had built, fell to Xusro I; Apamea was leveled; Nisibis and frontier fortresses changed hands; Persian forces raided deep into Syria and Asia Minor. Rome, whose armies were scarcely 150,000 strong across the empire, now faced an eastern conflict it could neither decisively win nor escape.
As disaster mounted abroad, disaster struck within. By 575, Justin II began to suffer from severe mental instability. Chroniclers describe the emperor gripped by wild outbursts, gnawing on attendants in manic rages, then collapsing into long spells of incoherence. Power fell into the hands of Empress Sophia, a niece of Theodora, and her ally Tiberius, the talented commander of the excubitors. In 574, the emperor was persuaded—or compelled—to name Tiberius as Caesar, ensuring a managed succession while Justin himself slipped into a twilight of madness.
By the time Justin II died in 578, the empire was in visible retreat. Italy was fractured, the Balkans lost to Avars and Slavs, Africa destabilized, the Visigoths resurgent, and Persia triumphant. Justin had squandered what remained of Justinian’s brittle inheritance. He left Tiberius not a realm in balance but a state staggering under too many fronts, too few soldiers, and too little money.
Thus ended the reign of the emperor who succeeded the conqueror: not with new triumphs, but with the crumbling of Justinian’s illusions, exposing the hollowness of the empire’s “restored” dominion. Where his most illustrious uncle had built a facade of strength, Justin II presided over its collapse into weakness.
3. Tiberius II Constantine (578–582): Brief Respite, Fragile Foundations
If Justin II had revealed the disintegration of Justinian’s legacy, his successor Tiberius II Constantine offered the empire a brief breath of relief, gilded with generosity but hollow at the core. He came to power not through his own design, but through the desperation of a collapsing regime: Empress Sophia had raised him from comes excubitorum to Caesar in 574, when Justin II’s mind unraveled. When the emperor died in 578, Tiberius inherited the throne—young, popular, and hailed as a benefactor.
A Prince of Generosity
Tiberius consciously styled himself as the opposite of Justin II. Where Justin had been stingy and suspicious, Tiberius opened the treasury with both hands. Taxes were remitted, arrears forgiven, lavish gifts distributed. He expanded the palace, bought peace with the Avars in the Balkans, and gave out largesse to an empire starved for relief. As James J. O’Donnell wryly observes, such lavishness is always a popular quality in a ruler. His accession was marked by a sense of almost paternal kindness: he became, in the words of later chroniclers, a “compassionate and beloved father.”
But generosity without restraint proved ruinous. The treasury Justinian had scraped together through austerity, and which Justin II had strained in war, was now bled outright. The empire’s reserves—its true shield against external pressure—were drained for fleeting popularity. Tiberius did not solve the structural crises of the empire; he merely covered them with gifts.
Diplomatic Blunders and Strategic Limits
Abroad, his policies reflected the same short-term vision. He paid the Avars to hold the Danube line—but they quickly reneged, raiding again once the gold was spent. In Italy, when the Roman senate made its last recorded formal appearance in history to beg him for aid against the Lombards in 578, sending money for imperial troops, Tiberius bluntly told them to spend it on the Lombards or Franks instead—an astonishing admission that Rome itself could no longer defend Italy. The peninsula, once the glory of Justinian’s reconquest, was abandoned to fragmentation, its cities reduced to isolated outposts amid Lombard duchies.
In the East, Tiberius at first sought stability, but here too he erred. In 581, he arrested al-Mundhir, king of the Ghassanids, accusing him of Monophysite sympathies and exiling him to Sicily. The move was reckless: the Ghassanids had been Rome’s vital Arab allies, shielding Syria and Palestine from the Lakhmids of Persia. By discarding them, Tiberius pulled down the empire’s desert screen, leaving the Near East dangerously exposed. In hindsight, it was a fateful misstep—an open corridor through which, decades later, the armies of Islam would flow unimpeded.
The End of Theological Obsession
Where Justinian had made theology a weapon of empire, Tiberius took a more indifferent stance. As O’Donnell notes, Tiberius marked the quiet end of the “ancient obsessiveness” over doctrine: orthodoxy was enforced, but without passion. He no longer sought grand reconciliations with the Monophysites, nor did he invent new formulas of unity. Instead, he let the church be what it was, fusing with the state as a matter of course. Later emperors, even Heraclius with his brief experiment in Monotheletism, would discover that theological zeal no longer shaped outcomes; Chalcedonian orthodoxy prevailed “by disaster and default,” as provinces fell away. In this sense, Tiberius presided over a subtle shift: the empire ceased caring about unity, because it had ceased to believe it was possible.
Maurice: The Protégé in the Palace
Yet the true importance of Tiberius II lay not in his policies, but in the man he elevated: Maurice, the future emperor. Maurice’s early career had not been in the army. As Michael Whitby reminds us, he began as a notary, a role of trust, managing sensitive negotiations and acting as secretary in delicate diplomacy with Persia. Notaries in the sixth century were more than scribes; they were men of importance, potential emissaries, even future commanders. Through this office Maurice attracted the patronage of Tiberius, who himself had once been a notary before rising to comes excubitorum.
When Tiberius became Caesar in 574, he needed a loyal and capable officer to command the excubitors and secure the palace. He chose Maurice. The bond was more than institutional; it was personal and strategic. As comes excubitorum, Maurice resided in the heart of Constantinople, at the center of imperial power. By 577/8, he was entrusted with command in the Persian war, after the death of Justinian son of Germanus. Though inexperienced militarily, he coordinated seasoned generals such as Romanus and John Mystacon, achieving some notable successes. In 578 and 580, Maurice’s reputation grew, even if some campaigns faltered. In 581, he bore the additional title comes foederatorum, commander of foreign mercenaries—an office that signaled the empire’s increasing reliance on outsiders to fight its wars.
In 582, Tiberius, already mortally ill, elevated both Maurice and Germanus (governor of Africa, descendant of both the Gothic and Roman aristocracy) to the rank of Caesar, betrothing them to his daughters Constantina and Charito. Some sources suggest Tiberius envisioned dividing the empire: Maurice ruling the East, Germanus the West. But sudden illness—brought on, chroniclers claimed, by a dish of mulberries—forced his hand. On his deathbed at the Hebdomon palace, Tiberius had Maurice proclaimed Augustus and heir. On 14 August 582, he died, mourned as no emperor before him: “the whole city felt an intense sorrow… there was such mourning because he was a benefactor of the whole world.”
The Oven That Forged an Emperor
Tiberius’ four-year reign was a brief respite, gilded with generosity but built on fragile foundations. He squandered resources, abandoned Italy, blundered with the Ghassanids, and left the treasury bare. Yet in this crucible he forged his successor. Maurice, the notary turned palace commander, learned the machinery of power, cut his teeth in the Persian wars, and built the reputation that would carry him to the purple.
Thus, when the empire wept at Tiberius’ death, it also turned with relief to his chosen heir. The burden of Justinian’s ambition, Justin II’s folly, and Tiberius’ generosity now fell on Maurice—a man born in crisis, reared in austerity, and destined to face an empire stretched to breaking point.
4. The Emperor Maurice, his Internal Policies, Reforms & Legacy (582–602)
Maurice inherited an empire rich in victories but bankrupt in coin. His predecessor, Tiberius II Constantine (574–582), had gained immense popularity through lavish donatives, subsidies to barbarians, and extravagant spending on games, spectacles, and buildings. Yet this generosity, however dazzling in the short term, had left the imperial treasury empty — “swept as if by a broom,” in the biting phrase of John of Ephesus.
Maurice’s reign therefore opened under the sign of fiscal austerity. With revenues strained and multiple frontiers demanding defense, he adopted a policy of frugality bordering on parsimony. He reduced donatives, cut allowances, and tightened the flow of subsidies to both soldiers and foreign powers. Even the rhythms of imperial office reflected this economy: he assumed the consulship not in January, as tradition dictated, but months later (December 583 and July 602), avoiding the expensive distributions usually expected at New Year. This careful penny-counting earned him a reputation for prudence among sympathetic observers, but for many contemporaries he was branded greedy, mean, and ungenerous.
The soldiers felt the sting most acutely. They were accustomed to bonuses, regular allowances, and the softer discipline of earlier emperors. Maurice’s attempts to rationalize their pay — such as substituting equipment for cash — provoked mutiny in 588, when troops in the east rioted, toppled his icons, and jeered that they would not be ruled by a mere “shopkeeper.” Though he suppressed the rebellion and restored order, the army’s distrust never disappeared. Resentment smoldered beneath every campaign, and by 602 it would erupt in the fatal mutiny along the Danube.
Nor were the elites and the Church content. The Constantinopolitan aristocracy, long accustomed to imperial handouts, chafed under Maurice’s discipline. Harsh enforcement of taxation alienated provincial notables and magnates. The patriarchate of Constantinople cooperated at times, but relations with Pope Gregory the Great grew tense, especially over Lombard policy and the controversial title “Oecumenical Patriarch.” Where Gregory sought compromise in Italy, Maurice favored relentless war whenever resources allowed. By 602, Gregory welcomed Phocas’ usurpation with embarrassing warmth — proof of how far imperial-church relations had soured.
Yet austerity did not mean total sterility. Maurice continued building projects, though on a humbler scale than Justinian’s golden age or Tiberius’ spree. He repaired aqueducts, built churches to St George, St Paul, and the Virgin, restored hospitals and hospices, and endowed monasteries. His birthplace, Arabissus in Cappadocia, was lavished with churches, public halls, and city walls — a mark of pride in his origins. Perhaps most famously, tradition credits him with erecting the icon of Christ above the Chalke Gate, paired with statues of the imperial family — a potent image of emperor and dynasty under divine protection.
Maurice also cultivated the life of the mind. A patron of poets and historians, he encouraged Menander Protector to write, rewarded Evagrius, and inspired Theophylact Simocatta to cast his reign in classical style. His religious life, too, was conspicuous: he reorganized feasts, donated to shrines in Jerusalem and Edessa, collected relics, and sought to live in the shadow of the saints. Yet his piety hardened in later years. By the late 590s, illness and age deepened his sense of sin, and he turned to harsher measures — persecuting Monophysites in Edessa and purging lingering pagan practices in Constantinople.
Still, his austerity defined his reign. The mob of Constantinople, fickle as always, mocked him with the chant “Maurice the Marcianist,” comparing him to a heretical sect that rejected charity. In 601/2 famine provoked rioting, with cries against his stinginess. By the end, Maurice stood isolated: distrusted by the army, resented by the aristocracy, unloved by the mob, and estranged even from ecclesiastical allies.
And yet, in this apparent failure, there was a paradoxical achievement. Maurice’s thrift, discipline, and refusal to squander coin had allowed the empire to hold the line — against Persia, against the Avars, and across the Danube. But the cost was terrible: when crisis came in 602, he had no reserves of goodwill to draw upon. Where Tiberius II had bought loyalty with gold, Maurice hoarded it — and so, when the soldiers mutinied and Phocas rose, there was no one left to save him.
The empire which Maurice inherited in 582 was still recognizably Roman in extent and in spirit. Its eastern frontier stretched deep into the Armenian highlands and the deserts of Syria and Arabia; to the west it embraced Africa, Italy, and even a foothold in Spain. The emperor at Constantinople was not only master of the Mediterranean world but also an active presence on the broader stage of late antiquity: through embassies he influenced the courts of the Merovingians and Lombards, mediated among the sub-Caucasian principalities, and kept a watchful eye on the Arab tribes of the Syrian desert. Ambassadors from the Turks brought news of Central Asia and even of the rise of Sui China, while through Pope Gregory, godfather to his eldest son Theodosius, Maurice would have heard of Augustine’s mission to the Anglo-Saxons of Britain. It was a world empire still conscious of its universal reach.
Internally, the empire retained its late Roman urban character. Cities, though depopulated by plague and marred by ruins, remained hubs of ecclesiastical authority and economic life. In the east, the empire’s true heartland, they endured and even recovered prosperity after the Persian peace of 591; so rich were they that seventh-century invaders would later plunder immense booty from their walls. Villages flourished in Anatolia and on the limestone massif behind Antioch, a testament to the empire’s resilience beneath the scars of war.
At his accession, Maurice faced the shadow of Justinian’s legacy. The great emperor had left behind both glory and fragility: a shrunken treasury, heavy tax burdens, and religious divisions, even as his reconquests gave the illusion of universal dominion. His successors, Justin II and Tiberius II, had squandered the reserves that might have steadied the empire. Justin’s reckless aggression brought ruinous wars with Persia and neglect of the Balkans; Tiberius’ extravagance won affection but emptied the treasury. Thus Maurice, without financial cushion, had to tackle all the empire’s military crises at once — against Persia, the Avars, the Slavs, and the Lombards.
That he succeeded at all is remarkable. On the eastern frontier, he ended a twenty-year war against Persia in decisive victory. The treaty of 591 restored the fortress cities of Dara and Martyropolis, handed to Rome wide swaths of Persarmenia, Arzanene, and Iberia, and left a grateful Xusro II on the Persian throne — a king who owed his crown to Maurice’s intervention. No Roman-Persian peace since Diocletian had been so favorable.
On the Danube, his persistence gradually wore down the Avars. By 599–601, his armies were crossing north of the river, burning Avar camps, and even forcing the Khagan to sue for peace. Though undone by mutiny in 602, Maurice had been within sight of breaking Avar power outright — something no emperor before him had achieved.
In the west, resources were thin, but Maurice’s policies held. He created the exarchates of Ravenna and Carthage, entrusting civil and military authority to unified governors. In Africa, Exarch Gennadius crushed Moorish raiders and ushered in decades of peace. In Italy, Exarch Romanus pushed back Lombards in the Po Valley and Apennines, maintaining imperial presence even amid fragmentation. In Spain, though Cordoba fell, Rome still held a coastal enclave centered on Seville and Cartagena. Maurice also wielded leverage with the Franks: possession of royal hostages, including the princess Ingund and her son Athanagild, allowed him to manipulate Frankish politics and twice compel them to march against the Lombards.
These successes were not mere chance. Maurice chose his generals well — men like Priscus, Comentiolus, Philippicus, and his own brothers — and bound them to a vision of professional discipline. His name became linked to the Strategikon, the great military handbook of late antiquity, codifying tactics against Persians, Avars, and Slavs. Under his guidance, the Roman army was transformed into a flexible and effective force capable of standing against even the dreaded Avar cavalry.
Maurice was no reckless conqueror. He sought a balance of power with Persia, a stable frontier on the Danube, and a functional defense in the west. His reign saw the beginnings of administrative refinements — the rise of the logothete as a financial official, new arrangements in the grain supply, and inquiries into provincial governance that curbed corruption. He may have been austere, but he was also farsighted.
By the year 600, Maurice had done what few thought possible: stabilized all the major fronts of the empire. Against Persians, Avars, Slavs, Lombards, and Moors, Rome still stood secure. His contemporaries might mock him as stingy, but to modern historians he appears as one of Late Antique Rome’s most outstanding rulers, the last emperor who still held together the empire of late antiquity.
And yet, this towering achievement was fragile. For even as Maurice seemed to restore Rome’s strength, his very austerity alienated the soldiers, aristocracy, and people. The victories that should have cemented his dynasty instead left him isolated, Maurice’s thrift, discipline, and refusal to squander coin had allowed the empire to hold the line — against Persia, against the Avars, and across the Danube. But the cost was terrible: when crisis came in 602, he had no reserves of goodwill to draw upon, when the soldiers mutinied and Phocas rose, there was no one left to save him, especially as the world entered the worst phases of the Late Antique Little Ice Age.
5. The Shadow of the Late Antique Little Ice Age
Maurice entered the world in 539, the twelfth year of Justinian’s reign, in the mountain town of Arabissus in Cappadocia. It was a hard and unforgiving place at the best of times—snow-bound in winter, perched along the cold upland routes between Caesarea and Melitene—but when Maurice was born, the world itself was hardening. He came into life three years after the “year without summer” of 536, two years before the Justinianic Plague erupted in Pelusium, and in the very midst of what climate historians now call the Late Antique Little Ice Age (LALIA). To understand Maurice’s character and reign, one must begin here: he was a child of famine, of shortened harvests, and of a cosmos that seemed, in the words of Procopius, to withhold its very light.
A Climate in Upheaval
The Late Antique Little Ice Age was born of catastrophe. In 536, witnesses from Constantinople to China recorded a “dread portent”: the sun dimmed, pale as the moon, casting no shadows at midday. Procopius, campaigning in Italy with Belisarius, noted that the light was “without brightness”; John of Ephesus wrote that fruits never ripened, and wine soured like vinegar. Cassiodorus, serving as Praetorian Prefect in Italy, tried to reassure his readers with scientific rationalization, attributing it to dense air—but his own polished rhetoric betrayed unease. “We marvel at bodies that cast no shadow at mid-day,” he admitted, “and the force of strongest heat reduced to extreme mildness.”
Modern science has confirmed what ancient eyes could only guess. Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, tree rings from Europe and Asia, and isotope records from the sun all converge: a cluster of volcanic eruptions—in 536 and again in 539/540—belched massive clouds of sulfate into the stratosphere, blotting out solar energy. Average summer temperatures in Europe fell by 2–2.7°C, making 536–545 the coldest decade of the last two millennia—colder even than the depths of the seventeenth-century Little Ice Age. The sun itself compounded the disaster: solar activity entered a grand minimum, a prolonged reduction in energy output that lasted into the late seventh century. By the early 600s, Alpine glaciers advanced to their first-millennium maximum. The age of Maurice unfolded in the shadow of a colder, harsher world.
The Burden of Famine and Plague
The immediate consequences were agricultural. Harvests failed. Shortened growing seasons and abnormal frosts diminished wheat and grape yields. Mediterranean societies, buffered by grain storage and trade networks, survived the initial shock, but food security weakened. When the Justinianic Plague broke out in 541, the conjunction of famine and pestilence devastated demography. The cooling climate may even have been the ecological trigger that drove Yersinia pestis out of its Central Asian reservoirs, setting in motion the first pandemic. The empire bled in two ways at once: fields yielded less, and people died faster.
Taxation, the lifeblood of the Roman state, suffered doubly. With fewer people to till the land, and with surpluses eroded by shortened summers, the fiscal system strained under scarcity. Justinian’s wars, already ruinously expensive, had to be financed from a shrinking base. By Maurice’s boyhood, the empire’s prosperity was visibly thinning: empty villages scarred Anatolia, Africa, and Italy; fiscal collectors pressed harder on fewer shoulders; the sense of abundance that had animated Justinian’s early years was gone.
Maurice’s Formative World
This was the environment into which Maurice was born—a Cappadocian child of Arabissus, itself a marginal outpost battered by cold winds, snow, and thin soils. It is no accident that contemporary hagiography (Evagrius, Theodore of Sykeon) saw visions and portents in his childhood: in an age when the heavens themselves seemed unstable, the rise of a new emperor required cosmic justification.
If Justinian embodied the will to dominate a hostile nature, reshaping law, theology, and empire by sheer force, Maurice represented the temper of survival in scarcity. Where Justinian built Hagia Sophia, Maurice counted rations; where Justinian pursued grandiose conquest, Maurice learned to stretch thin armies across too many frontiers. His formative years in the shadow of climatic catastrophe gave him a realism that was both his greatest strength and, tragically, his undoing.
