Fredegar’s Chronicle: The Frankish Whisper of the Saracens
In the aftermath of Rome’s exhaustion and Persia’s collapse, the far reaches of the Latin West stirred faintly with news of the same upheaval. Across the mountains of Gaul — remote from Damascus and Medina, yet tied by old Roman memory — rumors began to circulate of a new power in the East. These echoes reached the ears of an anonymous Burgundian chronicler whose pen, clumsy in Latin but sharp in curiosity, would record one of the earliest Western notices of the Prophet Muhammad and his followers.
This chronicler, known to posterity as Fredegar, was no historian in the classical sense. His Chronicle, compiled in the mid-seventh century in Frankish Gaul, is a dense mosaic of borrowed texts, annals, and hearsay — yet it stands as a critical witness to the mental world of post-Roman Europe. In its pages, the fall of empires mingles with local feuds, apocalyptic expectation, and the slow reshaping of identity under the Merovingians. Amid these turbulent entries, scattered between accounts of kings, bishops, and battles, appear the first murmurs of Islam — fragmentary, distorted, yet unmistakable.
Fredegar’s work occupies a crucial position in the chain of Western historiography. Together with Gregory of Tours’ Histories and the Liber Historiae Francorum, it forms an almost continuous narrative of Gaul from the fading of Roman authority to the dawn of the Carolingians. Unlike Gregory, whose prose retained echoes of Rome’s order and ambition, Fredegar wrote from within a crumbling Latin world — his language coarse, his theology apocalyptic, his sense of history fragmented. Yet, in that very fragmentation lies its importance: his chronicle captures how the early medieval West first perceived the Islamic revolution not as theology, but as rumor — a tremor in the fabric of Christendom.
Yet the very inclusion of the Arabs in his chronicle is momentous. It marks the moment Islam entered the historical consciousness of Latin Europe — not through diplomacy or scholarship, but through whispers and wonder. In Fredegar’s pen, we see the first flicker of Europe’s long struggle to interpret Islam: a mixture of fascination, misunderstanding, and apocalyptic dread.
In this post, we will explore:
-
How the Chronicle of Fredegar frames the Arabs within the context of late Merovingian thought.
-
The ways in which rumor and religious typology shaped his distorted yet revealing description.
-
What Fredegar’s brief account tells us about the early transmission of news from the East — and how the “Saracens” became a fixed category in the Latin imagination.
Fredegar’s Chronicle is not simply a historical source; it is a psychological window into how the isolated, uncertain West heard the world changing — faintly, like a whisper carried by the wind from the East.
🐎 The Prophecy of the Circumcised: A Legend Crosses Empires
Fredegar's Chronicle preserves the earliest external witness to a prophetic legend about Emperor Heraclius that would echo across the Christian and Islamic worlds, framing the rise of Islam as a divinely-foretold event.
📜 Latin Text
“Aeraglius emperatur erat speciosus conspecto, pulchra faciae, status formam digne mensurae, fortissimus citharis, pugnatur egregius; nam et saepe leones in arenis et in aedrimis plures singulares interfecit. Cum esset litteris nimius eruditus, astrologus effectus est; per quod cernens a circumcisis gentibus divino noto imperium esse vastandum, legationem ad Dagobertum regem Francorum dirigens, petens ut omnes Judaeos regni sui ad fidem catholicam baptizandos praeciperet. Quod protinus Dagobertus implevit. Aeraglius per omnes provincias imperii tale idemque facere decrevit. Ignorabat unde haec calamitas contra imperium surgeret.”
🇬🇧 English Translation
“The Emperor Heraclius was a man of handsome appearance, of fair face and well-proportioned stature, most valiant in combat and most excellent in war; for he had often slain lions in the arena and many champions in single combat. Being very learned in letters, he became an astrologer; and through this art he perceived, by divine sign, that his empire would be laid waste by circumcised peoples. Therefore he sent a delegation to King Dagobert of the Franks, asking him to command that all Jews in his kingdom be baptized into the Catholic faith — which Dagobert at once carried out. Heraclius then decreed that the same should be done throughout all the provinces of the empire. He did not know from where this calamity would rise against his realm.”
🔍 Line-by-Line Analysis & Context
Fredegar's Narrative Historical & Literary Context Significance "Being very learned... became an astrologer." Heraclius was indeed highly educated. The portrayal as an astrologer reflects a common trope for wise rulers but also links him to Late Antique apocalyptic traditions where emperors decipher celestial omens. Establishes Heraclius as a figure of wisdom and authority, making his prophecy credible to the audience. "He perceived... his empire would be laid waste by circumcised peoples." This is the core of the legend. "Circumcised peoples" was a biblical and cultural category that primarily included Jews and, by the 7th century, Arabs. This vague term creates a sense of an unknown, looming threat. Frames the upcoming conflict not as a political struggle, but as a divinely-ordained, apocalyptic event. "He sent a delegation to King Dagobert... to have all Jews baptized." Historically, Heraclius did institute a policy of forced baptism for Jews in 632 CE. Fredegar connects this imperial policy directly to the prophecy, showing a logical (if misguided) reaction. Demonstrates how the legend was woven around real historical events, providing a theological explanation for a harsh policy. "He did not know from where this calamity would rise." This highlights the central irony and tragedy of the story. The emperor knows the "what" but not the "who," leading him to persecute the wrong "circumcised" people. Creates a powerful narrative of dramatic irony for Fredegar's readers, who know the Arabs are the true threat.