An Empire in the Cold
By the time Maurice assumed the throne in 582, the LALIA was not a passing episode but the new climate regime. The storm tracks of the North Atlantic Oscillation shifted southward, bringing abnormal humidity to Anatolia, erratic drought to the Levant, and harsher winters to the Balkans. Agriculture remained unpredictable. Population, never recovering from the first plague wave, sagged under recurrent outbreaks. Fiscal surplus was thin. The empire Maurice inherited was not only politically overextended after Justinian, or militarily strained after Justin II and Tiberius—it was also climatically impoverished, living under colder skies and shorter summers.
Thus, Maurice’s reign cannot be disentangled from the shadow of the Late Antique Little Ice Age. His world was colder, hungrier, and more fragile than Justinian’s had been. Every decision he made—every tax reform, every strategic gamble, every appeal to discipline—was conditioned by the fact that the empire itself was shrinking in its natural capacity to support human life. He was, in the most literal sense, an emperor forged in winter.
In Maurice’s reign, then, austerity was theology. His parsimony in finances, his obsession with military readiness, his devotion to prayer and fasting—all flowed from a conviction that he was God’s appointed vicar on earth, charged with turning wrath into mercy. To Maurice, indulgence invited destruction, but austerity offered salvation. In this way, the emperor’s cold demeanor was not indifference but the heavy burden of a man who believed himself responsible for the empire’s sins.
If Justinian had envisioned himself as a new Solomon, building a glorious Christian empire crowned by Hagia Sophia, Maurice cast himself as a new Josiah, the king who purified a wayward nation through repentance and reform. His reign, austere to the point of unpopularity, was not simply about survival. It was an attempt to bend Rome’s destiny back toward divine favor in a world where climate, plague, and invasion seemed nothing less than God’s scourge.
5. The Plague of Justinian and Its Aftermath
Maurice was born in 539, two years before a new and terrible enemy entered the Roman world: the bubonic plague. In 541, at Pelusium in Egypt, the first pandemic of Yersinia pestis erupted with a ferocity unknown in the annals of Rome. It would rage in waves for over two centuries (541–749 CE), shaping the demographic, fiscal, and psychological landscape of late antiquity. For Maurice—who grew from infancy into adulthood with plague as the permanent background of life—this calamity was no passing storm. It was the condition of his world, a perpetual shadow over the empire’s fields, armies, and coffers.
The First Visitation: Horror at Pelusium (541–544 CE)
In the words of Procopius, the plague began with a fever, then buboes swelling in the groin, armpits, or ears. If the swellings ruptured, the patient sometimes survived; more often, “black blisters the size of a lentil bloomed across the body, and death followed within a day.” John of Ephesus confirmed that rats too were struck—“rats with swollen tumours, struck down and dying”—a clinical observation that modern science now recognizes as evidence of the rat-flea transmission cycle.
Death was sudden. “Men talking in the street fell dead where they stood,” Procopius observed. Craftsmen slumped over their tools; sailors died mid-voyage, their ships drifting as floating tombs. John recorded eerie visions of “headless black men in bronze boats” haunting the seas—specters of trauma projected by terrified minds. Alexandria “perished almost completely”; in Palestine, entire villages vanished. As John traveled east toward Mesopotamia, he saw “desolate villages and corpses spread out on the earth, with no one to bury them. Day by day we too knocked at the gate of the tomb.”
From Pelusium the contagion split into two branches: westward into Alexandria and North Africa, eastward into Palestine and Syria, and northward into Asia Minor. By sea it moved fast; by land it crept, carried by rat colonies along roads, rivers, and wagons. In 542, it struck Constantinople. For four months, the capital endured a mortality unlike anything in memory: 5,000–10,000 deaths per day, peaking at perhaps 16,000. Both John and Procopius estimated that 250,000–300,000 died in a city of half a million—a death toll matching the proportions of the fourteenth-century Black Death.
The city collapsed. Markets closed though food was abundant, for “famine raged in a city full of goods.” Families marked their names on tags in case they died in the street. Corpses piled in houses, then in towers, then in pits where bodies were stacked like hay, “trodden underfoot, immersed in the pus of those below.” John interpreted the sight as the wine-press of God’s wrath, proof that the world had entered the last days. Even the palace succumbed: Justinian himself contracted plague, surviving only by chance. For Maurice—an infant in Cappadocia—the empire into which he had been born was already scarred by apocalypse.
Two Centuries of Death: The Persistence of Plague
The Plague of Justinian did not come and go. Unlike smallpox, which leaves strong immunity in its survivors, Yersinia pestis offered only partial and temporary protection. Evagrius Scholasticus, writing in Maurice’s own lifetime, reported that men who had been stricken once or twice fell again in later visitations. Modern immunology has confirmed this insight: plague survivors may carry memory cells, but they are no guarantee of safety. The body does not remember plague as it remembers measles. To live in Maurice’s century was to live under constant risk of reinfection, each generation stalked anew by the same enemy.
Worse still, plague had what smallpox lacked: an animal refuge. When human populations were decimated, the disease retreated into the reservoirs of rodents—black rats in the cities, marmots and gerbils in the uplands of Anatolia, Syria, and beyond. From these “tidal pools of death,” plague spilled out again and again. This dual weapon—imperfect human immunity and hidden animal hosts—ensured that the pandemic stretched across two hundred years. It was not a “wave” but a chain of amplifications, each outbreak feeding the next, each resurgence renewing terror, emptying villages, and eroding the tax registers on which emperors depended.
In Maurice’s youth, Cappadocia itself was not spared. By the late 560s and 570s, Anatolian roads were choked with carts and wagons whose rodent stowaways brought death even to remote villages. The life of the young notary, then officer, then general, was marked by recruitment pools drained of men, lands scarred by abandonment, and tax revenues disrupted by depopulation. When he ascended the throne in 582, plague had become an institutionalized crisis. Soldiers demanded higher pay not only because of harsh campaigns, but because plague had thinned their ranks; taxpayers resisted austerity not only because of Maurice’s thrift, but because families had been halved.
The outbreaks of the late sixth century intersected fatally with Maurice’s rule. The plague of 597–600 ravaged Thessalonica, swept through Thrace, and entered Constantinople with grotesque mortality. A Syriac chronicle reports 380,000 dead in the capital alone—a staggering figure, even if hyperbolic, that conveys the scale of fear. From the capital the disease radiated into Bithynia, Asia Minor, Syria, North Africa, and Rome itself. Pope Gregory the Great, in Italy, wrote of the plague as the very herald of divine judgment, linking it to his own rise to the papacy in 590. When barbarians pressed into Thrace, even the Avars were struck, their khagan losing seven sons in a single outbreak. No frontier was safe.
For Maurice, the plague was thus not an event but a condition of rule. Every imperial decision—whether to tax, to campaign, or to negotiate—took place in the shadow of a demographic deficit created by pestilence. The armies he led into the Balkans were half-starved, ill-paid, and unwilling to endure winter campaigns in the north, not merely because of austerity, but because their families at home were perishing. The treasury he guarded so jealously was empty not only from war, but from the collapse of the tax base. And the society he sought to govern was one where apocalyptic thinking had become second nature—every flare of plague reinforcing the sense that Rome was living through its final age.
By the time Maurice was executed in 602, plague had been returning for sixty years. It had already killed hundreds of thousands, crippled economies, and hollowed out communities. And it was not finished, Maurice, therefore, stands as the first emperor whose reign unfolded entirely in the age of pestilence. His empire was one in which the “wine-press of God’s wrath” pressed not only grapes, but the very sinews of Roman power, crushing soldiers, taxpayers, and rulers alike.
Psychological and Social Trauma
The plague was not merely a biological crisis; it was a psychological earthquake that shattered how late antique society imagined its own future. Chroniclers like John of Ephesus interpreted the devastation as the end of time itself. Sermons became saturated with apocalyptic imagery, insisting that God had unleashed pestilence as a punishment for sin. Monks on pillars and hermits in caves looked down on entire countrysides withering before their eyes. Families abandoned their dead unburied; corpses lay in the streets and in fields, uncollected. Rituals that had sustained the living—burial, mourning, communal worship—collapsed.
The social fabric unraveled alongside the economy. Markets, grain transport, and coin exchange froze during outbreaks. The price of wheat and bread could plummet after mass mortality, but wages skyrocketed because the living were so few. In 544, Justinian complained bitterly that survivors “seek double or triple wages against ancient custom.” Even gold coinage—the sacred standard of Roman governance since Constantine—was debased for the first time in centuries. These distortions were not temporary shocks but the new normal, returning again and again across two centuries.
Maurice’s World in the Shadow of Pestilence
By the time Maurice reached maturity, plague was no longer a distant memory of Justinian’s reign but a recurring calamity. His birthplace in Arabissus, Cappadocia, nestled on key military roads, was as vulnerable as Constantinople itself: rat-infested carts and wagons carried infection inland as easily as grain ships ferried it across the sea. His rise under Tiberius II coincided with outbreaks in the 570s and 580s that bled recruitment pools and emptied tax registers. By the time he donned the purple in 582, the plague had become the silent backdrop of governance, always capable of returning without warning.
Its fiscal impact was brutal. With villages depopulated and fields abandoned, the empire’s tax base shrank dramatically. Yet the state still had to pay soldiers, supply frontier garrisons, and ransom captives from Persians or Avars. The result was harsher exactions on survivors. Under Justinian, the effective imperial tax rate is estimated at 25–33% of total agricultural yield—an astronomical figure. By comparison, even modern high-tax states rarely exceed 30–35% of GDP, and those are wealthy societies with far greater productivity. For a late antique peasant already living at subsistence, Maurice’s fiscal system meant the government could demand a third of your harvest while plague and climate anomalies destroyed the rest. No wonder Procopius and later chroniclers spoke of fiscal rapacity—it was survival taxation in a broken world.
For Maurice, remembered as a rigid fiscal disciplinarian, plague magnified the difficulty. There was less blood to squeeze, and more resentment with every squeeze. Armies were understrength, not simply from mutiny but from demographic attrition—the young men who might have filled the ranks had already been buried in mass graves. Campaigns in the Balkans and Persia drew on a reservoir perpetually diminished by disease, leading to stretched lines, exhausted soldiers, and constant desertions.
Maurice’s reign unfolded under what we might call a double winter:
-
The cold skies of the Late Antique Little Ice Age, which shortened growing seasons and brought famine.
-
The recurring pestilence of plague, which ensured that famine and war were always accompanied by epidemic.
Where Justinian had fought wars of reconquest with grandiose optimism, Maurice managed scarcity with grim austerity. His empire was no longer defined by dreams of abundance but by the reality of loss—of harvests, of taxpayers, of soldiers, of hope itself. His execution in 602 was not the fall of a reckless tyrant but the tragedy of a man governing a broken world, where the very foundations of life—climate, health, demography, and economy—had been shattered.
Maurice’s Winter Order
By the autumn of 602, the Balkans were, on paper, a Roman success story. For the past five years, under the personal direction of Emperor Maurice and his generals, the empire had been winning victories on a scale unseen since the Gothic Wars. His brother Peter had scored notable successes along the Danube, driving the Slavs back and showing that the Roman state was not yet hollow. Even the dreaded Avars, who had tormented the peninsula since the mid-sixth century, had been struck down with catastrophic losses in 599, when Roman armies stormed across the river and annihilated their forces deep inside Pannonian territory. It was the kind of campaign that, a century earlier, would have been sung in epics: a trans-Danubian strike that shattered the khaganate’s aura of invincibility.
For Maurice, this was the decisive moment. The enemy was weakened, their khaganate shaken by famine, plague, and political unrest, and the Slavs scattered in small, leaderless bands. To halt now would be to squander the fruits of a decade of sacrifice. Thus, as the campaigning season wound down in late 602, when soldiers expected to withdraw into the warmth of Thrace, Maurice issued an order that stunned the army; They would not cross back to the safety of the Roman side. Instead, they were to winter north of the Danube, deep in hostile Avaro-Slavic territory.
This decision was not a fit of cruelty but the pure application of the military science embodied in the Strategikon. Modern historians like Ilkka Syvänne remind us that the treatise — long attributed to Maurice himself — explicitly recommended winter campaigning. When the rivers froze, they became highways rather than obstacles. With the forests bare, ambushes were nearly impossible. Enemy tribes, unable to mass or forage, broke into small groups that could be destroyed piecemeal.
For Maurice, these conditions spelled opportunity. The empire was not paying subsidies to either Persia or the Avars; it was, for the first time in decades, financially and militarily free to dictate the tempo. To leave the Danube quiet until spring risked allowing the Slavs and Avars to regroup. But to press them relentlessly, even in the depths of winter, would project Roman dominance as no emperor had dared since the days of Trajan.
Indeed, Maurice’s order can be seen as the climax of his Danubian grand strategy. Beginning in 593, he had already ordered his armies to winter in enemy lands, defying the complaints of his men. The decision of 602 was simply the final and most uncompromising expression of this policy: a determination to turn the Danube frontier from a bleeding wound into a Roman glacis.
But what was cold logic to Maurice was cold death to the army. For the soldiers, weary from two decades of Balkan campaigns, the order was intolerable. They had marched and fought from the days of Tiberius II, watched comrades fall in endless skirmishes, and now longed only for the reprieve of winter quarters with hearths, bread, and their families.
To be commanded to remain on the frozen northern plains, far from supply lines, surrounded by enemies, seemed a deliberate betrayal. The Strategikon’s theory — that men could forage and fight in winter — collided with the soldier’s lived reality: empty bellies, frozen boots, endless watch in hostile forests. Many of these troops were veterans pressed into yet another campaign; their loyalty to Maurice was fraying, their patience at an end.
And unlike in 593, when they had reluctantly obeyed, by 602 the army’s tolerance had collapsed. To them, the order was not strategy but madness, the act of an emperor who had lost touch with the suffering of his men.
Thus the stage was set. In Maurice’s mind, he was on the cusp of finishing what Justinian had failed to do: stabilize the Danube frontier once and for all, perhaps even break the Avars permanently. In the eyes of the soldiers, however, he was condemning them to needless death in a foreign wasteland. The gap between imperial doctrine and military morale — between the Strategikon’s cold rationality and the army’s breaking spirit — would prove fatal.
For when the men refused, and when Maurice demanded obedience still, they did not merely disobey. They rose in mutiny. The emperor’s most brilliant strategic vision became the spark of his downfall.
Soldiers’ Objections and Growing Resentment
The emperor’s command to remain north of the Danube did not fall on fresh ears or eager hearts. The army that received the order had been fighting for nearly two decades of unbroken Balkan warfare, and while their recent victories had been impressive, they were paid for in blood, sweat, and ruined families. When Maurice’s heralds relayed the imperial decision, the objections poured forth.
The soldiers argued first from practical necessity. Their horses were exhausted, their hides rubbed raw from endless campaigning, their bodies weakened from a long summer of marches and skirmishes. To force them into another season of service, through the biting cold of the barbarian north, seemed reckless. They pointed also to their booty — the precious spoils of war which were the soldiers’ reward for enduring hardship. To stay in enemy lands exposed this treasure to raids, surprise attacks, or simple loss in the winter wilderness. Supplies, too, were a pressing concern. The Danubian regions had already been scoured clean in the summer’s campaigning. To remain there, living off the land, was to risk famine.
But underlying these logistical protests was something deeper and more dangerous: resentment of Maurice’s frugality. The emperor had a reputation for thrift, and the soldiers distrusted him for it. Only a few years earlier, he had attempted a reform to replace their cash allowances with distributions of clothing and equipment. To the treasury, this was efficiency; to the troops, it was insult. They believed Maurice did not trust them to spend their own pay and feared he was using “cost-effective” tricks to save money at their expense. Horses — among the most expensive items in a soldier’s kit — were now being driven into another season of hard service, and many suspected the emperor’s hidden hand at work, grinding down the army to spare the treasury.
There was another grievance that ran to the heart of their identity as soldiers: Maurice’s Armenian settlement policy. Rumors swirled through the camps that the emperor was arranging for thousands of Armenian cavalry and their families to be transferred into the Balkans, where they would be granted land in return for hereditary service. To the existing army, this looked like a mortal threat. Military service was not merely a duty but a privilege, a profession in which sons succeeded their fathers. The prospect of large numbers of Armenians, newly settled and armed with imperial backing, threatened to dilute their status and to displace their own sons from this privileged inheritance. This was not merely an economic concern but an assault on their dignity as the empire’s protectors.
Thus, logistical complaints fused with political suspicion and professional jealousy, creating a combustible mixture. The army did not immediately leap to mutiny. At first, they considered slipping back across the Danube in small bands, abandoning the order without confronting authority. But worsening weather checked this impulse; the swollen, freezing river barred their way. They then turned to negotiation. In 593, the general Priscus had bent to their demands in a similar crisis, and they hoped Peter, Maurice’s brother and commander, might do the same. Yet Peter, bound by loyalty to his emperor, refused flatly.
With negotiation closed, discontent hardened. The soldiers’ grumbling became open talk of rebellion. Crucially, they were not ignorant of events in the capital. Earlier in the year, riots and famine had shaken Constantinople, and crowds had publicly cursed Maurice. The mutineers knew that their emperor was unpopular at home and isolated at court. This knowledge emboldened them. They no longer trusted Maurice’s judgment or his willingness to safeguard their welfare.
Still, their first instinct was not to turn to a usurper but to seek a legitimate alternative. They looked to Theodosius, Maurice’s eldest son, as their natural candidate — young, imperial, and, in their minds, untainted by his father’s miserliness. Failing him, they considered Germanus, Theodosius’ father-in-law, a man of noble standing and perhaps a compromise figure. Even Peter or the experienced general Philippicus entered their calculations. In short, the soldiers wanted relief, not revolution; a change of ruler, not the overthrow of the dynasty.
But as the days dragged on, no candidate stepped forward. Theodosius and Germanus were absent, Peter remained immovable, and Philippicus offered no banner to rally behind. Into this vacuum stepped a far simpler solution: one of their own. The mutineers turned to Phocas, a grizzled centurion of Thracian origin, about fifty-five years old, scarred by decades of Balkan service. He was no aristocrat, no dynast — but he was present, trusted by the men, and, above all, willing to champion their grievances. Phocas spoke their language, shared their hardships, and embodied their resentment of distant imperial authority.
The soldiers hoisted him on their shields in the ancient Roman gesture of acclamation. In that instant, a professional grievance became a political revolution. Maurice’s twenty years of Balkan victories, his thrift, his strategy, his vision — all crumbled in the face of one week of mutiny. The capital would soon echo with riots, the regime collapse, and the dynasty end in blood.
The emperor who had saved the empire from Persians, Avars, and Slavs alike was destroyed not by his enemies, but by the very defenders who had carried his banners.
Collapse of Imperial Authority
The mutiny on the Danube was only the spark. The true collapse came when the rebel army, now united under Phocas, began its lightning march south toward Constantinople. From Oescus on the Danube to the capital was a journey of just 617 kilometers. In November conditions, a forced march could cover the distance in little more than ten days — swift enough to prevent the emperor from mustering a serious response. The rebels advanced like a thunderbolt, their momentum feeding panic in the capital long before their vanguard appeared.
Maurice first learned of the disaster through his brother Peter, who fled from the army camp with a handful of loyal officers. His warning was grim: the soldiers had acclaimed Phocas emperor and were heading south. The emperor’s initial reaction was denial. He tried to mask the crisis, staging special races in the Hippodrome as if nothing were amiss, hoping to project confidence and maintain calm in the city. But rumors could not be contained. Soon the truth spread like wildfire: the army of the Balkans was marching directly on the capital.
Desperate, Maurice turned to the people. He extracted oaths of loyalty from both the Blues and Greens, the circus factions whose support could make or break an emperor. He went further, assigning them stations on the Theodosian walls, as if their shouts and banners might stiffen the city’s defense. But even here he faltered. Phocas’ emissaries were rebuffed at the gates, yet Maurice inexplicably failed to secure the Long Walls, the great defensive line sixty kilometers west of the city. The rebels crossed it unopposed. One of the most formidable barriers in the empire was simply abandoned.
Maurice now attempted negotiations — but the only terms Phocas offered were abdication. Worse, a sinister rumor began to circulate: the rebels were prepared to support Theodosius, Maurice’s eldest son, or his father-in-law Germanus, if either would join them. This was a masterstroke of disinformation. When a rebel raid carefully spared the horses belonging to Germanus, suspicion deepened. The emperor, always frugal and distrustful, now saw treachery within his own family circle.
On 21 November 602, Maurice dismissed Germanus from his command and replaced him with the unpopular Comentiolus. The next day he openly confronted Germanus with accusations of conspiracy. Though Germanus protested his innocence, the emperor’s suspicions were plain. Warned privately by Theodosius himself to beware, Germanus fled with his retinue into the churches of the city. First St. Sophia, then other sanctuaries, became his refuge. Crowds gathered, slogans rang out against Maurice, and order collapsed. The circus factions abandoned the walls and joined the swelling mob. The house of Constantine Lardys, the emperor’s praetorian prefect, was burned in the chaos.
At the very hour when the rebel army was making its forced march through Thrace, Maurice lost control of the capital. On the night of 22–23 November, he made his choice. With Constantina, his children, and a few loyal attendants, he slipped across the Bosporus, seeking refuge in Asia. It was an act of desperation, not strategy. The Greens sent emissaries to Phocas, offering their allegiance. Germanus, after a feeble bid for power with the backing of the Blues, abandoned his effort and also submitted.
On 23 November, Phocas arrived at the Hebdomon parade ground, just outside Constantinople’s walls. There, before senators, patriarch, and people, he was raised on a shield in the ancient Roman acclamation of an emperor. The “election” was solemnized in the nearby church of St. John the Baptist, where Patriarch Cyriacus extracted a pledge of orthodoxy before placing the crown upon his head.
Two days later, on 25 November, Phocas entered the city in triumph. Seated in a chariot, showering gold upon the cheering crowds, he processed through the Golden Gate, along the Mese, and into the palace. The Senate, the factions, and the Church bent to the new master. Races were held in celebration. A donative was distributed to the troops. His wife Leontia was crowned Augusta. The coup was complete.
Meanwhile, Maurice’s dynasty was finished. The fugitive imperial family had barely reached the Asian shore when contrary winds forced their ship into harbor. From there, the emperor sent Theodosius inland with Constantine Lardys, to seek aid from Xusro II of Persia. Maurice himself, stricken with gout, could go no farther than Praenetus, where he and the rest of his family sought sanctuary in the church of St. Autonomus. There they were arrested and brought back to Chalcedon to await their fate.
The empire that Maurice had saved through twenty years of unrelenting war now slipped from his hands in barely a fortnight. The Balkan mutiny, the capital’s betrayal, and the rebels’ forced march had destroyed him more completely than any Persian or Avar ever could.
The Arrest and Executions
Maurice’s flight bought only a fleeting reprieve. His ship, battered by contrary winds, was driven ashore in the Gulf of Nicomedia. From there, he took a desperate gamble. His eldest son, Theodosius, accompanied by Constantine Lardys, was dispatched to seek aid from Xusro II, the Persian shah whom Maurice had restored to his throne a decade earlier. The emperor himself, crippled by gout and unable to travel far, pressed on with his wife Constantina, his daughters, and his five younger sons. They reached the church of St. Autonomus at Praenetus, where they sought sanctuary. It availed them nothing. Soldiers of Phocas seized them and conveyed them to Chalcedon, on the Asiatic shore opposite Constantinople, to await judgement
Meanwhile, Phocas reveled in his triumph. At the Hippodrome, races were staged in his honor. Yet even amid the acclamations, the Blues — ever fickle — shouted reminders that Maurice still lived. Enraged and insecure, Phocas resolved to erase every trace of the old dynasty.
On 27 November 602, at the harbor of Eutropius outside Chalcedon, the sentence was carried out. Theophylact Simocatta preserves the grim scene:
“The male children were slaughtered first before the emperor’s eyes; hence, by putting his kin to the sword, by the slaughter of his sons, the murderers inflicted advance punishment on Maurice. And so Maurice, accepting the misfortune philosophically, called on the supreme God and repeatedly uttered: ‘You are just, O Lord, and your judgement is just.’”
One by one, the sons of Maurice were butchered in order of age — first Tiberius, then Peter, then Paul, then Justin, and last of all the infant Justinian, scarcely out of swaddling clothes. the nurse of Justinian, in a desperate act of mercy, tried to substitute her own child. But Maurice, even in despair, refused deception:
“True report proclaims that Maurice declared the secret to the murderers, revealed the concealment of the child, and asseverated that it was not right to pervert the murder by the secret theft of his son. And so the emperor thus became superior even to natural laws, and exchanged his life.”
Only when all five sons lay dead at his feet did Maurice himself kneel to the blade. His head was struck off at last, his composure unbroken to the end. Theophylact tells us he had earlier written to the great churches of the empire, begging that Christ Himself exact full repayment for his sins in this life — as if the emperor had foreseen his own martyrdom.
The slaughter did not stop with the dynasty. To appease the army and erase Maurice’s legacy, Peter, his brother, and other commanders of the Balkan wars were executed. Comentiolus, too, perished. Their heads, together with those of Maurice and his sons, were displayed at the Hebdomon, a grotesque proclamation that the old order was annihilated.
All save one. Theodosius, the eldest son and heir, was not among the dead.
Section II – The Lost Heir: Theodosius Between History and Legend
The year 602 did not merely end an emperor’s reign — it shattered a dynasty. Maurice fell beneath the blade at Chalcedon, his sons cut down before him, To official memory, preserved in the Greek chroniclers of the Heraclian court and after, the story was clear: the house of Maurice was extinguished, its branches lopped in a single act of bloodletting, leaving Phocas unchallenged as emperor. The Chronicon Paschale, Theophanes, Theophylact — each repeats the refrain with numbing certainty: Maurice and all his sons perished.
And yet, not all voices agreed. In the shadowlands between empires, whispers endured. The Syriac Chronicle of Khuzistan, the Armenian historian Sebeos, and later the compilations of al-Ṭabarī speak of another ending. Theodosius, eldest son of Maurice, crowned co-emperor in 590 and groomed for rule, did not die at Chalcedon. Spirited eastward, he found refuge at the Persian court of Xusro II in Dastagird, sheltered by the very king whom his father had restored to the throne a decade earlier.
Thus, the heir of Rome became the guest — or pawn — of Persia. His name flickered through embassies and treaties, invoked as a rival to Phocas and a living token of legitimacy in the great wars that followed. Was he a fugitive prince, watching the empire he should have ruled slip away? Or merely a phantom conjured by diplomats and chroniclers, a convenient fiction to cloak Persian ambition in Roman guise?
Here, at the crossroads of history and legend, the story of Maurice gives way to the enigma of Theodosius — the lost heir of Rome, whose shadow haunted two empires.
I – Theodosius Himself: Heir of Empire
1.1. - Born in the Purple
On 4 August 583, scarcely a year into Maurice’s reign, a son was born to the emperor and his wife Constantina, daughter of Tiberius II Constantine. This was no ordinary dynastic event. For the first time since the birth of Theodosius II in 401, a reigning emperor had produced a son within the walls of Constantinople itself, the very heart of the empire. The news sparked widespread celebration. The city’s circus factions clamored to name the boy: the Blues pressed for “Justinian,” the Greens for “Theodosius,” recalling the emperor who had embodied a golden age of Christian rule. The latter name prevailed, not only because of factional preference but because Theodosius II had been the last imperial son “born in the purple.”
For many, the birth of Theodosius seemed to break a centuries-old curse. No son had directly succeeded his father since the early fifth century; instead, adoption, usurpation, or marriage alliances had kept the throne in motion. In 583, walls in distant Aphrodisias in Egypt carried jubilant graffiti: “The fortune of the emperor triumphs! The fortune of the empress triumphs! Many years for the new Theodosius!” For provincials, as for the court, the child’s birth was interpreted as a sign of dynastic continuity, a pledge of stability in uncertain times.
Theodosius’s early life was woven into the Christian liturgical calendar of Constantinople. He was baptized with great pomp, with the future Pope Gregory the Great himself as godfather. Gregory of Tours later recorded that, upon his papal election, Gregory wrote to Maurice calling him the father of the boy he had “lifted from the holy font.” the symbolism was profound: the heir to Rome was spiritually bound to the bishop of Rome.
Objects of ceremony reinforced this sacred identity. A medallion found near Kyrenia on Cyprus, decorated with the Baptism of Christ and inscribed with Matthew’s words, “This is my son, with whom I am well-pleased,” was likely struck to commemorate Theodosius’s baptism. Coins and inscriptions across the provinces began to carry his name, marking him not just as Maurice’s child but as the child of the empire itself.
1.2. - Theodosius as Imperial Symbol
Theodosius’s elevation was carefully staged. By 587, while still a 4-year old child, he had been acclaimed Caesar, a step toward imperial partnership. On 26 March 590, Easter Sunday, he was crowned Augustus in Constantinople. The ceremony was intentionally dramatic, echoing earlier traditions of dynastic continuity. Yet official documents curiously omitted his name from the regnal formulae — a sign of the empire’s lingering caution, and of how fragile hereditary succession remained in Roman politics.
Still, provincial inscriptions and ecclesiastical records did not hesitate to proclaim him emperor. In 596, a Cilician inscription dedicating a church invoked the reign of “our most serene emperors Maurice and Theodosius.” A Roman council of 595 recorded acts in the name of Maurice and Theodosius Augusti. Across the empire, local communities acknowledged him as legitimate co-ruler, even if the chancery in Constantinople hedged its bets.
From the 590s onward, Theodosius became central to the empire’s propaganda of dynastic security. Special silver issues struck at Carthage and Cherson bore his image: a youthful, beardless Caesar in cuirass and crown. In some issues, he appeared alongside his parents, a visual trinity of imperial continuity, piety, and legitimacy. These were not just coins; they were tokens of reassurance, signaling to soldiers and provincials alike that the empire had a future beyond Maurice himself.
Foreign rulers also recognized his symbolic weight. In 585, the Merovingian king Childebert II wrote to Theodosius directly, urging him to intercede with his father “until you yourself happily succeed to the rule.” That a Frankish king could flatter the young prince in such terms shows how widely Theodosius was acknowledged as the destined heir of empire.
By the late 590s, Theodosius was no longer just a child of promise but a political actor. He represented the guarantee that Maurice’s reforms, victories, and sacrifices were not in vain. But this same symbolic power made him uniquely dangerous to any usurper. When the coup of Phocas erupted in 602, Theodosius was the most threatening of all Maurice’s sons.
Official Constantinopolitan sources — the Chronicon Paschale, Theophanes, Theophylact Simocatta — declare that he was slain right after his father and brothers. Yet the very need for these emphatic declarations betrays anxiety. Theodosius was not merely another prince. He was the crowned Augustus, the godson of Rome’s pope, the “born-in-the-purple” heir upon whom both elite and provincial hopes had been pinned for two decades. His death, if real, needed to be loudly proclaimed; his survival, if whispered, was explosive.
Theodosius’s unique role explains why later rebellions, rumors, and even riots from Syria to Egypt erupted at the mere suggestion of his survival. He was no ordinary child, nor even an ordinary co-emperor. He was the embodiment of dynastic legitimacy at a moment when usurpation was frequent and succession uncertain. To the Heraclian dynasty that followed, it was essential that he be remembered as dead. To the populations closer to the Persian frontier, the idea that he lived was not just believable but compelling.
Thus, from the very moment of his birth in 583, Theodosius’s life carried the weight of Roman continuity. His story did not end in the blood of 602, but in the contested memory of an empire torn between official silence and the loud echoes of survival.
II – The Official Narratives of Slaughter of the Maurikian Dynasty
2.1. - The Chronicon Paschale Account
The Chronicon Paschale, compiled under the reign of Heraclius in the early seventh century, provides one of the most chilling and bureaucratic accounts of the fall of Maurice and his dynasty. In its terse, annalistic style, the chronicle reduces the destruction of a ruling house to a grim inventory of names and locations:
“Maurice Tiberius, together with his wife and eight of his children, was seized at St. Autonomus, near Praenetus. And on the 27th of the same month, a Tuesday, Maurice himself was slain near Chalcedon, as were Tiberius, Peter, Justin, and Justinian. Peter too, the brother of Maurice, who was curopalatus, was also arrested and slain, and other officials were also arrested. Constantine Lardys, the former praetorian prefect, logothete, and curator of the palace of Hormisdas, and Theodosius the son of Maurice were slain at Diadromoi, near Acritas; Comentiolus, the patrician and magister militum, was also slain on the far side, near St. Conon by the sea, and his body was eaten by dogs.”
Here, Theodosius appears as one name among many, folded into a catalogue of victims. He is placed after the slaughter of Maurice, his brothers, and his other sons, and even paired with bureaucrats and generals. The crowning Augustus, the godson of the pope, the beloved heir of the capital, is reduced to a single line: “Theodosius the son of Maurice was slain at Diadromoi.”
The style is telling. The Chronicon Paschale was not a neutral record but part of the official Heraclian historiography, meant to stabilize the new order. Its aim was to create the impression of a complete and total extermination of Maurice’s line. By listing all the victims together — sons, brothers, officials, generals — the text deliberately collapses Theodosius into anonymity.
This is more than casual reporting. It is a political strategy of erasure. Theodosius’s unique legitimacy made him dangerous. To admit the possibility of survival would invite rebellion. Therefore, the narrative insists upon his death, in the same breath as palace bureaucrats and generals, in an almost ritualistic litany of destruction.
Yet the very need to include Theodosius so explicitly betrays unease. Unlike his brothers, he was not simply “a son.” He was already crowned Augustus, a co-emperor in his own right. He had appeared on coinage, in inscriptions, and in provincial acclamations. Foreign rulers had recognized him. To erase this, the official narrative had to insist — almost too loudly — that he was dead.
The location is also significant. While Maurice was slain near Chalcedon, the Chronicon Paschale places Theodosius’s death at Diadromoi, near Acritas. This scattering of executions across different sites conveys both chaos and intent: each death staged in its own setting, so that no body of supporters could rally around a single execution ground. But it also leaves gaps — opportunities for rumor, survival stories, and the fertile legends that would soon erupt across Syria and Egypt.
Thus, the Chronicon Paschale does not simply record events. It reflects the Heraclian need to sanitize the past. Maurice’s dynasty, and above all Theodosius, had to be remembered as utterly extinguished. By casting his death in a single line, stripped of detail, the chronicle hopes to foreclose further questions. But in doing so, it only sharpens suspicion. Why so little said of the crowned heir? Why such silence about his burial, his last words, or the reaction of his supporters?
To contemporaries near the imperial frontier — in Jerusalem, Syria, and Egypt — the absence of detail rang louder than the words themselves. Theodosius, they suspected, was not a name to be erased. He was a man alive, hidden, and dangerous to the fragile new regime.
2.2. Theophylact Simocatta: Maurice’s Fall and Theodosius’ Silence
The historian Theophylact Simocatta, writing in the early reign of Heraclius, offers the most elaborate surviving account of Maurice’s overthrow. His History is dedicated to the new emperor, and so its treatment of Maurice — and especially of his heir, Theodosius — is inevitably constrained by political necessity. Theophylact’s portrait of Maurice is sympathetic, even tragic, but when it comes to the fate of his son the narrative becomes fragmented, contradictory, and riddled with gaps. He presents several different versions of how Theodosius supposedly died, none fully coherent, and then lapses into silence.
This ambiguity is itself revealing. Whereas the Chronicon Paschale sought to bury Theodosius in a single line of bureaucratic finality, Theophylact cannot help but dramatize his role — even as he struggles to bring the story to a politically safe conclusion. In doing so, he leaves us with accounts that look less like firm history and more like patchwork legend, stitched together to fill an uncomfortable void.
2.2.1. – Version I: The Ring and the Recall to Death
Theophylact’s first attempt to narrate Theodosius’ end is brief, stylized, and almost theatrical:
“Now Maurice in repentance philosophically accepted the danger, sent his ring to his son Theodosius, who had reached the city of Nicaea, and commanded his speedy return to him. And so Theodosius thus became obedient to his father, volunteered for the disaster, became intent on return, and arrived for slaughter.”
On the surface, this is a scene of stoic resignation and filial piety: the philosopher-emperor accepts his doom, hands his authority symbolically to his son, and the loyal heir dutifully walks back to embrace death. Yet as soon as we test this against the real timeline of 602, the story collapses.
2.2.1.1. - The Timeline Problem
The Chronicon Paschale gives us exact dates:
-
22 November 602 CE: Maurice flees Constantinople with Constantina and their children.
-
23 November 602 CE: Phocas enters Constantinople and is crowned emperor by Patriarch Cyriacus.
That is a gap of barely one day between Maurice’s desperate flight and Phocas’ coronation. Even more revealing: Phocas’ coup was astonishingly fast. His army marched from Oescus on the Danube to Constantinople, a distance of roughly 617 kilometers, in only about 10.6 days under forced conditions.
This means that by the time Maurice was fleeing on the 22nd, Phocas was already at the gates. There was simply no time for Maurice to calmly compose a message, send his ring to Nicaea (some 120 kilometers southeast of Constantinople), have Theodosius receive it, and then arrange a return journey.
The timeline makes this story impossible. It is a literary invention, not history.
2.2.1.2. - The Ring as Symbol
Why, then, does Theophylact tell it? The answer lies in the symbolism of the ring. In Roman culture, the imperial ring was more than jewelry — it was the sign of sovereignty, the tangible proof of succession.
By claiming that Maurice sent his ring to Theodosius at Nicaea, Theophylact frames the son as formally acknowledged heir, even in the midst of disaster. Theodosius’ obedience in “returning for slaughter” then transforms him into a martyr-prince, noble but extinguished, his claim resolved in blood.
This removes the problem of a living claimant. If Theodosius is obedient and dead, he is no longer dangerous. He becomes a moral exemplar rather than a political threat.
Maurice is depicted as a philosopher-emperor in the style of Marcus Aurelius, calmly accepting fate, uttering stoic wisdom, and teaching by example. Theodosius’ return is cast as an act of filial piety, a son who embraces the same philosophical resignation as his father.
This is not historical reporting. It is moral theater, a tableau meant to ennoble Maurice while simultaneously “closing the file” on his heir.
2.2.1.3. - Why Invent This Tale?
The real question is: why invent such a story at all? If Theodosius’ death had been clear and unquestioned, there would be no need for allegorical flourishes. His head, like those of his brothers, would have been paraded before the people of Constantinople.
But Theodosius’ head was never displayed. And Theophylact’s “ring and return” episode appears precisely because his fate was uncertain. Rumors of his survival — alive, protected, and dangerous — were already spreading. By crafting this stylized account, Theophylact tries to supply a “noble ending,” pre-empting the survival narrative.
Conclusion: Version I as Damage Control
Thus, Theophylact’s first version is not a factual chronicle, but a literary containment strategy.
-
The timeline makes it impossible: Maurice had no window to send a ring and recall his son.
-
The ring functions as a symbol of authority, a way of legitimizing Theodosius while also burying him.