| Fredegar's Narrative | Historical & Literary Context | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| "Being very learned... became an astrologer." | Heraclius was indeed highly educated. The portrayal as an astrologer reflects a common trope for wise rulers but also links him to Late Antique apocalyptic traditions where emperors decipher celestial omens. | Establishes Heraclius as a figure of wisdom and authority, making his prophecy credible to the audience. |
| "He perceived... his empire would be laid waste by circumcised peoples." | This is the core of the legend. "Circumcised peoples" was a biblical and cultural category that primarily included Jews and, by the 7th century, Arabs. This vague term creates a sense of an unknown, looming threat. | Frames the upcoming conflict not as a political struggle, but as a divinely-ordained, apocalyptic event. |
| "He sent a delegation to King Dagobert... to have all Jews baptized." | Historically, Heraclius did institute a policy of forced baptism for Jews in 632 CE. Fredegar connects this imperial policy directly to the prophecy, showing a logical (if misguided) reaction. | Demonstrates how the legend was woven around real historical events, providing a theological explanation for a harsh policy. |
| "He did not know from where this calamity would rise." | This highlights the central irony and tragedy of the story. The emperor knows the "what" but not the "who," leading him to persecute the wrong "circumcised" people. | Creates a powerful narrative of dramatic irony for Fredegar's readers, who know the Arabs are the true threat. |
🤝 A Shared Legend: The Unmistakable Parallels
As scholar Sean Anthony has conclusively demonstrated, Fredegar's account and the Islamic version recorded by al-Zuhrī (d. 742 CE) derive from a common source, proving the legend predates both and originated outside the Islamic tradition.
| Element | 🏛️ Fredegar's Chronicle (c. 660 CE) | 🕌 Al-Zuhrī's Islamic Narrative (8th Cent.) |
|---|---|---|
| Heraclius's Method | Practices astrology ("astrologus effectus est"). | Is a seer who peers into the stars. |
| The Prophecy | His empire will be laid waste by "circumcised races" ("circumcisis gentibus"). | The "king/kingdom of the circumcision" ("ملك الختان") has appeared. |
| Initial Misdiagnosis | Orders the forced baptism of all Jews in the empire. | His advisors suggest killing all the Jews. |
| The Realization | "He did not know from where this calamity would rise." | Discovers the Arabs are the prophesied "circumcised" people after questioning a messenger. |
Fredegar’s account is a foundational piece of evidence for how the rise of Islam was first perceived in the West.
Independent Corroboration: Written just decades after Heraclius's death, it proves the "circumcised" prophecy was not a later Islamic invention but a preexisting Christian apocalyptic explanation for the traumatic conquests.
Theological Framing: The story provides a clear, moral reason for the collapse of the Roman East: it was a divine punishment. The emperor's inability to identify the true threat underscores the idea that events were unfolding according to a mysterious, higher plan.
A Cross-Cultural Artifact: The journey of this legend—from a Levantine Christian source to a Frankish chronicle in Burgundy and into the foundational texts of Islam—illustrates the deeply interconnected world of the 7th century, where stories of empire, prophecy, and fate flowed freely across cultural and religious boundaries.
Independent Corroboration: Written just decades after Heraclius's death, it proves the "circumcised" prophecy was not a later Islamic invention but a preexisting Christian apocalyptic explanation for the traumatic conquests.
Theological Framing: The story provides a clear, moral reason for the collapse of the Roman East: it was a divine punishment. The emperor's inability to identify the true threat underscores the idea that events were unfolding according to a mysterious, higher plan.
A Cross-Cultural Artifact: The journey of this legend—from a Levantine Christian source to a Frankish chronicle in Burgundy and into the foundational texts of Islam—illustrates the deeply interconnected world of the 7th century, where stories of empire, prophecy, and fate flowed freely across cultural and religious boundaries.
➡️ In Fredegar, we see the very moment the "Saracens" entered the European historical imagination: not yet as a defined religious rival, but as a prophesied, divine scourge emerging from the desert to punish a flawed empire.
⚔️ Fredegar's Legendary History: The Saracen Invasions and Heraclius's Demise
This section of Fredegar's chronicle moves from the prophecy of the "circumcised races" to a dramatic, albeit largely legendary, account of the early Islamic conquests and the death of Heraclius. It represents a fascinating early Western European attempt to make sense of the world-altering events in the East.
This section of Fredegar's chronicle moves from the prophecy of the "circumcised races" to a dramatic, albeit largely legendary, account of the early Islamic conquests and the death of Heraclius. It represents a fascinating early Western European attempt to make sense of the world-altering events in the East.