-
The philosopher-emperor tone shifts the episode into moral exemplum, not reportage.
-
The very need for this tale betrays the reality: Theodosius’ fate was disputed, survival rumors too strong to ignore.
Version I, then, is the first attempt at damage control — a myth of obedience and noble sacrifice, meant to reassure Constantinople that the heir was gone. But as later versions show, the rumor would not die so easily.
2.2.2 – Theophylact Simocatta, Version II: The Escape and the “False Theodosius”
Theophylact, after giving his brief and stylized Version I (in which Maurice sends Theodosius a ring, and he obediently returns to die), suddenly launches into a much longer, far more elaborate alternative. Here, he cannot deny that rumors of Theodosius’ survival were widespread, so he attempts to narrate them only to dismiss them as “barbarian error.” Yet in doing so, he accidentally preserves the very details that allow us to reconstruct the prince’s flight.
He writes:
“And so Theodosius the son of the emperor Maurice fled on his return to the church of the martyr Autonomus. Then, after the tyrant had heard this, he sent Alexander to slaughter the boy. Accordingly Alexander slew Theodosius, and killed with the sword the man called Lardys by the masses, after he had conveyed him to the Diadroinoi, as they are called.
It was related by some that Alexander received money from Germanus for sparing the perils: on account of this they say that Alexander refrained from the destruction of Theodosius, but slew another who resembled him; this same Theodosius travelled around many places in the east after this unexpected escape from peril; then he subsequently came to Colchis, after that migrated to the deserts of the barbarians, and terminated his life enfeebled in body. And so this story re-echoed throughout the whole inhabited world, but it was some barbarian error that gave it birth.”
Let us break this down, line by line.
2.2.2.1. - Alexander the Executioner
Theophylact openly admits that Phocas sent his man Alexander to kill Theodosius. This is crucial. Even the official narrative concedes that Theodosius’ death was handled separately, not alongside Maurice’s execution at Chalcedon. The Chronicon Paschale confirms this, listing Theodosius’ supposed death apart from the massacre of his brothers and father. Why would the heir be treated differently? Because he was the only one who mattered. His death — or his escape — was politically decisive.
2.2.2.2. - The Role of Germanus
Next comes the most explosive admission:
“It was related by some that Alexander received money from Germanus for sparing the perils.”
Here Theophylact cannot avoid reporting a widespread belief: Germanus, the general and Theodosius’ father-in-law, bribed Alexander to spare the boy’s life.
This detail is extraordinary. It directly ties the survival rumor not to vague “barbarians,” but to the very heart of the Roman elite. Germanus was no outsider — he was deeply linked to Maurice’s dynasty, a patrician of the highest rank, and one of the most important commanders on the eastern frontier. That Theophylact felt forced to mention this rumor shows it was well known and credible in Constantinople itself.
It also explains Phocas’ paranoia. Soon after, Alexander himself was executed by Phocas, officially because of “false rumors.” But in truth, if Alexander had indeed accepted Germanus’ bribe and spared Theodosius, then Phocas’ position was undermined from the start.
2.2.2.3. - The Doppelgänger Device
Theophylact then explains that instead of killing Theodosius, Alexander slew “another who resembled him.” This is the classic Roman device of a doppelgänger substitution — a trope that appears whenever a royal escape is suspected. By admitting this, Theophylact is again preserving what many in his time firmly believed: that the body produced was not the real Theodosius.
Crucially, he betrays the weakness of the official story. In every other execution, the severed heads were displayed as proof to the crowd. The head of Theodosius was never shown. Theophylact even admits this indirectly when he later says opponents were “blustering with meagre evidence” — namely, that Theodosius’ head was missing. That absence is not meagre, but devastating to the regime’s credibility.
2.2.2.4 – The Route of Escape
The most revealing part of Theophylact’s narrative comes when he describes Theodosius’ “wanderings.” He writes:
“He subsequently came to Colchis… After that migrated to the deserts of the barbarians.”
On the surface, this looks vague. But for the historian willing to unpack it, these phrases are gold. “Colchis” clearly refers to the region of Phasis in Lazica — modern western Georgia, on the eastern Black Sea coast. The second phrase, “the deserts of the barbarians,” is no literal geography but rather a Roman propaganda cliché: Constantinopolitans habitually flattening the complex Armenian-Mesopotamian frontier into a wasteland. Yet to those closer to events, this was no “desert” but the contested zone where Roman and Persian power collided — exactly where Theodosius resurfaced in 603.
Thus, Theophylact, despite himself, has given us breadcrumbs to reconstruct the prince’s escape route:
-
From Chalcedon, Theodosius slipped away secretly, almost certainly by sea.
-
He reached Phasis/Colchis, the natural haven for fugitives fleeing the Bosporus.
-
From there, he traveled south through Armenia and then eastward across the frontier toward Dara, where the Persians and their allies were already active.
-
By spring 603, he was in Persian hands — just as Sebeos, al-Ṭabarī, and the Chronicle of Khuzistan independently attest.
Reconstructing the Journey: Arithmetic and Scenarios
Theodosius’ escape is not just a rumor—it can be modeled. By combining the distances preserved in ancient itineraries with the realities of winter sailing, horseback travel, and political secrecy, we can reconstruct a plausible, month-by-month timeline for his flight from 27 November 602, the day of Maurice’s execution at Chalcedon, to his arrival at Dara in early 603, where he was received with royal honors by Xusro II.
Step-by-Step Timeline
Final Verdict
Theophylact’s own “breadcrumbs” corroborate the Eastern testimonies.
-
He admits Theodosius reached Colchis and then the “deserts” — exactly the route to Armenia and Mesopotamia.
-
Arithmetic reconstruction shows that a December 602 escape leads directly to an arrival in Dara by Feb–Mar 603, matching Sebeos, Khuzistan, and al-Ṭabarī.
-
Far from a ghost story, this is a coherent timeline, geographically precise, and politically explosive.
👉 The evidence points one way: Theodosius son of Maurice survived, fled by sea to Colchis, crossed Armenia, and by spring 603 stood at Dara in Xusro’s protection — the living banner around which Persia launched the Last Great War of Antiquity.
2.2.2.5. - The Survival Rumor and Its Suppression
Finally, Theophylact tries to dismiss it all:
“And so this story re-echoed throughout the whole inhabited world, but it was some barbarian error that gave it birth.”
This admission is fatal. If it were truly a fringe rumor, why would it “re-echo throughout the whole inhabited world”? The very phrasing shows just how universal the belief had become — not only in Persia, but across the Roman East.
By branding it as “barbarian error,” Theophylact is not refuting the rumor, but desperately smothering it. The contradiction is glaring: he admits the rumor’s spread, details the supposed wanderings of Theodosius, and records Germanus’ alleged intervention — then waves it all away as ignorance.
Conclusion: Theophylact’s Accidental Testimony
In Version II, Theophylact gives us far more than he intended.
-
He admits Theodosius’ execution was separate and secretive.
-
He acknowledges a credible elite belief that Germanus bribed Alexander to save his son-in-law.
-
He preserves the doppelgänger explanation for the missing head.
-
He inadvertently outlines the escape route from Chalcedon to Phasis, then south through Armenia to Dara.
-
And he confesses that this story “echoed through the whole world,” even while trying to brand it false.
2.2.3. - Version III — The Official Retraction: “Theodosius was Slain”
Theophylact’s final move is meant to seal the case: after telling Version II’s lurid tale, he pivots to a confident-sounding conclusion:
“For, after laboriously investigating this matter as far as possible, we discovered that Theodosius also shared in the slaughter. … those who profess that the boy did not die are blustering with meagre evidence: for their story is that, alone of those slain, the head of the emperor Theodosius was not displayed.”
On the surface it looks like the calm verdict of a careful historian. Look closer: it collapses into rhetoric, inversion, and political housekeeping. Below we unpack every element of Theophylact’s argument and show why—paradoxically—his text proves the opposite of what he intends.
1. “Laborious investigation” — rhetorical cover, not proof
Theophylact’s first refuge is procedure: “after laboriously investigating…” — a phrase meant to convey impartial inquiry and finality. But books and phrases are not evidence. He offers no named witnesses, no official register, no eye-witness testimony, no itinerary of the execution, and no administrative order recording Theodosius’ death. For a historian under political pressure, the language of procedure becomes a rhetorical device:
-
Why emphasize labor? Because the facts were messy. When evidence is thin, authors inflate their method to manufacture authority.
-
Why no documentation? If the execution had been carried out and meant to be the incontrovertible proof of Phocas’ victory, we would expect an official communiqué, a public display, or at least consistent reporting by pro-Phocas channels. Theophylact supplies none.
Conclusion: the phrase substitutes a claim of inquiry for actual evidence. It signals an attempt to align the narrative with the new regime’s needs rather than to report verifiable fact.
2. The Missing Head — silence that screams
Theophylact’s only factual counter is odd: he turns the absence of Theodosius’ head into a proof of death. This is an inversion of logic. Roman political theatre made the public display of enemies into the shortest path from deed to legitimacy: severed heads were mounted, paraded, and posted precisely to extinguish hope and stamp out claims. We know from the Chronicon Paschale and other accounts that multiple heads were shown: Maurice’s, his 5 other sons, and prominent generals’ heads were exhibited at the Hebdomon to demonstrate the finality of the purge.
But consider the stakes:
-
Theodosius was the crowned co-emperor and legitimate heir. If Phocas had him in custody and wanted to remove any dynastic threat, Theodosius’ head would have been the most potent proof to display. He is the body whose death would settle succession questions.
-
Protocol and propaganda: displaying a rival’s head was standard practice to extinguish popular rumor. To refuse to show the claimant’s head—if you had it—would be to invite the very rumours you were trying to crush.
-
Therefore: the failure to display Theodosius’ head is not “meagre evidence” as Theophylact claims — it is, in fact, the strongest single piece of contrary evidence that Theodosius was not in Phocas’ hands.
Theophylact’s argument here is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand: he points at the absence and calls the absence insignificant, when the absence is precisely what made the rumor plausible and dangerous.
3. Inversion of logic: the retraction is proof of uncertainty
Look at the sequence:
-
A vivid survival story circulates (Version II), complete with names, routes, and even a possible bribery by Germanus.
-
Rumor spreads across the empire and to foreign courts (we have Eastern witnesses who repeat the claim).
-
Theophylact prints the rumor in detail (thereby validating its existence) and then offers a single slender rebuttal — “the head wasn’t shown” — and calls it decisive.
This is an inversion. He has already broadcast the rumor, and then he attempts to bury it with a weak counter-claim. The immediate consequence is that the reader keeps the rumor (detailed, geographically specific, repeated across languages) but also learns that the regime is so anxious that it needs a hurried “laborious investigation” to explain away the one inconvenient absence. That sequence undercuts his own credibility.
4. The language of anxiety — what the tone reveals
Theophylact calls those who doubt the official story “blustering with meagre evidence.” That pejorative is telling:
-
It does not read like a historian calmly refuting a fringe fantasy; it reads like a writer trying to stamp out a widely held narrative that threatens political stability.
-
His tone betrays fear and urgency: the rumor is not marginal; it has saturated public imagination to the point of civil unrest (recall rioting in Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere).
-
Theophylact’s rhetoric thus performs a political operation—damage control—rather than delivering dispassionate judgment.
5. Contextual corroboration points the other way
We must place Theophylact beside the other testimonies:
-
Chronicon Paschale lists the executed and notes Theodosius among those killed in the same entry — but it too provides no scene of Theodosius’ displayed head. It’s a statement, not a scene of proof.
-
Eastern witnesses (Sebeos, the Syriac Chronicle of Khuzistan, Al-Ṭabarī) independently report Theodosius’ flight and reception by Xusro II. These sources come from outside Constantinople and have no obvious motive to invent a Roman pretender — rather they preserve what was believed or reported in the East.
-
If the story of Theodosius at Xusro’s court were mere barbarian fantasy, it would be implausible that it resonated so strongly in Syria, Egypt, Antioch and at the Persian court itself.
Theophylact’s single-line refutation does not counter these independent threads; instead it reads like an attempt to override them.
6. Counter-possibilities and why they fail
One might imagine scenarios that salvage Theophylact’s claim:
-
Phocas did have Theodosius but secretly interred or disposed of the head to avoid inflaming pro-Maurician sentiment. Implausible: political logic demanded the opposite—public spectacle to demoralize opponents.
-
Theodosius was killed elsewhere and his head lost at sea. That would be a very convenient accident, and again defeats the purpose of propaganda. Why risk rumor when one public display would have settled it?
-
Theodosius died earlier (in flight), so no head to display. If so, why did Eastern courts and populations believe he had escaped and was a living claimant? Why would Xusro bother to “receive” and crown a dead man? The external corroborations don't fit this scenario.
None of these alternatives is persuasive when weighed against the political incentives and the recorded pattern of display.
Final Takeaway — Theophylact proves what he wanted to deny
Ironically, Theophylact’s retraction does more work for the survival hypothesis than for the “all-dead” official line. By (a) printing the detailed rumor; (b) emphasizing his “laborious investigation” rather than producing concrete evidence; and (c) dismissing the single most revealing objection (the missing head) as “meagre,” he reveals the truth of the political problem: the evidence did not fully support the easy story of total slaughter. His defensive, anxious prose is the historian’s fingerprint when political necessities outpace documentary truth.
If Phocas truly possessed and had executed the crowned heir, the most elementary political act—public exhibition of the head to prove an end to the dynasty—would have been performed and trumpeted. That it was not, that Theophylact must construct verbal acrobatics to deny what everyone had already asked, is strong, indeed decisive, circumstantial evidence that Theodosius’ fate was not the tidy official story.
In short: Theophylact’s Version III is not the last word — it is the confession of a narrative under strain. The absence of Theodosius’ head, and the persistent Eastern testimonies of his flight and reception, make the “official” verdict deeply suspect.
2.2.4. - The Aftermath – Riots, Rumors, and Alexander’s Death
After his anxious “retraction,” Theophylact lets slip the true scale of the crisis. He writes:
“In these days, error came upon the inhabited world, and the Romans supposed that Theodosius was not dead. And this became an opportunity for very great evils, and this false supposition contrived an abundance of slaughters. When the rumour spread to the palace, the tyrant was greatly distressed and destroyed Alexander with the sword. For it was necessary for Phocas to destroy his co-partners in the tyranny, and to escort to extraordinary deaths his fellow allies in the evil. For collaboration in evil is incapable of establishing the firm friendship of like minds.”
This short passage is explosive. It confirms that the story of Theodosius’ survival was not a fringe whisper, but an empire-wide shockwave that destabilized the throne of Phocas. Let us unpack its three revelations.
1. The Rumor Shakes the Empire
Theophylact confesses that “the whole inhabited world (oikoumene) supposed Theodosius was alive.” This is not an isolated anecdote. It is a historian’s acknowledgment that belief in the heir’s survival swept across the Roman provinces like fire.
-
Riots in the East: We know from Sebeos that in the aftermath of Maurice’s murder, Syria, Egypt, and even Jerusalem exploded in unrest. These were not gullible peasants misled by “error.” These were frontier populations closest to Persia, who would be the first to hear if Theodosius had crossed into Xusro II’s protection. Their uprisings reflected conviction, not confusion.
-
Geopolitical shock: This is precisely when Xusro II launched his “war of revenge,” announcing that he marched to avenge his murdered benefactor and restore Maurice’s son to the throne. The rumor was so strong that it became the casus belli for Persia’s invasion.
Theophylact calls it “error,” but by admitting its scale—universal, destabilizing, bloody—he proves it was more than rumor. It was a living political reality.
2. The Execution of Alexander
The most damning detail follows: Phocas executed Alexander, the very officer he had sent to kill Theodosius.
Why would he do this? Theophylact’s explanation—that tyrants cannot trust each other—rings hollow. The timing makes it clear:
-
Alexander was the one man who knew what had really happened at the moment of Theodosius’ supposed death.
-
If Alexander had obeyed and killed the heir, Phocas should have rewarded him, not destroyed him.
-
The fact that Phocas executed his own trusted agent suggests suspicion that Alexander failed his mission—whether through bribery (as Version II already suggested, with Germanus’ involvement), through pity, or through deliberate deception.
Phocas’ insecurity, mirrored in Theophylact’s language (“the tyrant was greatly distressed”), shows the regime itself feared Theodosius still lived.
3. A Weak Apologia
Theophylact tries to frame Alexander’s fall as the inevitable result of “evil alliances” collapsing. This is the safest rhetorical move: shift attention from the political fact (Phocas purging his own officer) to a timeless moral platitude (“tyrants can never trust one another”).
But this evasion does not work:
-
If Theodosius was certainly dead, why would Alexander’s loyalty matter at all? His mission was finished.
-
If the rumor could be crushed with proof, why kill the one man who could provide it?
By admitting that Phocas “was greatly distressed” at the rumor, and that he silenced Alexander at that very moment, Theophylact actually shows us the real chain of events: rumor spread → unrest grew → Phocas panicked → Alexander was killed to erase a dangerous witness.
Conclusion: Theophylact Admits Everything
What Theophylact wanted to portray as a tale of “false rumor” and “tyrants devouring each other” instead reads, to any close reader, as confirmation:
-
The rumor of Theodosius’ survival was universal, destabilizing, and violent.
-
The man charged with his killing was later executed, suggesting failure or betrayal.
-
The East and the Persian court acted as if Theodosius was alive, launching the Final Roman-Persian War in his name.
By trying to diminish the story, Theophylact ends up preserving its strongest evidence. His anxious words are not a rebuttal but a witness to the power of the lost heir’s shadow.
👉 In short: the “aftermath” proves that Theodosius’ survival was no fringe fantasy. It was the very heartbeat of imperial crisis after 602.
Conclusion – Theophylact’s Contradictions and the Shadow of Theodosius
When we step back from Theophylact’s tangled accounts, the pattern is unmistakable. He gives us not one version of Theodosius’ fate, but three — each contradicting the other, each revealing the anxieties of his age.
-
Version I (the Ring and Recall) presents a moralized parable: a dutiful son returning to his father for death. But its serene stoicism collapses under the weight of logistics. The rapid speed of Phocas’ coup left no time for such exchanges; the scene is symbolism, not history.
-
Version II (the Escape and the False Theodosius) admits what official chroniclers dreaded: that Alexander may have spared Theodosius, that a double was slain in his place, and that the emperor’s son wandered east through Colchis and Armenia, even reaching the “deserts of the barbarians.” Here Theophylact preserves rumors too vivid and too detailed to dismiss.
-
Version III (the Retraction) attempts to close the file, declaring Theodosius dead after “laborious investigation.” Yet the only argument offered — that his head was not displayed — proves the opposite. In an empire where severed heads were the ultimate proof of execution, the absence of Theodosius’ head was decisive evidence that he had escaped.
Finally, in the Aftermath, Theophylact unwittingly confirms the truth he tried to deny. The rumor that Theodosius lived shook the “whole inhabited world,” sparking riots in Syria, Egypt, and Jerusalem, and providing Xusro II of Persia with his pretext for invasion. The very agent entrusted to kill Theodosius, Alexander, was executed by Phocas — an act that makes no sense unless he had failed or betrayed his mission.
Thus, Theophylact Simocatta’s history, though dedicated to Heraclius and intended as a loyal narrative, cannot suppress the contradictions. His pages betray their own anxiety. Instead of silencing the rumor, they preserve it: the missing head, the bribed executioner, the wandering heir, the riots of the East. Far from proving Theodosius’ death, Theophylact’s testimony makes the opposite case.