📜 The Latin Text & English Translation
Latin Text English Translation "Agarrini, qui et Saracini sicut Orosiae liber testatur, gens circumcisa ad latere montes Caucasi super mare Caspium terram Ercoliae coinomento iam olem consedentes, in nimia multetudine creuissent, tandem arma sumentis prouincias Aeragliae emperatores uastandum inruunt..." "The Hagarenes, who are also called Saracens as the book of Orosius attests, a circumcised people who long ago settled in the land of Ercolia beside the Caucasus mountains above the Caspian Sea, having grown into an immense multitude, at last took up arms and burst in to lay waste to the provinces of the Emperor Heraclius..." "...contra quos Aeraglius milites ad resistendum direxit. Cumque priliare cepissint Saracini milites superant eosque gladio graueter trucedant. Fertur in eo prilio cento quinquagenta milia militum a Saracinis fuisse interfecta ; espolia eorum Saracini per legatus Aeraglio recipiendum offerunt. Aeraglius cupiens super Saracinus uindictam nihil ab his spolies recepere uoluit." "...against whom Heraclius sent soldiers to resist. And when they began to fight, the Saracens overcame the soldiers and severely cut them down with the sword. It is said that in that battle one hundred and fifty thousand soldiers were killed by the Saracens. The Saracens offered their spoils to Heraclius to be received through envoys. Heraclius, desiring vengeance over the Saracens, wished to receive nothing from these spoils." "Congregatis undique de uniuersas prouincias emperiae nimia multetudinem militum, transmittens Aeraglius legationem ad portas Caspias/ quas Alexander Magnos Macedus super mare Cespium aereas here et serrare iusserat propter inundatione gentium seuissemorum que ultra montem Caucasiculmenis habetabant, easdem portas Aeraglius aperire precepit." "Having gathered an immense multitude of soldiers from all the provinces of the empire everywhere, Heraclius, sending a delegation to the Caspian Gates which Alexander the Great of Macedon had ordered to be made of bronze and locked over the Caspian Sea on account of the flooding of the most savage races who dwelt beyond the peaks of the Caucasus, ordered these same gates to be opened." "Indique cento quinquagenta milia pugnatorum auroque locatus auxiliae suae contra Saracinus priliandum aemittetur.“ Saracini duos habentes princepis, ducenta fere * milia erant." "And from there, one hundred and fifty thousand fighters, hired with gold for his aid, were sent to fight against the Saracens. The Saracens, having two leaders, were nearly two hundred thousand." "Cumque castra nec procul interc se exercitus uterque posuissit, ita ut in crastena bellum inirent confligentes, eadem nocte gladio Dei Aeragliae exercitus percotitur : in castris quinquagenta et duo milia ex militibus Aeragliae in stratum mortui sunt." "And when each army had placed its camp not far from the other, so that on the morrow they would join battle, that same night the army of Heraclius was struck by the sword of God: fifty-two thousand of Heraclius's soldiers were found dead in their camp beds." "Cumque in crasteno ad prilium debebant adgredere, cernentes eorum exercitum milites partem maxema deuino iudicio interfectam, aduersus Saracinus nec ausi sunt inire prilium. Regressus omnes exercitus Aeragliae ad propries sedebus, Saracini more quo ceperant prouincias Aeragliae emperatores adsiduae uastandum pergebant." "And when on the morrow they ought to have approached the battle, the soldiers, seeing the largest part of their army killed by divine judgment, did not dare to enter battle against the Saracens. The entire army of Heraclius returned to their own homes, and the Saracens proceeded to lay waste to the provinces of the Emperor Heraclius continually, in the manner they had begun." "Cum iam Hierusolemam propinquassint, Eraglius uedens quod eorum uiolenciae non potuissit resistere, nimia amaretudines merorem adreptus infelex Euticiana aerese iam sectans, Christi cultum relinquens, habens uxorem filiam sorores suae, a febre uexatus crudeleter uitam finiuit." "When they had already drawn near to Jerusalem, Heraclius, seeing that he could not resist their violence, was seized by the grief of too much bitterness and, wretched man, now following the Eutychian heresy, abandoning the worship of Christ, and having as a wife the daughter of his sister, tormented by a fever, he cruelly ended his life." "Cui successit emperiae gradum Constantinus filius eius, cuius tempore pars publeca a Saracines nimium uastatur." "His son Constantine succeeded him to the rank of Emperor, in whose time the public part [of the empire] was excessively laid waste by the Saracens."
| Latin Text | English Translation |
|---|---|
| "Agarrini, qui et Saracini sicut Orosiae liber testatur, gens circumcisa ad latere montes Caucasi super mare Caspium terram Ercoliae coinomento iam olem consedentes, in nimia multetudine creuissent, tandem arma sumentis prouincias Aeragliae emperatores uastandum inruunt..." | "The Hagarenes, who are also called Saracens as the book of Orosius attests, a circumcised people who long ago settled in the land of Ercolia beside the Caucasus mountains above the Caspian Sea, having grown into an immense multitude, at last took up arms and burst in to lay waste to the provinces of the Emperor Heraclius..." |
| "...contra quos Aeraglius milites ad resistendum direxit. Cumque priliare cepissint Saracini milites superant eosque gladio graueter trucedant. Fertur in eo prilio cento quinquagenta milia militum a Saracinis fuisse interfecta ; espolia eorum Saracini per legatus Aeraglio recipiendum offerunt. Aeraglius cupiens super Saracinus uindictam nihil ab his spolies recepere uoluit." | "...against whom Heraclius sent soldiers to resist. And when they began to fight, the Saracens overcame the soldiers and severely cut them down with the sword. It is said that in that battle one hundred and fifty thousand soldiers were killed by the Saracens. The Saracens offered their spoils to Heraclius to be received through envoys. Heraclius, desiring vengeance over the Saracens, wished to receive nothing from these spoils." |