It is no wonder that later chroniclers, writing with less hesitation, would continue to grapple with the enigma of Maurice’s lost son. To them we now turn to Theophanes the Confessor, who, two centuries later, recorded how the survival legend of Theodosius still haunted the empire.
2.3 – Theophanes the Confessor: The Rumor Preserved
Theophanes the Confessor, writing in the early 9th century, preserves a memory of Theodosius’ fate that is striking in its simplicity. Centuries after the fall of Maurice, the rumor was still alive:
“As for Maurice's son Theodosius, a rumour prevails that he escaped and was saved. This rumour was fanned by Xusro, emperor of the Persians, who on different occasions uttered different lies, alleging that he had Theodosius with him and was making provision that he should take possession of the Empire of the Romans; whereas he was himself hoping to gain control of the Roman Empire by deceit, whereof he was convicted in many ways, especially by starting sudden wars and inflicting great damage on the Roman lands.”
1. The Rumor Endures
Theophanes admits outright: “a rumour prevails that he escaped and was saved.” This is crucial. Writing more than two centuries after the events, Theophanes confirms that the story of Theodosius’ survival never died. It was not a passing whisper of 602–603, but a tradition that endured into Roman memory, troubling chroniclers long after the Persian wars themselves were over.
2. Xusro II’s Political Weapon
Theophanes directly links the rumor to Xusro II: the Persian shah “fanned” the belief, repeatedly declaring that he held Theodosius in his custody. This is not speculation but a historical fact corroborated by multiple sources. Xusro openly proclaimed he was avenging Maurice, his benefactor, and that the legitimate emperor’s son would rule again. In doing so, Xusro gave his war the cloak of legitimacy — it was not a naked invasion, but a “just cause” framed as dynastic restoration.
For a Roman audience, this was explosive. If Theodosius lived, Phocas was a tyrant and usurper, and resistance to him was righteous. Thus, whether or not Xusro truly had Theodosius in his custody, the claim alone destabilized the empire.
3. Theophanes’ Dismissal
And yet, Theophanes calls Xusro’s words “lies.” He frames the Persian claim as a ruse — not genuine dynastic support but deceit, designed to mask Xusro’s imperial ambitions. This reflects his theological and political stance: by the 9th century, Persian victories were remembered only as devastation, and attributing them to deceit rather than dynastic loyalty served Roman pride.
But here is the weakness: if Xusro had invented Theodosius, why did the rumor persist for centuries? Why did riots erupt in Syria, Egypt, and Jerusalem immediately after Maurice’s fall? Why did Roman generals defect to Persia under the banner of the “living heir”? The longevity of the belief suggests there was a real foundation — not pure invention.
4. Persia’s Legitimacy and Rome’s Anxiety
Theophanes inadvertently confirms what Theophylact struggled to suppress: Theodosius’ fate mattered because it shaped the very legitimacy of empire. Phocas could not rest secure while rumors of a surviving heir circulated. Xusro could not launch a “war of vengeance” without parading the claim that he protected Maurice’s son. And Roman memory, centuries later, still had to grapple with the shadow of the lost prince.
Thus, even while branding Xusro a liar, Theophanes reveals the truth: Theodosius’ survival — or at least the widespread belief in it — was the political detonator of the greatest war of Late Antiquity.
2.4 – Political Necessity: The Heraclian Dynasty and the Erasure of Theodosius
By the time Theophanes the Confessor was writing in the ninth century, the “lost heir” of Maurice still haunted Roman memory. But if the rumor endured so long, why do our narrative sources — especially Theophylact — bend so awkwardly to deny it? The answer lies not in evidence but in political necessity.
1. Heraclius’ Precarious Legitimacy
Heraclius was no ordinary emperor. He was a usurper who overthrew Phocas in 610, and his claim to legitimacy rested on delivering Rome from tyranny. But this posed a problem: what if the true heir, Theodosius, had survived? If the son of Maurice lived, then neither Phocas nor Heraclius had any lawful right to rule.
This was not abstract theory. As Phil Booth has argued, Heraclius ruled amid memories of Maurice’s reign as a golden age of peace with Persia — a golden age shattered by Phocas and, in turn, endangered by Heraclius’ own disastrous defeats of the 610s:
-
613 – Heraclius crushed in Syria.
-
614 – Jerusalem sacked by Shahrwaraz.
-
619 – Alexandria falls, Egypt lost.
Against this backdrop, whispers of a living Theodosius were poison. They suggested there was a rightful emperor waiting in the East — a man whom Xusro II himself invoked as the banner of his “war of vengeance.”
2. The Ghost of Maurice
Booth calls Maurice a “ghost at the court of Heraclius.” His memory lingered at every turn:
-
In 591, Maurice had restored Xusro II’s throne — setting the precedent of emperors defending each other’s dynasties.
-
In 629, Heraclius met Shahrwaraz at Arabissus, Maurice’s birthplace, in a gesture thick with symbolism. Heraclius played the role of Maurice, restorer of kings, while Shahrbaraz, the Persian general, returned relics and pledged concord.
-
Heraclius even named his own son Theodosius — a choice both ironic and telling, given the contested fate of Maurice’s Theodosius.
In this atmosphere, the lost heir could never be a neutral figure. His survival — or even the rumor of it — was a living rebuke to the Heraclian dynasty.
3. Why Theodosius Had to Die (on Paper)
The solution was systematic erasure.
-
Theophylact Simocatta went to elaborate lengths to provide not one but three versions of Theodosius’ fate, all designed to smother survival rumors.
-
Theophanes the Confessor repeated the “he died” tradition while reluctantly acknowledging that the Persians had invoked him.
-
Later Roman tradition insisted that Maurice himself had not truly named Theodosius as heir, or that the will was flawed — all efforts to delegitimize him posthumously.
The strategy is clear: if Theodosius lived, the Heraclians were impostors. If he died, they were saviors of the empire.
4. The Fragile Fabric of Memory
By reframing Maurice as both a tragic moralizer and a failed ruler, Heraclian-era literature managed to neutralize him while still drawing on his symbolic power. But Theodosius was too dangerous for even that ambiguous treatment. He had to be declared dead — even if the evidence shouted otherwise.
And so, Roman historians of the 7th–9th centuries gave us a carefully curated memory: one where Theodosius’ head was shown (though it was not), one where rumors of his survival were “barbarian error,” one where the dynasty of Maurice truly ended at Chalcedon.
Yet the very vehemence of these denials shows us the truth: Theodosius was not forgotten. He was remembered too vividly, too dangerously. His shadow stretched across the wars with Persia, across the Heraclian dynasty’s fragile legitimacy, and even into the centuries when Theophanes still felt compelled to “correct” the record.
👉 With Rome’s version sealed, we now turn eastward — to Persian, Armenian, Arabic and Syriac sources — where the story of Theodosius’ survival was not a rumor to be suppressed, but a political weapon to be wielded.
III. The Discordant Voices: Eastern Testimonies of Survival
If Roman writers strained every nerve to close the book on Theodosius, their counterparts in the East did the opposite. In Persia and in the Syriac-speaking frontier provinces, and in Later Arabic derivatives of Persian Histories, the story of the emperor’s son did not end in Chalcedon. Instead, it began there.
Where Theophylact sought to erase, the Eastern chroniclers sought to preserve. Where Theophanes dismissed, the Persians proclaimed. Theodosius, they said, had escaped — carried eastward into lands where Rome’s writ could not reach, welcomed by Xusro II, the very king whom Maurice had once restored to his throne.
This was no idle tale. The Persians made it the cornerstone of their policy. By insisting that they held the rightful Roman emperor in their custody, they turned Maurice’s memory into a sword against Roman. Every campaign of Xusro’s “war of vengeance” could now be clothed in legitimacy: Persia was not merely attacking, it was avenging its benefactor and defending his son.
The Syriac chroniclers, closer to the frontier and less beholden to Constantinople’s official line, preserve echoes of these same rumors. They attest that the belief in Theodosius’ survival was not confined to court intrigue but ignited whole provinces. Riots in Syria, unrest in Egypt, even murmurs in Jerusalem — all reveal the political power of the “lost heir.”
Thus begins the second act of our investigation. We leave the carefully managed narratives of Constantinople and turn instead to the discordant voices of the East — Persian proclamations, Syriac chronicles, and frontier traditions that kept alive what Rome could not afford to admit: that the heir of Maurice lived, and that his shadow haunted the empire long after the sword fell at Chalcedon.
3.1. Sebeos (Armenian Bishop, c. 661): The Escapades of Theodosius, son of Maurice
The Armenian bishop Sebeos, writing around 661, preserves one of the most vivid and independent accounts of the aftermath of Maurice’s overthrow. Unlike Theophylact, who struggled to suppress the rumors, Sebeos presents them as an undeniable fact of his time: the Roman world did not believe Theodosius had been slain.
3.1.1. - The Rumor of Escape & Turmoil in the Roman Empire
Sebeos gives us a short but explosive statement:
“The emperor Maurice had a son named Theodosius. A rumour spread over the whole country that Theodosius had escaped and gone to the Persian king.”
This single line is a tectonic shift in the historical record. It is the earliest non-Roman acknowledgment of the Theodosius survival story, preserved not in a court apologetic or hostile refutation, but in the matter-of-fact tone of an Armenian bishop writing barely sixty years after the events. The phrasing is everything: Sebeos does not hedge, does not call it a fabrication, and does not localize it to Constantinople. Instead, he insists that the rumor spread “over the whole country” — meaning not merely the capital but across the entire Roman world.
If this were simply a fiction spun by Xusro II years later, as Theophanes later claimed, it would not have had this instantaneous and universal currency. That the story erupted everywhere simultaneously — in Constantinople, Egypt, Palestine, and Syria — shows that people believed Theodosius had genuinely escaped.
The implications are enormous. If Theodosius had been executed alongside his father, there would have been no grounds for mass panic. Phocas’ regime had paraded the severed heads of Maurice and his sons precisely to kill rumor at the root. Yet Sebeos confirms that this failed. The absence of Theodosius’ head — the most crucial of all — was noticed immediately, and from that void, the rumor spread like wildfire.
What makes more sense?
-
That whole provinces, cities, and armies erupted into civil war over a false whisper, a mere trick of Persian propaganda?
-
Or that Theodosius, the crowned co-emperor, truly had slipped the noose, and people who were closer to the events than later chroniclers knew it?
The reaction recorded by Sebeos only makes sense if the second scenario is true.
3.1.2. - Uncontainable Violence
Sebeos drives the point home with chilling bluntness:
“Then there was no little turmoil in the Roman empire, there in the royal capital, and in the city of Alexandria in Egypt, and in Jerusalem and Antioch. In all regions of the land they took up the sword and slaughtered each other.”
This is not the language of rumor in the abstract. It is the language of civil war. The belief in Theodosius’ survival shattered the fragile order of the early 7th century. Notice the cities Sebeos names:
-
Constantinople — the heart of the empire, where legitimacy was staged and contested in the Hippodrome.
-
Alexandria — the intellectual and grain capital of the East, always restive, now erupting in violence.
-
Jerusalem — the sacred city, whose people would not be stirred by idle gossip but by something profoundly threatening.
-
Antioch — the old eastern capital, strategically vital, now in open turmoil.
The scope is breathtaking. These were not random riots but the great metropolises of the Roman East, all aflame at once. The empire’s most important provinces were plunged into violence because of Theodosius.
The logic is unavoidable: people do not kill each other in the streets over a rumor they think is false. They fight because they believe the claimant is real, because the standard of legitimacy is too strong to ignore. Theodosius was not some distant cousin or pretender — he was co-emperor, crowned and recognized before 602. If he had escaped, then Phocas’ entire regime was a usurpation built on sand.
The Roman establishment later tried to paint these upheavals as the product of “barbarian error” & Persian deceit. But Sebeos — who had no reason to protect Constantinople’s narrative — shows us the opposite: the turmoil of the 610s makes perfect sense if Theodosius was alive, and no sense at all if he had been killed.
In short: the mountains of turmoil confirm the mountain of truth. The rumor of Theodosius’ survival was not just a whisper; it was the earthquake that shook the entire Roman East.
3.1.3. - The Revolt of Narses in Mesopotamia
After describing the spread of the Theodosius rumor and the turmoil across the empire, Sebeos tightens the lens onto Mesopotamia. There, one of Maurice’s most trusted generals — Narses — raised the banner of rebellion:
“In the area of Syria the general Narses rebelled in Mesopotamia, and with his army seized control of the city of Edessa. An army came to attack him, and they kept the city and his army besieged.”
This is a turning point. The upheaval caused by Theodosius’ supposed survival was no longer confined to riots in Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. It now translated directly into organized military insurrection. Narses was not a minor figure; he had commanded armies under Maurice and retained the loyalty of seasoned troops. His choice of Edessa was no accident either.
Edessa was a city of immense symbolic weight — a bastion of Christianity famed for the Mandylion (the holy image of Christ) and a crossroads of Roman and Persian power. For Narses to seize it meant that he was not simply rebelling against Phocas but declaring the east’s allegiance to the Maurikian dynasty through Theodosius.
Phocas could not ignore this. According to Theophanes the Confessor, the usurper immediately ordered a counter-siege:
“Now Narses, who was a Roman general, rose up against the usurper and seized Edessa. Thereupon Phokas wrote to the general Germanus to lay siege to Edessa; while Narses wrote to Chosroes, emperor of the Persians, to collect his forces and make war on the Romans.”
Theophanes’ report dovetails exactly with Sebeos’ — Narses was besieged, but crucially he appealed to Xusro II of Persia. This was the spark Xusro had been waiting for.
For Xusro, Maurice’s old ally and beneficiary of his intervention in 591, the death of Maurice was already a pretext for hostility. But with Narses in revolt, holding Edessa, and invoking Theodosius’ survival, the Persian king found the perfect casus belli. He could now claim to intervene not as an invader, but as the legitimate protector of Maurice’s heir.
Sebeos describes the Persian response in vivid terms:
-
Xusro marched west, besieged Dara, and then divided his forces.
-
With one half he held Dara, with the other he struck the Roman army at Edessa by surprise, routing them in a dawn attack.
-
Narses then staged a dramatic appeal: dressing a youth in royal robes and sending him to Xusro as the “son of Maurice, Theodosius.”
Whether this was the real Theodosius or a stand-in, the message was clear: Xusro was now the guardian of Maurice’s line, avenging his benefactor against the usurper Phocas.
The revolt had bloody consequences within Edessa itself. The Chronicle of Zuqnin preserves a stark detail:
“Narses, commander of the Persian army, attacked Edessa and invaded it. He seized Severus, Bishop of the city, and stoned him to death.”
Michael the Syrian adds layers of detail, showing how volatile the city had become:
-
Severus, bishop of Edessa and a prominent Chalcedonian, was accused of sympathizing with Phocas.
-
Narses had him seized and interrogated in the palace of Marinus.
-
To avoid a riot among the population, Severus was led out secretly by a postern gate and executed by stoning at the Gate of the Cave-Tombs, near the spring at Kynigion.
-
The people of Edessa, unaware of what was happening, only learned of the bishop’s death afterward.
This episode is telling: Edessa was not a city united in rebellion but divided along theological and political lines. The execution of its bishop illustrates how the revolt tore at the social fabric of the East.
3.1.4. - Xusro’s March and the Presentation of Theodosius
After the revolt of Narses at Edessa, Sebeos takes us to one of the most remarkable and revealing moments of the early seventh century, as Xusro II arrived at the gates of Dara.
“Now when king Khosrov heard news of this, he gathered all the host of his army and marched westwards… Then king Khosrov approached the gate of the city so that they might open it for him to enter inside; and they opened the gate. But Nerses dressed a youth in royal garb, placed a crown on his head, and sent him to him, saying: ‘This is the son of king Maurice, Theodosius; have pity on him, just as his father had on you.’”
Sebeos frames the scene with unmistakable dramatic power. Narses, surrounded and desperate, sends forth not just a fugitive but a crowned emperor. Dressing the youth in royal robes and placing a diadem on his head was no accident: it was a ritualized act of legitimacy.
The words put in Narses’ mouth are just as powerful, he deliberately recalling 591 CE, when Maurice rescued Xusro II from civil war and restored him to his throne. By presenting Theodosius, Narses invokes that bond of patronage — as if to say, “Now it is your turn to protect Maurice’s son as he once protected you.” this is not propaganda invented decades later; it is political theater in real time, preserved by a seventh-century bishop writing within living memory of the events.
Sebeos records Xusro’s reaction with striking clarity, with 2 details here that matter enormously:
-
Great joy — Xusro’s emotional response shows he accepted the youth as Maurice’s son. This was not some casual impostor conjured up in a rumor mill; this was the long-awaited legitimizing heir.
-
Royal honour — Xusro did not hide him, mock him, or dismiss him. He accorded him the full dignity of an emperor in exile, precisely because he intended to use Theodosius as the living rallying point for his war against Phocas.
This matches the Persian strategy perfectly: to frame the war of 603 not as naked aggression, but as a just war on behalf of the rightful Roman emperor.
👉 In this moment, the ghost of Maurice became flesh again through his son, and the Persian–Roman war of 603–628 was no longer just a geopolitical clash — it was a war fought in the name of dynastic justice.
3.1.5. - The Siege of Theodosiopolis: The Lost Heir Revealed
The most stunning passage in Sebeos’ chronicle comes not from the immediate aftermath of Maurice’s fall, but from several years later, during the great Persian advance into Roman Armenia. In 607, the Persian general Ashtat Yeztayar swept into the province of Basean, smashing a Roman field army at Du and Ordru in a massacre so vast that “the number of those slain on the plain could not be counted.” From there, the Persians drove forward, besieging Theodosiopolis (Karin), one of the most important fortified cities of Armenia, the linchpin of the northern frontier.
What happened next defies all expectations. Sebeos writes:
“Then the caesar Theodosius came forward, saying: ‘I am your king.’ They then acquiesced and opened [the gate]. The chief men of the city came out and presented themselves to him. On returning they persuaded the city that he really was Theodosius, son of Maurice. Then, having opened the gate, they submitted. He posted guards there, then went and seized Dzit‘arich, Satala, Arashtiay, and Nicopolis, and departed.”
1. Recognition by the Elites
This is not hearsay. These are not rumors whispered in markets. The elite citizens of Theodosiopolis — men of wealth, lineage, and responsibility — went out of their gates, looked this man in the face, and swore he was Theodosius, son of Maurice. They had every reason to resist: the city was heavily fortified, Persian supply lines were stretched, and a stout defense might have bought time for Roman relief. Instead, they surrendered — not to the Persians, but to Theodosius himself.
Their choice speaks volumes. These were not naïve peasants or Persian stooges, but the leading notables of Armenia, men whose lives and fortunes hung in the balance. If they judged the claimant to be false, they could have denounced him, resisted him, or cut a deal with the Persians. Instead, they embraced him as Emperor, persuaded the population, and handed over the gates.
2. The Weight of Memory
Why? Because the name of Maurice still carried immense weight. For eleven years (591–602), after Maurice’s intervention restored Xusro II to the throne, the eastern frontier had known unparalleled peace and prosperity. Trade routes thrived, cities recovered, and Armenia itself was spared the devastation that had scarred the Balkans. The generation of elites who stood on Theodosiopolis’ walls in 607 had lived their adult lives under the security of Maurice’s Pax Orientalis.
When they saw his son — the legitimate heir, the boy once crowned co-emperor — standing before them, they recognized him as the guarantor of that order. His presence was not simply dynastic nostalgia; it was a promise of stability in a world collapsing into chaos under Phocas’ usurpation.
3. Rapid Domino of Surrenders
Theodosius’ recognition did not stop at Theodosiopolis. Sebeos names the cascade of cities that followed: Dzit‘arich, Satala, Arashtiay, and Nicopolis. These were not minor outposts but major Armenian and Cappadocian centers, each with strong fortifications, each vital to the defense of Asia Minor. Yet they surrendered without prolonged resistance, submitting to Theodosius.
This domino effect demonstrates something crucial: the claim was not isolated or contested. It spread rapidly across the frontier, carried by the credibility of Theodosius’ person. The memory of his father’s reign, combined with Persian backing, made him an irresistible figure for cities exhausted by war.
4. Implications: Proof in Flesh and Blood
This passage from Sebeos is the ultimate jackpot because it transforms the question of Theodosius’ survival from rumor into concrete historical action.
-
He was seen. The city elites looked upon him and acknowledged him.
-
He was obeyed. Gates were opened, cities surrendered.
-
He acted. He posted guards, took possession of multiple towns, and departed as a ruler, not a fugitive.
If this was a pretender, he was the most successful one in Roman history, commanding loyalty from elites, armies, and cities alike. But the simplest explanation — the one the Armenian bishop gives without hesitation — is that this was truly Theodosius, son of Maurice.
3.1.6. - Xusro’s Rejection of Heraclius (610): “That Kingdom is Mine”
When Heraclius seized the throne in October 610, overthrowing Phocas after a bloody 3-year civil war, his first priority was peace. The empire was exhausted. Persian armies stood deep in Roman territory and ha reached the Mediterranean, The Danube frontier was broken, Heraclius, pragmatic and cautious, dispatched envoys eastwards with letters and treasures, seeking to buy peace from Xusro II.
But Sebeos records the Persian king’s response in words as chilling as they are revealing:
“King Khosrov was quite unwilling to heed him, saying: ‘That kingdom is mine, and I established Theodosius, son of Maurice, as king. But this one has become king without our permission and offers us our own treasure as a gift. However, I shall not desist until I have taken him in my grasp.’ Taking the treasure, he ordered his messengers to be killed, and made no response to his proposals.”
1. Theodosius as the Center of Legitimacy
This speech cuts to the heart of the matter. For Xusro, Rome was not Heraclius’ to rule. By his reckoning, it belonged to Theodosius, the son of Maurice, whom he claimed to have “established as king.” This is the most direct statement we possess from any source that Theodosius’ survival was official Persian policy. Xusro did not merely tolerate a rumor; he elevated it into the foundation of his war aims.
To accept Heraclius’ embassy would mean admitting that Theodosius was dead or irrelevant. Instead, Xusro doubled down: Rome already had a legitimate emperor — Maurice’s son — and Heraclius was nothing but a rebellious usurper.
2. The Persian King’s Memory of 591
The resonance with 591 is unmistakable. Maurice had saved Xusro’s throne when he was a refugee, restoring him to Persia at the point of Roman swords. Now, in Xusro’s telling, he was returning the favor: defending Maurice’s heir against the usurpers Phocas and Heraclius.
This was not just propaganda for Roman ears. It was a deeply moralized framework of kingship that Sebeos captures perfectly. Xusro casts himself as the avenger of dynastic wrongs and the protector of legitimate succession. In his mouth, Maurice’s aid was not forgotten — and Rome’s throne was “his” to allocate because he had safeguarded its rightful heir.
3. Treasure Rejected, Envoys Executed
Heraclius had sent not only letters but also splendid treasures — the classic Roman tool of diplomacy. Yet Xusro spurned them with contempt. His words drip with insult: Heraclius was offering him “our own treasure,” as though nothing in Roman hands rightfully belonged to Heraclius at all.
Then came the ultimate sign of rejection: he killed the messengers. In Roman diplomatic tradition, this was nearly unthinkable, a declaration of total war. No negotiation was possible so long as Xusro held to Theodosius as the rightful ruler.
4. The War of Dynasties
This single episode crystallizes the entire conflict of 602–628: it was not only a war of borders but a war of legitimacy. For Xusro, his banners did not march merely for Persian conquest but for Theodosius’ restoration. Every city that surrendered to him, every Roman defector, every riot in Alexandria or Antioch could be justified under that principle: Persia was defending the dynasty of Maurice.
Heraclius, in turn, was trapped. He could not acknowledge Theodosius’ survival without undermining his own throne. Nor could he negotiate peace while Xusro wielded Maurice’s heir as a weapon. This made compromise impossible and ensured the war would spiral into one of the most devastating conflicts in Late Antiquity.
5. Implications for Theodosius’ Fate
This passage from Sebeos is decisive because it comes in 610, eight years after Maurice’s execution. If Theodosius had been killed at Chalcedon, his usefulness as propaganda would have long expired. Yet here he is, still invoked at the very highest level of diplomacy, still treated as alive by the Persian court, still regarded as the true emperor by Xusro himself.
Whether sheltered in the Persian heartland or paraded at the frontier, Theodosius’ existence haunted the Roman world. His survival was not a whisper but a principle of international politics, shaping the choices of emperors and kings.
📌 With this, Sebeos brings us to the threshold of the great twenty-six-year war: a clash not only of armies but of dynasties. Rome’s Heraclian usurper faced Persia’s “Roman emperor in exile” — Theodosius, son of Maurice.
Conclusion: The Value of Sebeos’ Witness
Taken together, Sebeos gives us:
-
The universal rumor of Theodosius’ survival.
-
Riots and bloodshed across the Roman East in his name.
-
A loyalist revolt in Edessa fueled by the claim.
-
The crowned heir presented at Dara and honored by Xusro.
-
Personal recognition at Theodosiopolis, where elites opened their gates.
-
The Persian king’s insistence in 610 that Rome’s throne was Theodosius’ by right.
No Roman chronicler dares admit this chain in full. Only Sebeos, writing on the Armenian frontier, preserves the story in all its explosive continuity.
📌 Thus Sebeos is our strongest witness. For him, Theodosius’ escape was not rumor but lived reality, one that reshaped rebellions, justified invasions, and haunted Rome’s emperors for a generation.
3.2. - The Chronicle of Khuzistan (c. 660 CE): Theodosius Crowned and Armed by Xusro
The Chronicle of Khuzistan offers one of the most direct, unambiguous statements about Theodosius’ survival:
“Then, a man called Phocas rebelled against Maurice, the king of the Romans, and killed him, his sons, and his wife. But one of his sons, Theodosius by name, escaped and came to Xusro, and he was received by the king with great honour. He ordered the Catholicos to take him into the church and a royal crown be placed on the altar, and then he be crowned according to the Roman rite. Xusro gave him an army and he marched against the Romans.”
Here the escape is explicit: while Maurice and most of his family perished, Theodosius survived and reached Xusro II. The Persian king not only received him but publicly crowned him in a Christian ceremony conducted by the Catholicos Sabrisho I (596-604), the head of the Church of the East. A crown was laid upon the altar, and the heir of Maurice was crowned “according to the Roman rite.”
This is staggering confirmation. It shows that Theodosius was not hidden in rumor, not whispered in secret, but formally enthroned in the East as the legitimate emperor of the Romans. The ceremony itself — performed by a patriarch, using Roman ritual — was a deliberate act of imperial legitimacy, designed to present Theodosius as the rightful Augustus against the usurper Phocas.
The Campaign Against Phocas
The Chronicle continues:
“Xusro gave him an army and he marched against the Romans. Also, Phocas sent large forces which pitched camp at Bēt-Washi, a distance from the city of Dārā. They fought against Theodosius and destroyed his forces, and he sent to Xusro: ‘I have no power to stand before the Romans.’”
Here, Theodosius is not a passive pretender. He commands an army, a Persian-backed force launched against Phocas' armies. This campaign ended in disaster near Bēt-Washi (close to Dara), where his army was crushed and he was forced to retreat. But the detail matters: the Syriac chronicler distinguishes between Theodosius’ forces and Xusro’s later reinforcements. In other words, Theodosius’ army was a real, independent military force operating under his name.
His words — “I have no power to stand before the Romans” — read like a direct, personal report. They reinforce that this was no impostor conjured for propaganda; this was a living, acting figure whose military failure was witnessed and recorded.
Xusro’s Intervention and the Fall of Dara
The Chronicle then shows how Xusro himself stepped in to continue the war:
“Xusro advanced in winter from Māḥozē with many troops, and arrived at the land of the Romans, and with him the Catholicos. The army of Phocas marched out against them, and forces falling upon each other, many were killed from both parties. They also threw a noose on Xusro but one of his men whose name was Mushkan cut it. The following day the battle line was drawn and the Romans were defeated before the Persians. The king fought against Dārā; he built siege engines, and made tunnels beneath the walls, and set a fire, and with the many tricks that they made they breached the wall, and blood poured there like water.”
This is the aftermath of Theodosius’ failed campaign. Having seen his protégé defeated, Xusro personally advanced from his capital (Māḥozē, i.e. Ctesiphon) with a massive army, accompanied again by the Catholicos — underscoring the religious legitimacy wrapped around the war. The Persians clashed with Phocas’ forces, nearly capturing Xusro himself, before turning the tide and besieging Dara, the great Roman fortress of Mesopotamia.
The detail of the bishop of Dara’s suicide — “he cut the main body vein with an iron, and throwing himself on his bed, his blood gushed and he died, for he feared the king who swore: ‘I will make him die with forty kinds of death’” — conveys the terror that Xusro’s vengeance unleashed, vengeance fueled by Maurice’s murder and sanctified by the presence of Theodosius.
The Weight of the Chronicle’s Testimony
The Chronicle of Khuzistan is written in Syriac, by a Christian author living within the Persian sphere, around 660 CE — barely two generations after the events. This makes it an independent and near-contemporary witness.
Its testimony is explosive:
-
Theodosius Escaped. Unlike Theophylact’s evasions, here the escape is simply stated as fact.
-
He Was Crowned. Not in secret, but in church, with a crown on the altar, blessed by the Catholicos — the most authoritative ecclesiastical confirmation possible.
-
He Commanded Armies. He marched against Phocas, fought, and was defeated. His own words are even preserved.
-
His Presence Fueled Xusro’s War. The Persian king did not wage war for abstract vengeance, but under the banner of the surviving son of Maurice, whom he presented as Rome’s true emperor.
In short: the Chronicle confirms and expands everything Sebeos claimed. Where Roman authors tried to smother the rumor, the Syriac voice from Mesopotamia exposes it plainly: Theodosius survived, was crowned, and waged war.
📌 This makes the Chronicle of Khuzistan one of the strongest pillars of evidence for Theodosius’ survival — not only a rumor but a political reality acknowledged in Persian and Syriac sources alike.
3.3 — Al-Ṭabarī (c. 915 CE): The Persian Memory Preserved
Few sources cut through the Roman fog as clearly as Al-Ṭabarī, the great Muslim historian of the early Abbasid era. Writing in his Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk (History of Prophets and Kings), Ṭabarī drew upon Persian Sasanian court archives that survived into Islamic times. His account of Maurice, Phocas, and Theodosius is among the most explicit testimonies we possess, he wrote;
The Arabic Text
-
"وَإِنَّ الرُّومَ خَلَعُوا - بَعْدَ أَنْ مَلَكَ كِسْرَى أَرْبَعَ عَشْرَةَ سَنَةً - مُورِيقَ وَقَتَلُوهُ وَأَبَادُوا وَرَثَتَهُ - خَلا ابْنٌ لَهُ هَرَبَ إِلَى كِسْرَى - وَمَلَّكُوا عَلَيْهِمْ رَجُلًا يُقَالُ لَهُ قُوفَا. فَلَمَّا بَلَغَ كِسْرَى نَكْثُ الرُّومِ عَهْدَ مُورِيقَ وَقَتْلُهُمْ إِيَّاهُ، امْتَعَضَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَأَنِفَ مِنْهُ، وَأَخَذَتْهُ الْحَفِيظَةُ، فَآوَى ابْنَ مُورِيقَ اللَّاجِئَ إِلَيْهِ، وَتَوَجَّهَ وَمَلَّكَهُ عَلَى الرُّومِ، وَوَجَّهَ مَعَهُ ثَلَاثَةَ نَفَرٍ مِنْ قُوَّادِهِ فِي جُنُودٍ كَثِيفَةٍ."
English Translation
-
“And the Romans deposed — after Xusro had reigned fourteen years — Maurice and killed him and exterminated his heirs, except for one son who fled to Xusro, and they enthroned over them a man called Qūfā (Phocas).When Xusro learned of the Romans’ violation of Maurice’s covenant and of their killing him, he was deeply angered and indignant, and rage seized him, so he gave refuge to Maurice’s son who had fled to him, and he advanced and enthroned him over the Romans, And he dispatched with him three of his commanders with dense (massed) armies.”
1. The Escape to Persia
Ṭabarī does not equivocate:
-
Maurice’s heirs were exterminated — except one son.
-
That son fled to Xusro II.
There is no “rumor,” no rhetorical dismissal, no Roman-style dance of allegory. For Ṭabarī, this is a plain statement of fact, carried forward in Sasanian archival memory.
This corroborates Sebeos (who places Theodosius with Xusro at Dara) and the Chronicle of Khuzistan (which describes a coronation in the Roman rite). It is not an isolated strand but part of a consistent eastern testimony.
2. Persian Vengeance as Dynastic Loyalty
The text stresses Xusro’s anger and indignation at the betrayal:
-
Maurice was not just Rome’s emperor; he was Xusro’s benefactor in 591, the man who restored him to the Persian throne.
-
By killing Maurice, the Romans had “violated the covenant” (nakth al-ʿahd). In Near Eastern political culture, oath-breaking was not only a political crime but a cosmic offense.
Thus Xusro’s war is framed not as mere opportunism but as dynastic reciprocity: Maurice saved Xusro once; now Xusro must avenge Maurice by installing his son.
This dovetails with Sebeos’ dramatic scene at Dara, where Narses presents the boy in royal garb and appeals: “Have pity on him, just as his father had pity on you.”
3. The Coronation & Campaign
Ṭabarī’s line is blunt and breathtaking:
-
Xusro “enthroned him over the Romans.”
-
He sent him forth with three Persian generals and dense armies.
This exactly matches the Chronicle of Khuzistan’s account that Theodosius was crowned by the Catholicos with the Roman rite, crown placed on the altar, and then given command.
Persia was not presenting a token claimant. They gave Theodosius the apparatus of real sovereignty: ritual coronation, imperial recognition, and military backing.
4. Chronology: The 14th Year of Xusro
Ṭabarī dates the event to the 14th year of Xusro’s reign — i.e., 604 CE.
This aligns with other sources:
-
Maurice was killed in 602.
-
Theodosius escaped and reached Xusro by 603.
-
By 604, he was enthroned and accompanying Persian generals during the siege of Dara.
The chronology locks perfectly with Sebeos’ report that Xusro kept Theodosius at Dara with “royal honour” during the year-and-a-half siege that ended in 604.
5. Why This Matters
Ṭabarī’s testimony is decisive for several reasons:
-
Unambiguous language: Theodosius escaped, was received, was enthroned, was sent with armies.
-
Persian memory preserved: This is not Roman rumor but the Sasanian record, carried into Arabic historiography.
-
Cross-cultural corroboration: Sebeos (Armenian), Khuzistan (Syriac), and Ṭabarī (Arabic/Persian) all tell the same story from different angles.
-
Contrast with Rome: While Theophylact and Theophanes strained to erase Theodosius, Eastern historians kept him alive, crowned, and central to the greatest war of Late Antiquity.
Conclusion: Ṭabarī as the Persian Voice
Al-Ṭabarī’s narrative is not just another rumor — it is the Persian memory of events, carried faithfully through centuries. In his telling:
-
Theodosius survived 602.
-
He reached Xusro II.
-
He was enthroned as rightful emperor.
-
He marched with Persian armies as the lynchpin of Xusro’s war of vengeance.
No Roman denials, no allegorical flourishes, no “laborious investigation” — only a stark record. For Ṭabarī, this was history, and it left no room for Roman obfuscation.
3.4 — Al-Dīnawarī (c. 896 CE): The Son of Maurice at the Court of Xusro II
The ninth-century Persian historian al-Dīnawarī, in his Kitāb al-Akhbār al-Ṭiwāl (“The Book of Lengthy Histories”), preserves one of the earliest Islamic narratives of Maurice’s downfall and Xusro II’s revenge. His testimony, though colored by oral transmission and occasional confusion of genealogical terms, is clear in its essentials: a son of Maurice escaped the massacre, reached Xusro’s court, and became the centerpiece of Persia’s war against Phocas.
The Arabic Text (al-Dīnawarī, Akhbār al-Ṭiwāl)
"قالوا: ثم ان ابن قيصر ملك الروم قدم على كسرى ابرويز، فاخبره بان بطارقه الروم وعظماءها وثبوا على ابيه قيصر وأخيه ثيادوس بن قيصر، فقتلوهما جميعا، وملكوا عليهم رجلا من قومهم، يسمى كوكسان، وذكره بلاء ابيه ."وأخيه عنده، فغضب ابرويز له، ووجه معه ثلاثة قواد
English Translation (line by line)
“They said: Then the son of Caesar, king of the Romans, came to Xusro Parwēz, and informed him that the Roman patricians and great men had risen against his father Caesar and his brother Theodosius son of Caesar, and killed them both, and enthroned over them a man from their own people named Kūksān, he recounted to him the sufferings of his father and his brother, Xusro grew angry on his behalf and dispatched with him three generals.”
1. The Escape of Maurice’s Son
Al-Dīnawarī opens with a bombshell declaration: “Then the son of Caesar, king of the Romans, came to Xusro Parwēz.”
This aligns perfectly with the Persian, Syriac, and Armenian traditions: Maurice’s heir — Theodosius — did not perish in 602 but fled east and was received at the Persian court.
The fact that al-Dīnawarī, writing in Persian cultural memory less influenced by Roman propaganda, states this so simply shows that in the East it was common knowledge: Theodosius survived.
2. The Confusion of Names
Al-Dīnawarī reports that the Romans killed both “his father Caesar and his brother Theodosius son of Caesar.”
This reflects a genealogical muddle common in orally transmitted histories: Maurice is “Caesar” (i.e. emperor), while Theodosius is properly his son, not his brother.
Yet the very confusion proves the antiquity of the tale. The core kernel — that Maurice was murdered, that his son survived, that he fled to Xusro — remains unshaken, even if oral retelling blurred the family tree.
3. The Name “Kūksān” — Phocas the Wicked
In Constantinople itself, the usurper Phocas (602–610) was despised and vilified. Chroniclers and street rumor alike gave him the biting epithet:
-
Φωκᾶς ὁ κακός
-
Pronounced: Phōkâs ho Kakós
-
Translation: “Phocas the Wicked / the Evil.”
The word κακός (kakos) in Greek is blunt and powerful: it means bad, evil, vile, cowardly, base. To call a reigning emperor “ho kakos” was to strip him of all legitimacy and brand him as morally rotten.
This hatred is reflected in how Roman historians described him. Leo Grammaticus offers a memorable caricature:
Greek (Leo Grammaticus):
-
“Φωκᾶς ὁ τύραννος ἐβασίλευσεν ἔτη ὀκτώ… οὗτος ὁ Φωκᾶς ἦν κεντυρίων τῇ τάξει, τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀναδρομὴν μέσος, δύσμορφος, ἐκπληκτικὴν ἔχων τὴν ὄψιν καὶ τὴν τρίχα πυρρίζουσαν, σύνοφρύς τε καὶ τὸ γένειον κειρόμενος, ἔχων οὐλὴν ἐπὶ τῆς παρειᾶς αὐτοῦ, ἥτις ἐν τῷ θυμοῦσθαι αὐτὸν ἐμελαίνετο, οἰνοβαρής, αἱμοχαρὴς καὶ πρὸς γυναῖκας ἐπτοημένος, φοβερὸς καὶ θρασὺς ἐν τῷ φθέγγεσθαι, ἀσυμπαθὴς καὶ θηριώδης τὸν τρόπον.”