| "Congregatis undique de uniuersas prouincias emperiae nimia multetudinem militum, transmittens Aeraglius legationem ad portas Caspias/ quas Alexander Magnos Macedus super mare Cespium aereas here et serrare iusserat propter inundatione gentium seuissemorum que ultra montem Caucasiculmenis habetabant, easdem portas Aeraglius aperire precepit." | "Having gathered an immense multitude of soldiers from all the provinces of the empire everywhere, Heraclius, sending a delegation to the Caspian Gates which Alexander the Great of Macedon had ordered to be made of bronze and locked over the Caspian Sea on account of the flooding of the most savage races who dwelt beyond the peaks of the Caucasus, ordered these same gates to be opened." |
| "Indique cento quinquagenta milia pugnatorum auroque locatus auxiliae suae contra Saracinus priliandum aemittetur.“ Saracini duos habentes princepis, ducenta fere * milia erant." | "And from there, one hundred and fifty thousand fighters, hired with gold for his aid, were sent to fight against the Saracens. The Saracens, having two leaders, were nearly two hundred thousand." |
| "Cumque castra nec procul interc se exercitus uterque posuissit, ita ut in crastena bellum inirent confligentes, eadem nocte gladio Dei Aeragliae exercitus percotitur : in castris quinquagenta et duo milia ex militibus Aeragliae in stratum mortui sunt." | "And when each army had placed its camp not far from the other, so that on the morrow they would join battle, that same night the army of Heraclius was struck by the sword of God: fifty-two thousand of Heraclius's soldiers were found dead in their camp beds." |
| "Cumque in crasteno ad prilium debebant adgredere, cernentes eorum exercitum milites partem maxema deuino iudicio interfectam, aduersus Saracinus nec ausi sunt inire prilium. Regressus omnes exercitus Aeragliae ad propries sedebus, Saracini more quo ceperant prouincias Aeragliae emperatores adsiduae uastandum pergebant." | "And when on the morrow they ought to have approached the battle, the soldiers, seeing the largest part of their army killed by divine judgment, did not dare to enter battle against the Saracens. The entire army of Heraclius returned to their own homes, and the Saracens proceeded to lay waste to the provinces of the Emperor Heraclius continually, in the manner they had begun." |
| "Cum iam Hierusolemam propinquassint, Eraglius uedens quod eorum uiolenciae non potuissit resistere, nimia amaretudines merorem adreptus infelex Euticiana aerese iam sectans, Christi cultum relinquens, habens uxorem filiam sorores suae, a febre uexatus crudeleter uitam finiuit." | "When they had already drawn near to Jerusalem, Heraclius, seeing that he could not resist their violence, was seized by the grief of too much bitterness and, wretched man, now following the Eutychian heresy, abandoning the worship of Christ, and having as a wife the daughter of his sister, tormented by a fever, he cruelly ended his life." |
| "Cui successit emperiae gradum Constantinus filius eius, cuius tempore pars publeca a Saracines nimium uastatur." | "His son Constantine succeeded him to the rank of Emperor, in whose time the public part [of the empire] was excessively laid waste by the Saracens." |
🔍 Line-by-Line Commentary & Analysis
The Origin of the Saracens: A Tangle of Biblical Etymologies and Apocalyptic Geography
Fredegar's opening line is a dense compilation of Late Antique ethnographic and theological commonplaces, blending biblical genealogy, classical geography, and apocalyptic legend to explain the sudden emergence of the Arab conquerors.
Fredegar's Text:
"Agarrini, qui et Saracini sicut Orosiae liber testatur, gens circumcisa ad latere montes Caucasi super mare Caspium terram Ercoliae coinomento iam olem consedentes, in nimia multetudine creuissent, tandem arma sumentis prouincias Aeragliae emperatores uastandum inruunt..."
Literal Translation:
"The Hagarenes, who are also called Saracens as the book of Orosius attests, a circumcised people who long ago settled in the land of Ercolia beside the Caucasus mountains above the Caspian Sea, having grown into an immense multitude, at last took up arms and burst in to lay waste to the provinces of the Emperor Heraclius..."
🔍 Line-by-Line Breakdown & Analysis
1. "Agarrini, qui et Saracini..."
"Hagarenes, who are also called Saracens..."
Analysis: Fredegar begins by establishing the biblical lineage of the invaders, using names familiar to a Christian audience.
Hagarenes (Agarrini): This term derives from Hagar, the Egyptian handmaid of Sarah and mother of Ishmael. As Emmanouela Grypeou notes, this identified the Arabs as the descendants of Abraham's illegitimate son through a slave woman, a lineage that carried a permanent stigma of social and spiritual inferiority in the patristic worldview. They were the "outcasts, outside the promises."
Saracens (Saracini): Fredegar correctly notes this is another common name. The etymology was often (and falsely) derived from Sarah, Abraham's free wife. As Grypeou explains, this was sometimes interpreted as a deliberate attempt by the Arabs to claim a more noble descent from the free woman, Sarah, thereby "conceal[ing] their illegitimate descent from the slave Hagar" (Sozomenus).
2. "...sicut Orosiae liber testatur..."
"...as the book of Orosius attests..."
Analysis: This is a crucial citation of authority. Fredegar references Paulus Orosius, a 5th-century Christian historian and student of Augustine, whose Historiarum Adversum Paganos was a foundational text of medieval Christian world history. However, this is a misdirection. While Orosius does describe the geography of the Caucasus and Caspian regions in great detail (see below), he does not identify the Saracens as originating there. Fredegar is either misremembering, using a corrupted text, or invoking Orosius's authority to lend credibility to his own, more legendary, account.
3. "...gens circumcisa..."
"...a circumcised people..."
Analysis: This single descriptor is the thematic core of the entire preceding prophecy. It connects the invaders directly to the "circumcised races" foretold by Heraclius. For a Christian audience, circumcision was the primary physical marker distinguishing Jews (and now, these new invaders) from Christians. It framed the conflict not just as political, but as a struggle against a non-Christian "other" who practiced a rival, Abrahamic rite.
4. "...ad latere montes Caucasi super mare Caspium terram Ercoliae coinomento iam olem consedentes..."
"...beside the Caucasus mountains above the Caspian Sea, in the land of Ercolia by name, long ago settled..."
Analysis: This is Fredegar's most significant geographical error, a fusion of classical knowledge and apocalyptic lore.
The Caucasus & Caspian Sea: This location comes from classical geography. Orosius, in the passage Fredegar references, provides a meticulous description of the Caucasus range and the Caspian Sea, listing the many tribes that inhabit the region. Fredegar is pulling a real location from his source but misapplying it.
Ercolia: This is a clear corruption of Hyrcania, the ancient name for a region on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea (in modern-day Iran). This was a known geographical entity.
The Apocalyptic Link: The reason for this specific (and incorrect) placement lies in the Alexander Romance. A central legend held that Alexander the Great built a great wall of bronze in the Caucasus mountains to imprison the unclean and monstrous nations of Gog and Magog, who would be unleashed at the end of days. By placing the "Hagarenes" in this very region, Fredegar is subtly casting the Islamic conquests as an apocalyptic event—the breaching of that divine barrier and the unleashing of the eschatological hordes upon the civilized world.
5. "...in nimia multetudine creuissent, tandem arma sumentis prouincias Aeragliae emperatores uastandum inruunt..."
"...having grown into an immense multitude, at last took up arms and burst in to lay waste to the provinces of the Emperor Heraclius..."
Analysis: This final clause moves from origins to action. The theme of an "immense multitude" echoes the biblical language used to describe the Ishmaelites (Genesis 16:10) and reinforces the sense of an overwhelming, almost natural force. The verbs "arma sumentis" (taking up arms) and "inruunt" (burst in) convey a sudden, violent, and unprovoked assault, painting the Saracens as a savage horde exploding out of their confined homeland to destroy the Roman world.
🧩 Synthesis: Fredegar's Theological Framing
In just one sentence, Fredegar constructs a powerful narrative framework for the rise of Islam:
They are Biblically Illegitimate: As "Hagarenes," they are the descendants of a slave woman, outside God's covenant.
They are Theologically "Other": As "circumcised," they are marked as non-Christians.
They are Apocalyptic Agents: By locating them in the land of Gog and Magog, their invasion is framed as a prophesied end-times calamity.
They are a Savage Horde: Their depiction as a teeming multitude that "bursts in" portrays them as a destructive, almost sub-human force, in contrast to the civilized order of the Roman Empire.
➡️ Conclusion: Fredegar is not writing objective history. He is providing a theological and apocalyptic explanation for a catastrophic political event. By weaving together biblical genealogy (Hagar), patristic ethnography (Saracens), and eschatological legend (Caucasus/Gog and Magog), he assures his Christian readers that the Saracen conquests, however terrifying, fit into a divine plan that was foretold by the emperor himself and prefigured in sacred scripture.
⚔️ The First Clash: Legendary Numbers and Princely Pride
Fredegar now moves from the prophecy to the battle itself, crafting a narrative that blends a kernel of historical truth with legendary exaggeration and literary tropes to explain the Roman defeat.
Fredegar's Text:
"contra quos Aeraglius milites ad resistendum direxit. Cumque priliare cepissint Saracini milites superant eosque gladio graueter trucedant. Fertur in eo prilio cento quinquagenta milia militum a Saracinis fuisse interfecta ; espolia eorum Saracini per legatus Aeraglio recipiendum offerunt. Aeraglius cupiens super Saracinus uindictam nihil ab his spolies recepere uoluit."
English Translation:
"...against whom Heraclius sent soldiers to resist. And when they began to fight, the Saracens overcame the soldiers and severely cut them down with the sword. It is said that in that battle one hundred and fifty thousand soldiers were killed by the Saracens. The Saracens offered their spoils to Heraclius to be received through envoys. Heraclius, desiring vengeance over the Saracens, wished to receive nothing from these spoils."
🔍 Line-by-Line Breakdown & Historical Correlations
Fredegar's Narrative (c. 660 CE) Historical Context & Islamic Sources (al-Azdi) Analysis & Reconciliation "Heraclius sent soldiers to resist." The Battle of Ajnadayn (July 634 CE): This was the first major pitched battle between the Muslim army and the main Roman force in Syria. Heraclius's brother, Theodore, was the overall commander, and the Roman army was composed of imperial troops and allied Arab Christians. ✅ Correlation: Fredegar correctly records the core event: a large-scale Roman army was dispatched and met the Muslims in open battle. "The Saracens overcame the soldiers and severely cut them down with the sword." Al-Azdi's Account: Describes a fierce, chaotic battle. Khalid ibn al-Walid's cavalry was decisive. The Muslim women rallied the men, shouting, "Fight in defence of your children and your women!" The narrative emphasizes intense close-quarters combat. ✅ Correlation: Both accounts agree on the fundamental outcome: a clear and decisive Muslim military victory. "150,000 soldiers were killed." Al-Azdi's Account: States the Muslims killed 3,000 Romans in the battle itself, with more killed in the pursuit. Modern historian Walter Kaegi confirms a major defeat that shattered Roman field army cohesion in Palestine. ❌ Legendary Exaggeration: Fredegar's number is a vast, non-literal epic inflation. The number 150,000 is a literary trope to convey the totality of the catastrophe and the superhuman nature of the Saracen threat. It transforms a military defeat into an apocalyptic catastrophe. "The Saracens offered their spoils to Heraclius... Heraclius... wished to receive nothing." No direct correlation in Islamic sources. The offering of spoils is a standard trope in classical and medieval literature to demonstrate the magnanimity or pride of a victor/vanquished. 🎭 Literary Device: This episode serves a crucial narrative function for Fredegar's audience. It portrays Heraclius not as a coward, but as a proud and vengeful Roman emperor, too noble to accept a token of his own humiliation. This preserves his dignity while explaining his inability to stop the divinely-ordained scourge.