English Translation:
-
“Phocas the tyrant reigned for eight years… He had been a centurion by rank. In build he was of medium stature, deformed, with a terrifying look, his hair reddish, his brows heavy, his beard shaven. He bore a scar on his cheek, which darkened when he grew angry. He was addicted to wine, bloodthirsty, and inflamed with lust for women. His voice was harsh and brazen, his character unsympathetic and beastly.”
This savage description, combined with the epithet ho kakos, shows how thoroughlyRoman memory demonized Phocas, thus, the form كوكسان (Kūksān) preserved in al-Dīnawarī is not a random corruption of “Phocas.” It is a linguistic fossil — a Greek insult that traveled across languages and centuries. Here’s how;
1. Oral Transmission: Φωκᾶς ὁ κακός → Phokas-kakos
In Constantinople, Phocas was reviled as:
-
Φωκᾶς ὁ κακός (Phōkâs ho Kakós)
-
Meaning: “Phocas the Wicked.”
In the flow of oral rumor, the epithet ho kakos ceased being heard as a separate adjective. Non-Greeks, hearing Phokas ho Kakos, would naturally compress this into a single double-syllable name: Phokas-Kakos.
The repeated -kas / -kos endings reinforced this fusion. To an Armenian or Persian listener, it was easy to think this was not Phocas the Wicked but rather Phokas Kakos, as though “Kakos” were his second name.
2. Perception by Non-Greek Ears: a → u/o
Once detached from Greek grammar, kakos underwent vowel drift in foreign mouths.
-
In Syriac and Armenian, the /a/ vowel often rounds toward /o/ or /u/ in loanwords.
-
Thus: kakos → kukos / kuks.
We see similar shifts in other names:
-
Marcus (Latin) → Markos (Greek) → Marqūṣ (Arabic).
-
Constantinus → Qustantīn.
So the leap from kakos → kukos/kuks is perfectly natural.
3. Persian Adaptation: Adding -ān
Persian scribes disliked bare, foreign-sounding endings. To naturalize loanwords, they often added suffixes like -ān or -ānē.
Examples:
-
Justinianus → Yustān.
-
Stephanus → Istifān.
Applied here:
-
kakos → kukos → kuks → kuksān.
The Persian habit of smoothing foreign endings explains the exact form كوكسان that appears in Arabic.
4. The Middle Persian Script Proof
Middle Persian (Pahlavi) writing habits confirm this. In the Pahlavi script:
-
The /k/ sound was represented by 𐭪 (kaf).
-
The /u/ vowel was often written inconsistently, sometimes implied by context, sometimes with 𐭥 (waw).
-
The /s/ ending could be written with 𐭮 (samek).
Thus, kakos/kukos in Middle Persian could appear as:
-
𐭪𐭥𐭪𐭮 (k-w-k-s).
When read back or adapted, this easily yielded kuks.
Add the Persian suffix -ān (𐭠𐭭) and you get:
-
𐭪𐭥𐭪𐭮𐭠𐭭 → kuksān.
This is the exact form later transcribed into Arabic as كوكسان.
5. Arabic Preservation
By the 9th century, al-Dīnawarī records the usurper as:
-
كوكسان (Kūkhsān).
In Arabic orthography:
-
كو (kū) = ku-
-
كس (ks) = -ks
-
ان (ān) = Persian suffix.
This is a perfect phonetic match to the reconstructed kuksān.
6. Why This Matters
-
Not a scribal mistake: The form is systematic, rooted in the real phonological processes of Greek → Persian → Arabic.
-
Insult fossilized as a name: What began as ho kakos (“the Wicked”) was preserved as though it were Phocas’ surname.
-
Echo of Roman contempt: Even centuries later, Perso-Arabic historians were transmitting the hatred of Phocas embedded in Greek insult culture.
Conclusion: A Linguistic Fossil of Hatred
The name كوكسان (Kūksān) in al-Dīnawarī is direct evidence of how insults outlasted empires.
-
Greeks spat out Φωκᾶς ὁ κακός in rage.
-
Persians heard it, naturalized it as Kuksān.
-
Arabic preserved it in ink as كوكسان.
Thus, when al-Dīnawarī tells us Maurice’s son fled to Xusro and that “Kūksān” ruled in Rome, he is not confused. He is passing on a fossilized insult, a cross-cultural echo of Roman hatred for the ugliest emperor in their memory.
4. Xusro’s Anger and the Casus Belli
The narrative emphasizes Xusro’s rage. Maurice had once restored him to his throne in 591. Now the Romans had not only murdered their emperor but exterminated his dynasty.
The son of Maurice himself stood in Xusro’s court, narrating the crimes. This gave Xusro the perfect casus belli: his war could be justified as vengeance for his benefactor and protection of the rightful heir.
This matches Sebeos and Ṭabarī, both of whom stress Xusro’s dynastic loyalty and personal outrage.
5. Al-Dīnawarī as Independent Confirmation
Crucially, al-Dīnawarī predates al-Ṭabarī and worked with Persian traditions not yet systematized by Abbasid court historians. His testimony therefore represents an independent strand of memory.
What emerges is a striking consistency:
-
Maurice’s son survived.
-
He fled to Xusro II.
-
His survival justified the Persian war.
Even though oral muddling called Theodosius “the brother” instead of the son, the core fact remained unbroken.
Conclusion: The Wicked Phocas, the Avenged Maurice
Al-Dīnawarī adds a uniquely Persian perspective to the survival of Theodosius. His testimony preserves not only the fact of the son’s escape but also the Greek insult that clung to Phocas:
-
Φωκᾶς ὁ κακός → Kūksān.
This is memory fossilized in language: the Roman themselves cursed Phocas as “the Wicked,” and Persian/Arabic tradition remembered him exactly that way.
Al-Dīnawarī thus gives us a vivid snapshot of how the East remembered the great war: not as Persian aggression, but as vengeance for Maurice, led by his surviving son, against Phocas the Wicked.
Comparative Table: Roman Denial vs. Eastern Confirmation of Theodosius’ Survival
| Source | Date | Origin | Testimony on Theodosius | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theophylact Simocatta | c. 630s | Constantinople | Gives three contradictory accounts: (I) Maurice sends ring, Theodosius returns to be killed; (II) Alexander kills a double, rumor of survival spreads, Theodosius wanders East; (III) insists after “laborious investigation” that Theodosius was slain. | Roman court literature under Heraclius — desperate to erase survival rumors but inadvertently preserves them. His contradictions prove the rumor was too strong to silence. |
| Chronicon Paschale | c. 630s | Constantinople | States Theodosius killed separately from his father and brothers. No head displayed. | The missing head fuels doubt — silence where certainty was needed. |
| Theophanes the Confessor | c. 810 | Constantinople | Admits: “A rumour prevails that Theodosius escaped and was with Xusro, who claimed to restore him.” Dismisses as Persian deceit. | Even centuries later, Roman chroniclers cannot escape the survival rumor — they acknowledge it but call it a lie. |
| Sebeos (Armenian bishop) | c. 661 | Armenia (Dvin) | Reports rumor spread over the whole empire that Theodosius escaped to Xusro; records riots in Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch; describes Narses’ rebellion in Edessa; narrates Xusro’s reception of a crowned Theodosius; later recounts Theodosius himself appearing at Theodosiopolis (607) where elites surrendered to him. | Jackpot: an Armenian eyewitness tradition. Directly ties Theodosius’ survival to civil wars and Persian invasion. Confirms public recognition of Theodosius as king. |
| Chronicle of Khuzistan | c. 660 | Syriac (Khuzistan) | Explicitly: “One of his sons, Theodosius, escaped and came to Xusro, who crowned him according to the Roman rite, gave him an army, and sent him against the Romans.” | Independent Syriac tradition. Even gives details of a coronation at the altar. Unmistakable recognition of Theodosius as co-emperor in Persian hands. |
| Al-Dīnawarī | c. 896 | Persian (Arabic-writing) | “The son of Caesar came to Xusro… told him of his father’s murder… Xusro sent three generals to avenge him.” | Earlier than al-Ṭabarī. Confuses details (calls Theodosius brother instead of son) but confirms survival narrative and its role in Persia’s war. |
| Al-Ṭabarī | c. 915 | Arabic (Persian sources) | “Maurice was killed with his heirs — except a son who fled to Xusro. Xusro welcomed him, made him king over the Romans, and sent generals with him to reconquer.” | Explicit, unambiguous, detailed. Preserves Persian memory: Theodosius enthroned & backed by Persian armies. |
Synthesis: The East Remembers, Rome Erases — Theodosius Reconstructed
The evidence falls into two clear, contradictory camps.
Roman court tradition — Theophylact Simocatta, the Chronicon Paschale, Theophanes and later historians — declare Theodosius dead. Their narratives are internally inconsistent: one version dresses the death in moral drama (the ring and filial piety), another offers the “double”/substitution story and then, after panic spreads, emphatically asserts the boy was slain — even while admitting the key anomaly that Theodosius’ severed head was never displayed. Those awkward facts force Roman writers into rhetorical maneuvers: allegory, denunciation of “barbarian error,” and strained claims of having carried out “laborious investigation.” Their motivation is clear — political necessity. A usurping regime (Heraclius’ circle later canonizing the anti-Phocas narrative) must erase rival dynastic claimants to secure legitimacy. So the official literature insists on death even when it must contort itself to do so.
Eastern testimony — independent, consistent, and concrete — tells a very different story. From Sebeos (Armenian, c.661) to the Chronicle of Khuzistan (Syriac, c.660), through Persian and Arabic chronicle traditions preserved in al-Dīnawarī & al-Ṭabarī, we find that:
-
A son of Maurice survived the slaughter of 602 — specifically identified as Theodosius in multiple tellings.
-
He escaped east, was recognized and received with honor by Xusro II (accounts place him at Dara/Dastagird and describe coronation-like honors).
-
His survival sparked real political convulsions across the Roman East: riots in Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and armed rebellions such as Narses at Edessa. These are not idle rumors but the sort of disturbances chroniclers note when local elites, troops, and bishops take up arms.
-
Persia used Theodosius as a dynastic casus belli — a legitimacy frame for Xusro’s intervention and the ensuing long war (603–628). Eastern texts explicitly describe Persian generals campaigning “in his name,” cities opening their gates to him, and urban elites submitting to his presence.
Why this Eastern testimony matters so much:
-
Independence of witnesses. These are not echoes of a single Constantinopolitan press-release. They come from Armenian, Syriac, Persian and Arabic intellectual worlds — geographical and cultural spheres that include the very regions where the events (riots, sieges, local submissions) occurred. They had no incentive to invent a surviving Roman prince who was a Persian asset; if anything, the later Persian defeat would have given them motive to downplay Xusro’s claims. Yet the story holds steady.
-
Specific, actionable details. Sebeos records where people saw Theodosius and how crowds and cities reacted (Dara, Theodosiopolis, Edessa, a string of Armenian towns). The Chronicle of Khuzistan describes Persian liturgical/ceremonial reception and a Roman-style coronation at an altar. Al-Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Athīr preserve the same kernel in Arabic.
The Missing Head is not a quibble. Roman historians parade other severed heads to prove the dynasty dead; the deliberate or inexplicable absence of Theodosius’ head from that public display is powerful negative evidence. It explains why rumor spread, why the East exploded in unrest, and why Phocas executed Alexander (his agent) — an act consistent with punishing betrayal or silencing a man who had spared the prince.
Taken together, the most parsimonious, historically coherent conclusion is this:
Theodosius survived 602. He escaped the immediate slaughter, made his way (by sea and/or along coastal and inland routes) into the Caucasus–Mesopotamian sphere, and was taken into Xusro II’s protection. Xusro publicly received and honored him and used his presence to justify Persian military operations against Phocas, whose officialdom — politically committed to erasing any rival claimant — produced competing narratives that collapse under logistical and evidentiary scrutiny. Eastern sources preserve a consistent political memory that explains the contemporaneous unrest across the Roman East and the Persian decision for war.
If Theodosius survived and was weaponized as a dynastic claimant by Xusro II, then the early 7th-century Roman–Persian war must be read not merely as geopolitics or opportunistic conquest, but as a dynastic war: Persia’s vengeance for a king it had helped restore, and Persia’s attempt to re-install a friendly Roman house at the imperial centre. This reframes Xusro’s motivations, clarifies why entire regions embraced revolt, and explains key campaign choices (why Dara and Mesopotamia were immediate centers of action; why local elites in Armenia and Syria swung to the prince).
We now turn — with all the eastern testimony in hand — to reconstructing Theodosius in Persia: his reception at Dara, his role in Persian military strategy, the evidence for his appearances at Theodosiopolis and other cities, and the eventual fate of this “phantom Augustus” as Xusro’s fortunes collapsed. If the East tells the truth, Theodosius is not an epitaph — he is a missing axis in the story of the Last Great War of Antiquity, and his trajectory from heir of Rome to Persian instrument shaped the next quarter century of Mediterranean history.
IV. The Politics of Refuge & Revenge
When Theodosius, son of Maurice, crossed into Persian hands in March 603, the event carried with it a weight of memory and symbolism that far transcended mere politics. For Xusro II Parwēz, the fugitive prince was not just a tool against Phocas. He was family.
1. Gratitude and Filial Ties: Maurice as Xusro’s “Father”
Phil Booth has shown with great precision that Xusro’s original restoration in 591 CE rested on an explicitly filial contract with Maurice. When Xusro fled from Wahram Chobin’s rebellion, he supplicated the Romans and even styled himself as Maurice’s son. Ancient sources — Theophylact, Evagrius, and Sebeos suggest that the alliance involved a formal ritual of adoption (teknopoiēsis), whereby Maurice became Xusro’s adoptive father.
This language was not rhetorical flourish but a living diplomatic reality. For the entire decade of the 590s, Xusro called himself Maurice’s son, while Maurice treated him as family. They exchanged Christian relics and gifts, collaborated in Armenia, and enjoyed a decade of profound peace.
Thus, when Maurice was slaughtered in 602, it was not only a crime against an ally. To Xusro, it was the murder of his father.
2. Xusro’s Double Orphanhood
The psychological stakes are breathtaking.
-
In 590, Xusro’s biological father, Ohrmazd IV, was blinded and strangled by his uncles Window and Wistaxm. Xusro was 20 years old when he lost his father to treachery within his own dynasty.
-
In 602, his adoptive father, Maurice, was beheaded at Chalcedon by Phocas’ men. At this moment, Theodosius was 19 years old.
The symmetry is uncanny: both Xusro and Theodosius lost their fathers at the cusp of adulthood, both by violent coup.
This made Theodosius not merely a political refugee but Xusro’s younger brother in suffering. If Maurice was Xusro’s father, then Theodosius was his sibling. The massacre of Maurice’s sons at Chalcedon was thus experienced by Xusro as the massacre of his own brothers.
The war of vengeance he unleashed was not simply about Rome’s broken oaths. It was about avenging family blood.
3. Theodosius as Younger Brother and Augustus
Theodosius, born in 583, was thirteen years Xusro’s junior. When he arrived in Persia, he was no longer just the son of a murdered emperor — he was the adoptive brother of the King of Kings.
Xusro’s treatment of him — crowning him according to the Roman rite, lodging him with royal honors, and sending him forth with generals — is exactly what one would expect from an elder brother seeking to avenge their father.
Seen in this light, the Roman sources’ attempt to erase Theodosius’ survival is obvious: they sought to strip Xusro of his most powerful casus belli. For the Persians, however, he was nothing less than a dynastic prince of their own household.
4. Revenge in Every Dimension
The Persian invasion of 603–628 was, therefore, revenge in every possible sense:
-
Filial revenge: Xusro avenged the murder of his adoptive father Maurice.
-
Fraternal revenge: By defending Theodosius, he was avenging the slaughter of his younger brother’s siblings — whom he could only see as his own brothers.
-
Dynastic revenge: Maurice had once restored Xusro’s own throne. Now Xusro restored Maurice’s heir.
-
Sacred revenge: The Romans had broken sworn oaths and shed an emperor’s blood, an outrage in both Christian and Zoroastrian moral universes.
Thus, when Xusro declared, “That kingdom is mine, and I established Theodosius, son of Maurice, as king,” (Sebeos), he was not exaggerating. He was speaking as both a monarch and a brother, laying claim to Rome in the name of family, obligation, and vengeance.
For Xusro, this was more than politics. It was blood. He had lost two fathers in a decade. Now, with Theodosius at his side, he would make Rome pay for both.
V. Memory, Erasure, and the Shadow of the Phantom Augustus
1. Roman Silence: Censorship, Not Truth
From the very beginning, Roman sources treat the question of Theodosius’ fate with deliberate silence. Theophylact Simocatta ends his narrative in 602 without mentioning him. Theophanes, writing two centuries later, flatly declares that Theodosius was killed alongside Maurice’s other sons at Chalcedon. The Chronicon Paschale likewise buries the issue.
Yet the persistence of eastern witnesses — Sebeos, the Khuzistan Chronicle, al-Ṭabarī, al-Dīnawarī — demonstrates that this was not historical fact but imperial censorship. The Roman court simply could not admit the survival of a rival Augustus, raised up by Persia. To do so would have been to confess the legitimacy of Xusro’s war.
Thus, Roman silence is not evidence of death but a political act of erasure. Theodosius survived, but he survived in the wrong camp.
2. Leo Grammaticus and the Admission of Ignorance
A Roman voice finally broke the silence in the 10th century. Leo Grammaticus (writing in Constantinople) records:
“Maurice sent his son Theodosius to Xusro, king of the Persians, with letters recalling his past benefactions, and how through him he had gained control of the Persian kingdom. From that moment, no one knew what became of this same Theodosius.”
Here at last, a Roman historian admits the truth: Theodosius was not killed at Chalcedon. He was alive, sent eastward, and then lost to Roman knowledge. This matches perfectly with Sebeos, who last mentions Theodosius in 610, when Xusro told Heraclius he would not stop until Maurice’s son was enthroned in Constantinople.
What happened after? Leo Grammaticus is frank: “No one knew.” That ignorance is itself damning evidence of deliberate suppression. The Romans had no answer, because the boy had passed beyond their control — into the custody of Persia.
3. Theodosius as Persian War-Propaganda (602–610)
For the first decade of war, Theodosius was the banner of legitimacy.
-
Sebeos (Armenian chronicle, c. 660) records that Xusro announced to Heraclius: “That kingdom is mine, and I established Theodosius, son of Maurice, as king.”
-
The Khuzistan Chronicle describes Xusro rejoicing when Theodosius came to him, and that he armed him with Persian generals.
-
Al-Ṭabarī confirms: Xusro sheltered the son of Maurice and sent him with heavy forces against Phocas.
By 610, this strategy had succeeded: every city east of the Euphrates was in Persian hands, Antioch had fallen, and Persian forces had reached the Mediterranean. The Empire was cut in half. Theodosius’ name had done its work — a phantom Augustus haunting the frontier, shaking the loyalties of Syria, Mesopotamia, and even Palestine.