| Fredegar's Narrative (c. 660 CE) | Historical Context & Islamic Sources (al-Azdi) | Analysis & Reconciliation |
|---|---|---|
| "Heraclius sent soldiers to resist." | The Battle of Ajnadayn (July 634 CE): This was the first major pitched battle between the Muslim army and the main Roman force in Syria. Heraclius's brother, Theodore, was the overall commander, and the Roman army was composed of imperial troops and allied Arab Christians. | ✅ Correlation: Fredegar correctly records the core event: a large-scale Roman army was dispatched and met the Muslims in open battle. |
| "The Saracens overcame the soldiers and severely cut them down with the sword." | Al-Azdi's Account: Describes a fierce, chaotic battle. Khalid ibn al-Walid's cavalry was decisive. The Muslim women rallied the men, shouting, "Fight in defence of your children and your women!" The narrative emphasizes intense close-quarters combat. | ✅ Correlation: Both accounts agree on the fundamental outcome: a clear and decisive Muslim military victory. |
| "150,000 soldiers were killed." | Al-Azdi's Account: States the Muslims killed 3,000 Romans in the battle itself, with more killed in the pursuit. Modern historian Walter Kaegi confirms a major defeat that shattered Roman field army cohesion in Palestine. | ❌ Legendary Exaggeration: Fredegar's number is a vast, non-literal epic inflation. The number 150,000 is a literary trope to convey the totality of the catastrophe and the superhuman nature of the Saracen threat. It transforms a military defeat into an apocalyptic catastrophe. |
| "The Saracens offered their spoils to Heraclius... Heraclius... wished to receive nothing." | No direct correlation in Islamic sources. The offering of spoils is a standard trope in classical and medieval literature to demonstrate the magnanimity or pride of a victor/vanquished. | 🎭 Literary Device: This episode serves a crucial narrative function for Fredegar's audience. It portrays Heraclius not as a coward, but as a proud and vengeful Roman emperor, too noble to accept a token of his own humiliation. This preserves his dignity while explaining his inability to stop the divinely-ordained scourge. |
📜 Two Views of One Battle: A Comparative Table
The following table contrasts the Frankish-legendary perspective with the Arabo-historical perspective on the same pivotal engagement.
| Aspect | 🏛️ Fredegar's Legendary Account | 🕌 Al-Azdi's Historical Narrative |
|---|---|---|
| Scale of Battle | Apocalyptic. 150,000 Roman casualties. | Major, but realistic. 3,000+ Roman casualties noted. |
| Cause of Victory | Implied divine punishment or savage ferocity of the Saracens. | Superior generalship (Khalid's tactics), unit cohesion, and religious morale ("sell yourselves to God this day"). |
| Aftermath Focus | Heraclius's personal, noble refusal of the spoils, emphasizing his tragic pride. | The strategic collapse of the Roman position in Palestine, allowing Muslims to overrun the countryside. |
| Portrayal of Muslims | An anonymous, savage "circumcised" horde. | A disciplined, multi-pronged army under named commanders (Khalid, Abu Ubayda, Yazid, Amr, Shurahbil) with a clear chain of command. |
| Theological Frame | The battle is a divine scourge upon a heretical empire. | The battle is a divine victory (fath) granted to the believers. |
✅ Synthesis: History Refracted Through Legend
Fredegar's account of this "first battle" is not a factual report but a theologically and politically processed legend.
The Kernel of Truth: The account preserves the memory of a catastrophic Roman defeat in the early 630s, almost certainly the Battle of Ajnadayn, which, as Walter Kaegi notes, caused Heraclius to retreat to Antioch and "unhinged the entire Roman position in southern Syria."
The Legendary Framing: Fredegar transforms this historical defeat by:
Exaggerating the Scale: The number 150,000 makes the event unimaginably large, fitting for an apocalyptic narrative.
Omitting Muslim Agency: The Saracens are a faceless force of nature, not a strategically brilliant army. This avoids granting them legitimacy.
Focusing on Imperial Dignity: The story of the refused spoils shifts focus from military failure to the personal tragedy of the emperor, a figure more relatable to Frankish kings.
➡️ Conclusion: Fredegar is not trying to document military history. He is using the shock of Ajnadayn to build his central argument: the Saracen conquests were a supernatural event, a divine punishment that even the most noble Roman emperor was powerless to stop, setting the stage for his subsequent depiction of Heraclius's despair and heretical downfall. The reality of Khalid ibn al-Walid's tactical genius is lost, replaced by the awe-inspiring legend of the "Sword of God."
🗺️ The Caspian Gates & The Horde from the North: Apocalyptic Legend Meets Geopolitical Desperation
Fredegar's narrative takes a dramatic turn from the battlefield to the realm of high legend, yet beneath the mythological surface lies a distorted reflection of Heraclius's very real and desperate military strategy.
Fredegar's Text:
"Congregatis undique de uniuersas prouincias emperiae nimia multetudinem militum, transmittens Aeraglius legationem ad portas Caspias quas Alexander Magnos Macedus super mare Cespium aereas here et serrare iusserat propter inundatione gentium seuissemorum que ultra montem Caucasi culmenis habetabant, easdem portas Aeraglius aperire precepit. Indique cento quinquagenta milia pugnatorum auroque locatus auxiliae suae contra Saracinus priliandum aemittetur."
English Translation:
"Having gathered an immense multitude of soldiers from all the provinces of the empire everywhere, Heraclius, sending a delegation to the Caspian Gates which Alexander the Great of Macedon had ordered to be made of bronze and locked over the Caspian Sea on account of the flooding of the most savage races who dwelt beyond the peaks of the Caucasus, ordered these same gates to be opened. And from there, one hundred and fifty thousand fighters, hired with gold for his aid, were sent to fight against the Saracens."
🔍 Deconstructing the Legend: From Alexander to Heraclius
Fredegar's account is a masterful blend of the Alexander Romance—a hugely popular cycle of legends about Alexander the Great—and contemporary events.
| Legendary Element in Fredegar | Historical & Geopolitical Reality |
|---|---|
| The Caspian Gates: A mythical bronze gate built by Alexander to imprison the savage hordes of Gog and Magog. | The Caucasus Passes (e.g., Darial Pass): Very real, strategic mountain passes connecting the steppes to the south. Controlling them was a constant concern for both Rome and Persia. |
| Heraclius "opens the gates": A blasphemous, desperate act that unleashes apocalyptic forces. | Heraclius recruits northern allies: A pragmatic, if desperate, military decision to hire or ally with steppe peoples (Khazars, Bulgars) against the Muslim threat. |
| "150,000 fighters" from behind the gates: A monstrous, inhuman horde. | Allied contingents from the Caucasus and steppes: Significant, but not overwhelmingly large, numbers of auxiliary troops. |
| Hired "with gold": A simple transaction with eschatological entities. | Complex diplomacy and subsidies: Heraclius had a history of using diplomacy and gold to secure alliances, most successfully with the Western Turkic Khaganate against Persia in 627-628. |
⚔️ The Historical Context: Heraclius's Northern Strategy
Fredegar's mythologized account directly corresponds to Heraclius's last, desperate attempts to salvage the Syrian front in the lead-up to the Battle of Yarmouk (636 CE).
A Proven Strategy: As Sebeos records, Heraclius had previously mastered the art of northern alliance. During his epic counter-offensive against Persia (622-628 CE), he did not rely on Roman troops alone. He secured a military alliance with the Western Turkic Khaganate (Göktürks), who provided a crucial cavalry force of 40,000 men that helped him strike at the heart of the Persian Empire.
The Caucasus Frontier: The territorial gains from the 591 and 628 treaties, which Sebeos meticulously details, gave Rome a direct border and political influence over Caucasian states like Iberia (Georgia) and access to the steppe peoples beyond, such as the Khazars (successors to the Göktürks in the region).
The Final Gambit: Facing the Muslim armies after the loss of Syria, Heraclius naturally turned to this same playbook. He sought to replicate his Persian campaign strategy by once again recruiting fierce steppe cavalry to bolster his battered thematic armies. This was not the act of a madman opening apocalyptic gates, but the calculated move of a seasoned emperor using every tool at his disposal.
🧩 Synthesis: Why the Legend?
Fredegar transforms a complex geopolitical strategy into a powerful apocalyptic legend for his audience. The table below illustrates this transformation:
| Historical Action of Heraclius (c. 636 CE) | Fredegar's Legendary Retelling (c. 660 CE) | Purpose of the Framing |
|---|---|---|
| Diplomacy with Khazars/Bulgars. | Opening the Caspian Gates of Alexander. | To frame the conflict as a world-ending, biblical event, not a mere border war. |
| Paying subsidies to steppe allies. | Hiring a horde with gold from behind the gates. | To emphasize the empire's desperation and the "otherness" of the new allies. |
| Integrating allied cavalry into his strategy. | Unleashing 150,000 savage "pugnatores". | To explain the scale of the defeat (Yarmouk) by portraying the enemy as an inhuman swarm. |
| A failed military-political strategy. | A sacrilegious act that leads to divine punishment. | To provide a theological reason for the Christian empire's defeat: God had turned away. |
➡️ Conclusion: Fredegar is not merely ignorant of the facts. He is theologizing history. The real Heraclius, the master strategist of the Persian war, sought help from the north one last time. But for Fredegar, writing after the total collapse of the Roman East, this act could only be understood as a catastrophic error that unleashed a new, divinely-ordained scourge upon the world. The "Caspian Gates" are the perfect metaphor: they represent the frontier of the civilized world, which Heraclius, in his desperation, violated, allowing the final, apocalyptic storm to break through.
⚔️ The "Sword of God" at Yarmuk: Divine Punishment or Military Masterstroke?
Fredegar's account of the climactic battle reaches its zenith with a supernatural explanation for the Roman defeat. While his description is terse and miraculous, it contains key identifiers that unmistakably point to the Battle of Yarmuk (636 CE), the decisive confrontation that sealed the fate of Roman Syria.