4. Erasure and Transformation: 615
Something changed after 615. When Heraclius seized the throne from Phocas, he attempted to negotiate with Shahin, Xusro’s general, at Chalcedon. Sebeos reports that Heraclius even asked whether Xusro intended to “install a king for the Romans” — a clear allusion to Theodosius. Heraclius signaled willingness to accept him.
Yet Xusro’s reaction was chilling: he rejected the overtures, imprisoned the envoys, and pressed further west. As Ilkka Syvänne reconstructs, by 615, Shahin had marched across Asia Minor, reached Ephesus, and besieged Chalcedon itself opposite Constantinople. There Heraclius, desperate, paid donatives to the Persian army and met Shahin in person.
At this stage, Theodosius vanishes from the record. Theodosius had been the instrument of legitimacy in the early war, but by the time Persia stood at the gates of Constantinople, Xusro had ceased to need him. Victories had gone to his head. Rather than playing the role of avenger of Maurice, Xusro now imagined himself the Emperor of Rome in his own right, minting coins in Alexandria with his image, rejecting peace even when Rome all but surrendered.
Thus, around 615, the Phantom Augustus was erased from propaganda.
5. What Became of Theodosius?
The silence of the sources after 610 forces us to confront the central mystery: what was the fate of Maurice’s son Theodosius? While Constantinople’s official histories declared him dead, Syriac, Armenian, and Persian memories tell us he survived — at least into the first decade of Xusro’s war. The question is what became of him afterward.
In the first turbulent years after Maurice’s execution in 602, Theodosius was indispensable to Xusro II. He was not merely a hostage but a living Augustus: the son of Maurice, crowned in 590, and remembered across the empire as Rome’s legitimate heir. Persian armies campaigned in his name, and riots in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt erupted precisely because people believed the lawful emperor was alive in Persian hands. For Xusro, this was dynastic gold — a way to cloak his invasion as a war of justice and vengeance, not mere aggression.
But the political landscape shifted with the rise of Heraclius in 610. Phocas was gone, yet Xusro did not relent. Instead, his armies swept west, seizing Antioch, Damascus, & Jerusalem. By 615, the Persians stood at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople itself. At that point, Xusro no longer needed to parade Theodosius as a rival emperor. His victories spoke for themselves. He began to style himself as the universal king, master of land and sea, even flirting with the role of emperor of Christian Rome in his own right.
It is here that Theodosius disappears from the record. His role was complete.
Shelving by Domestication
What did “shelving” mean in practice? Sebeos’ preserved letter of 622 gives us the answer. Xusro taunts Heraclius:
“Arise, take your wife and children and come here. I shall give you estates, vineyards, and olive-trees whereby you may make a living. And we shall look upon you with friendship.”
This is not merely mockery. It reflects a consistent Persian strategy: the humiliation of sovereignty by patronage. To strip an emperor of his throne, resettle him in Persian lands, and provide for him as a dependent lord was to emasculate him more thoroughly than execution ever could.
Thus, Theodosius may not have been killed. Instead, he may have been “retired” into a life of forced comfort — an estate outside Ctesiphon, vineyards on the Tigris plain, servants, and guards ensuring he never returned west. To Roman eyes he was dead; to Persian eyes he was domesticated.
Xusro II, who called Maurice his “father,” could only have viewed Theodosius as a younger brother. Both had lost their fathers at nearly the same age (Xusro at 20, Theodosius at 19). But whereas Xusro had clawed his way back to the throne through exile and war, Theodosius had fallen into his hands helpless, a fugitive Augustus with no army. For Xusro, keeping Theodosius alive in dignity but out of danger would have been the natural course:
-
Xusro bore the responsibility of empire — wars, armies, diplomacy.
-
Theodosius, as younger brother, could be sheltered from the blood and chaos, spared the fate of Maurice, Hormizd IV, and countless emperors strangled or beheaded.
The Odoacer–Romulus Augustulus Parallel
The parallel with Romulus Augustulus is not just convenient — it is structurally exact. In 476 CE, when Odoacer toppled the last Western emperor, he made a conscious choice: he did not execute the boy. Instead, he granted Romulus a pension of 6,000 solidi and settled him in Campania, on a villa estate. This achieved two aims simultaneously: it neutralized a dangerous imperial claimant without creating a martyr, and it allowed Odoacer to pose as a magnanimous, almost Roman ruler who “respected” the imperial bloodline while wielding the real power himself.
Xusro II may well have acted in the same way with Theodosius. By 615, once the Persians had conquered Antioch, Damascus, Jerusalem, and even reached Chalcedon across from Constantinople, Xusro no longer needed to brandish Maurice’s son as a political weapon. Instead, he could relegate him to comfortable captivity: a villa estate near Ctesiphon or Dastagird, with vineyards, olive groves, and attendants, guarded but alive. His purple robes were gone, but his survival served as a living trophy, proof that Xusro was the master not only of Roman cities but of Rome’s rightful heir. It was a symbolic act, declaring: “Rome’s Augustus is no longer Rome’s — he is mine.”
The Shapur I Precedent: Capturing Roman Emperors
When Shapur I defeated Valerian in 260 CE, he achieved something unprecedented: the capture of a living Roman emperor. In his Naqsh-i Rustam inscription, Shapur himself boasted:
“And on this side of Harran and Urha there was a great battle with Valerian Caesar, and Valerian Caesar was captured by my own hand, and the rest, the praetorian prefects and the senators and the officers who were the leaders of this army, were all captured and led into Persia.”
This was not mere military triumph; it was cosmic propaganda. Shapur was showing the world that Rome’s emperors could be humbled, chained, and made to serve Persia. The Romans wrote with shame of Valerian’s fate, whispering that he was skinned or forced to serve as Shapur’s human footstool. But in Persian memory, he and his court were resettled as royal captives, building bridges and cities to glorify Iran.
Al-Ṭabarī’s Account
Ṭabarī preserves the Middle Persian tradition: Valerian (whom he calls Rayyānus) was taken with many Romans and settled in Gundeshapur. There he was forced to work on massive construction projects — like the great Shādrowān dam at Shushtar — before being ransomed.
Arabic (Ṭabarī):
"وقيل: إن فيما افتتح قالوقية وقذوقية، وإنه حاصر ملكا كان بالروم، يقال له الريانوس بمدينة أنطاكية، فأسره وحمله وجماعة كثيرة معه، وأسكنهم جندي سابور. وذكر أنه أخذ الريانوس ببناء شاذروان تستر، على أن يجعل عرضه ألف ذراع، فبناه الرومي بقوم أشخصهم إليه من الروم، وحكم سابور في فكاكه بعد فراغه من الشاذروان."
English:
"It is said that among Shāpūr’s conquests were Cilicia and Cappadocia, and that he besieged a king who was among the Romans, called al-Rayyānus (Valerianus), in the city of Antioch. He captured him and a great multitude with him, and settled them in Gundēshāpūr. It is also said that he compelled al-Rayyānus to construct the Shādrowān of Shushtar, making its width a thousand cubits. The Roman built it with people whom he brought from the lands of the Romans, and when the construction was finished, Shāpūr released him."
Ṭabarī preserves the Middle Persian tradition fairly faithfully: Valerian (al-Rayyānus) is treated as a captured Roman king, deported east, and forced to contribute to monumental works. This account turns his humiliation into Persian triumphalism: Rome’s emperor is transformed into a laborer in Iran.
Al-Dīnawarī’s Account
Al-Dīnawarī repeats the story with a Persian twist:
Arabic (al-Dīnawarī):
"فكان سابور قد اسر اليريانوس ، خليفة صاحب الروم فامره ببناء قنطرة على نهر تستر على ان يخليه فوجه اليه ملك الروم الناس من ارض الروم والاموال فبناها فلما فرغ منها اطلقه."
English:
"Now Shāpūr had captured al-Yaryānus, the deputy (khalīfa) of the ruler of the Romans. He ordered him to build a bridge over the river at Tustar, on condition that he would release him afterwards. So the king of the Romans sent him men from the land of the Romans and funds, and he built it. When he had finished, Shāpūr set him free."
Al-Dīnawarī was writing in a 9th-century Islamic context, when the caliphal model of power dominated historical imagination. In the Umayyad and early Abbasid caliphates:
-
A single caliph was “Commander of the Faithful.”
-
But powerful relatives — often brothers or sons — governed distant provinces in his name.
-
Example: ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān made his brother ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz governor of Egypt and North Africa.
-
The caliph held supreme legitimacy, while his brother acted as a khalīfa (deputy, stand-in) in a different region.
-
When al-Dīnawarī read about Valerian and Gallienus — two Augusti ruling simultaneously, one in the East (Valerian), the other in the West (Gallienus) — he interpreted their arrangement through this Islamic lens:
-
Gallienus = the true emperor (ṣāḥib al-Rūm).
-
Valerian = the deputy/representative (khalīfa) ruling in another zone.
From his perspective, the Roman “dual emperorship” looked exactly like the caliph–deputy system he knew. Thus, Valerian’s capture by Shapur appeared not as the seizure of the emperor himself, but of the emperor’s deputy — a familiar and comprehensible model for an Islamicate audience.
Xusro II and the Shadow of Shapur I
Xusro II consciously saw himself as the heir of Shapur’s glory. Shapur had:
-
Killed an emperor (Gordian III in 244).
-
Forced tribute from another (Philip the Arab in 244–249).
-
Captured a third alive (Valerian in 260).
Xusro II, in his own reign, mirrored this sequence:
-
He claimed vengeance for Maurice, the emperor who had once been his benefactor (“father”), by destroying Maurice’s murderer Phocas.
-
He intended to annihilate Heraclius’ rule, even besieging Constantinople from Chalcedon in 615.
-
And — most crucially — he had Maurice’s son Theodosius under his protection, his own living Augustus in reserve.
This was more than politics. It was the resurrection of the Shapur model. Xusro would do what his greatest ancestor had done: humble the Roman Empire not only by conquering its provinces, but by possessing its emperor.
Seen through this lens, Theodosius’ role becomes clearer:
-
Like Valerian, he was a living Augustus held in Persian hands.
-
Like Valerian, he was useful for legitimizing Persian authority — Shapur used Valerian’s men to build his dams, Xusro used Theodosius’ crown to justify his conquests.
-
And like Valerian, his ultimate fate vanishes into Persian silence.
The difference is telling: Shapur enslaved Valerian openly, turning his humiliation into spectacle. Xusro sheltered Theodosius more discreetly, perhaps as a “younger brother” rather than a chained captive. But in both cases, Persia transformed a Roman emperor into a trophy of Sasanian supremacy.
The Villa Prince as Shapur’s Heirloom
If Theodosius really did live out his days in Persian comfort — estates, vineyards, guarded seclusion — then Xusro had re-enacted Shapur’s precedent with a twist. Where Shapur chained Valerian to Persian infrastructure, Xusro reduced Theodosius to irrelevance. Both methods served the same purpose:
-
To emasculate Rome’s authority.
-
To turn an emperor into a servant, pensioner, or prisoner of the Shahanshah.
-
To display Persia as not just Rome’s equal, but Rome’s master.
Thus, in the grand arc of Sasanian memory, Theodosius was Xusro’s Valerian: a captured Augustus who vanished from Roman history because he became part of Persia’s imperial household.
Thus, Xusro II, by avenging Maurice and humbling Heraclius, sought to outdo even Shapur I. He wanted to show the world that the Persians were once again the arbiters of Rome’s fate.
-
Shapur I had chained Valerian.
-
Xusro II had sheltered Theodosius.
Both emperors disappeared into Persia, swallowed by its power. Rome remembered them as ghosts, Persia remembered them as trophies.
And in that light, Theodosius’ exile — perhaps in a villa near the Tigris, perhaps in the shadow of Ctesiphon — was no accident of history. It was conscious imperial theatre, a reenactment of Sasanian glory designed to echo Shapur I’s triumphs.
Theodosius was never meant to return. Like Valerian before him, he was meant to vanish into Persia, leaving Rome with a haunting silence and Xusro with a permanent reminder that the Shahanshah could make or unmake emperors at will.
This makes Theodosius’ fate the most tragic of all. He was not publicly executed like his father and brothers; nor was he elevated again to the purple after 610. Instead, he slipped into a twilight existence — alive, but irrelevant. Like Romulus Augustulus in Campania, Theodosius may have lived out his days in comfort, walking Persian vineyards rather than Roman palaces, a kept prince rather than a sovereign Augustus.
Yet in Rome, his memory lingered as a destabilizing ghost. Rumors whispered that he still lived, waiting to return. Like the false Neros of the Roman West, whose pretenders terrified emperors for decades, Theodosius became a phantom Augustus — never seen, but always feared. His absence was as politically powerful as his presence had once been.
Theodosius’ life represents the collision of memory, erasure, and imperial politics.
-
He was a living Augustus, crowned by Maurice in 590.
-
He was a brother in suffering to Xusro, both orphaned by political murder.
-
He was a banner of legitimacy, wielded by Persia to split the empire in two during the decade of Phocas.
-
And, finally, he became a phantom Augustus, erased from Roman chronicles after 610, when Xusro’s ambitions shifted from installing Maurice’s heir to becoming Rome’s emperor himself.
The Romans never saw his body. The Persians never proclaimed his death. Instead, Theodosius lingered in the shadows — perhaps in a Persian villa, perhaps in guarded obscurity — a man both protected and imprisoned, both honored and erased.
As Leo Grammaticus wrote with stark simplicity:
“From that moment, no one knew what became of Theodosius.”
That is the ultimate truth. Theodosius was deliberately forgotten — too dangerous to remember, too inconvenient to parade. He survives only in fragments of Armenian, Syriac, Persian & Arabic memory, a ghostly figure who reminds us that sometimes the greatest weapon in politics is not execution, but erasure through silence.
Conclusion: Theodosius and the Battle for History
In the end, the most plausible fate of Theodosius, son of Maurice, is not death in 602, as Constantinople’s official record would have it, but survival — survival under the protection, and indeed the custody, of Xusro II. For nearly a decade and a half, he was indispensable to Persian war propaganda: a crowned Augustus-in-exile, a living rebuke to the usurper Phocas, and a dagger aimed at the heart of every Roman emperor who dared to claim the throne after his father’s murder.
Yet when Xusro’s ambitions expanded beyond vengeance to universal dominion, Theodosius’ role was quietly set aside. Whether kept as a bargaining chip, installed as a “villa prince” in Persian estates, or reduced to a guarded dependent like Valerian centuries before him, Theodosius slipped into silence. His very existence — once the sharpest weapon of Persian legitimacy — became too dangerous to mention, too destabilizing to display.
For Constantinople, silence was not ignorance but censorship. The Heraclian dynasty could not allow the memory of a living son of Maurice, for his shadow would delegitimize their rule. And so he was erased. Where Armenian, Syriac, and Persian voices remembered him, Roman historians wrote him out of existence, substituting a phantom execution for the inconvenient reality of survival.
Thus Theodosius endures as the Phantom Augustus — a prince who was at once present and absent, alive yet politically dead, a memory carefully suppressed in one empire but stubbornly preserved in another. He embodies the fragility of imperial legitimacy in the seventh century: how dynasties could be made and unmade not only by the sword, but by the pen; how survival itself could become a liability if it contradicted the story the victors wished to tell.
In the battle for history, Theodosius lost his throne, his voice, and perhaps even his name. But he never lost his place in the margins of memory. And there, as a shadow haunting both Rome and Persia, he reminds us that history is not just what happened — it is what was allowed to be remembered.
Theodosius, the Phantom Augustus: erased in Constantinople, remembered in the East, and forever a symbol of survival, silence, and the perilous foundations of imperial power.
THE END
📚 Works Cited
Primary Sources
Al-Dinawari, Ahmad ibn Dawud al-. Al-Akhbar al-Tiwal. Edited by Abd al-Mun’im ‘Amir, reviewed by Dr. Jamal al-Din al-Shiyal, Ministry of Culture and National Guidance, Egypt, 1960.
Al-Kaʿbi, Nasir. A Short Chronicle on the End of the Sasanian Empire and Early Islam, 590–660 A.D. Edition, translation, and commentary by Nasir al-Kaʿbi, Gorgias Press LLC, 2016.
al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tarikh al-Tabari = Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk. Edited by Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, Dar al-Ma‘arif, Egypt, 1967.
al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume V: The Sāsānids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen. Translated by C. E. Bosworth, State University of New York Press, 1999.
Harrak, Amir, translator. The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999.
Hoyland, Robert G., translator. The ‘History of the Kings of the Persians’ in Three Arabic Chronicles: The Transmission of the Iranian Past from Late Antiquity to Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2018. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 69.
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.
Ferdowsī, Abū al-Qāsim. Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings. Translated by Dick Davis, Viking Penguin, 2006.
Leonis Grammatici. Chronographia. Ex Recognitione Immanuelis Bekkeri. Accedit Eustathii de Capta Thessalonica Liber. Bonn, Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1842.
Mangō, Cyril, and Roger Scott, with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–813. Clarendon Press, 1997.
Moosa, Matti, translator. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. Beth Antioch Press, 2014.
Palmer, Andrew. The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool University Press, 1993.
Theophylact Simocatta. The History of Theophylact Simocatta: An English Translation with Introduction and Notes. Translated by Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby, Clarendon Press, 1986.
Thomson, R. W., translator. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated with notes by R. W. Thomson, historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, assistance from Tim Greenwood, Liverpool University Press, 1999.
Whitby, Michael, and Mary Whitby, translators. Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD. Liverpool University Press, 1989; second impression 2007.
Secondary Sources
Baum, Wilhelm. Shirin: Christian–Queen–Myth of Love: A Woman of Late Antiquity between Persia and Byzantium. Gorgias Press, 2004.
Baca-Winters, Keenan. He Did Not Fear: Xusro Parviz, King of Kings of the Sasanian Empire. Gorgias Press, 2018.
Booth, Phil. “The Ghost of Maurice at the Court of Heraclius.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 112, no. 3, 2019, pp. 781–826.
Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Daryaee, Touraj. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris, 2023.
Greatrex, Geoffrey, and Samuel N.C. Lieu, editors. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, Part II AD 363–630: A Narrative Sourcebook. Routledge, 2002.
Harper, Kyle. The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. Princeton University Press, 2017.
Howard-Johnston, James. The Last Great War of Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2021.
Kardaras, Georgios. Byzantium and the Avars, 6th–9th Century AD: Political, Diplomatic and Cultural Relations. Brill, 2018. Originally published in Greek by the National Hellenic Research Foundation – Institute for Byzantine Research, Athens, 2010.
Maas, Michael. The Conqueror’s Gift: Roman Ethnography and the End of Antiquity. Princeton University Press, 2025.
Nabel, Jake. The Arsacids of Rome: Misunderstanding in Roman-Parthian Relations. University of California Press, 2025.
O’Donnell, J. J. The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History. Harper Perennial, 2009.
Payne, Richard E. A State of Mixture: Christians, Zoroastrians, and Iranian Political Culture in Late Antiquity. University of California Press, 2015.
Petersen, Leif Inge Ree. Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400–800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam. Brill, 2013.
Pohl, Walter. The Avars: A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567–822. Cornell University Press, 2018.
Syvänne, Ilkka. Late Roman Combat Tactics. Pen & Sword Military, 2024.
Syvänne, Ilkka. The Military History of Late Rome AD 565–602. Pen & Sword Military, 2022.
Syvänne, Ilkka. The Military History of Late Rome AD 602–641. Pen & Sword Military, 2022.
Whitby, Michael. The Emperor Maurice and His Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare. Clarendon Press, 1988.
Comments
Post a Comment