Fredegar's Text:
"Saracini duos habentes princepis, ducenta fere milia erant. Cumque castra nec procul interc se exercitus uterque posuissit, ita ut in crastena bellum inirent confligentes, eadem nocte gladio Dei Aeragliae exercitus percotitur : in castris quinquagenta et duo milia ex militibus Aeragliae in stratum mortui sunt. Cumque in crasteno ad prilium debebant adgredere, cernentes eorum exercitum milites partem maxema deuino iudicio interfectam, aduersus Saracinus nec ausi sunt inire prilium. Regressus omnes exercitus Aeragliae ad propries sedebus, Saracini more quo ceperant prouincias Aeragliae emperatores adsiduae uastandum pergebant."
English Translation:
"The Saracens, having two leaders, were nearly two hundred thousand. And when each army had placed its camp not far from the other, so that on the morrow they would join battle, that same night the army of Heraclius was struck by the sword of God: fifty-two thousand of Heraclius's soldiers were found dead in their camp beds. And when on the morrow they ought to have approached the battle, the soldiers, seeing the largest part of their army killed by divine judgment, did not dare to enter battle against the Saracens. The entire army of Heraclius returned to their own homes, and the Saracens proceeded to lay waste to the provinces of the Emperor Heraclius continually, in the manner they had begun."
🔍 Decoding Fredegar's Yarmuk: From Miracle to Military History
Fredegar's version is a theological interpretation, but its core elements align perfectly with the historical event when decoded.
| Fredegar's Miraculous Account | Historical Correlation at Yarmuk | Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| "Saracens with two leaders" 🫂 | Khalid ibn al-Walid and Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah. On the eve of Yarmuk, command was unified under Khalid, but both remained paramount leaders. | ✅ Direct Correlation. Fredegar accurately captures the dual leadership structure of the Muslim army, a key detail from the Islamic sources. |
| "Camps close, battle set for the morrow" ⛺➡️⚔️ | The two armies faced each other for several days (Aug 15-20, 636) with camps in close proximity, with major engagements expected daily. | ✅ Accurate Setting. The protracted standoff and daily anticipation of a decisive clash are central to the Yarmuk narrative. |
| "The army was struck by the sword of God... 52,000 found dead in camp" ☠️⚡ | No supernatural event. This is a legendary explanation for the catastrophic Roman defeat on the 6th day, where entire units were annihilated or routed. | 🔄 Theologizing Defeat. The "Sword of God" (Gladius Dei) is a powerful metaphor. Instead of describing Khalid's brilliant cavalry tactics, Fredegar attributes the defeat to direct divine intervention, absolving the Roman army of military failure. |
| "Seeing the largest part of their army killed... did not dare to enter battle" 😨🏃♂️ | The rout and disintegration of the Roman army on the final day. Survivors, seeing the main force trapped and destroyed at the ravines, lost all will to fight and fled. | ✅ Psychological Reality. The total collapse of morale and the refusal to re-engage after a devastating loss perfectly mirrors the aftermath of Yarmuk. |
| "The entire army returned to their homes" 🏠 | The shattering of the Roman field army. With no cohesive force left, survivors dispersed, leaving Syria undefended. | ✅ Strategic Outcome. This describes the direct consequence of Yarmuk: the permanent destruction of Roman military power in the region, allowing for the easy Muslim conquest of remaining cities. |
⚔️ Two Visions of a Decisive Battle: A Comparative Table
The following table contrasts the Frankish-legendary perspective with the documented military history of Yarmuk.
| Aspect | 🏛️ Fredegar's Legendary Narrative | 📜 Historical Account of Yarmuk (per Crawford/al-Azdi) |
|---|---|---|
| Cause of Victory | Direct Divine Intervention ("Sword of God"). A miraculous, overnight slaughter. | Superior Generalship & Tactics. Khalid's masterful use of a centralized cavalry reserve to exploit gaps and deliver the knockout blow on the 6th day. |
| Nature of Defeat | A supernatural punishment. The army is struck down in camp by an invisible force. | A military envelopment. The Roman army was trapped against the Wadi al-Raqqad gorge and annihilated. |
| Roman Army's Role | Passive victims of divine wrath. They are "found dead" without a fight. | Active, but outmatched, participants. They fought hard for six days but were crippled by command disunity and Khalid's brilliance. |
| Scale of Loss | 52,000 dead in a single night (legendary, symbolic number). | Heavy casualties, likely tens of thousands, leading to the complete dissolution of the Roman field army in the region. |
| Aftermath | Immediate retreat and Saracen rampage due to divine judgment. | Systematic Muslim conquest of Syria due to the total collapse of Roman military resistance. |
✅ Synthesis: The Theology of a Lost Province
Fredegar’s account of Yarmuk is not a failed history; it is a successful theodicy—an explanation for why God allowed a Christian empire to be defeated.
The "Sword of God" is Fredegar's answer to the painful question: How could God's chosen empire lose? The answer: It was not a military failure, but a deliberate act of God. This preserves the idea of Roman military virtue while framing the event as a divine chastisement for Heraclius's heresies.
The overnight, bloodless (for the Saracens) victory removes any sense of Muslim military superiority. The enemy does not earn their victory on the field; it is handed to them by God.
This narrative served a crucial purpose for its 7th-century Frankish audience: it explained a world-shattering event within a familiar biblical framework (e.g., the Assyrians or Babylonians as God's "rod of anger"), making it comprehensible and reinforcing the need for religious orthodoxy to avoid a similar fate.
➡️ Conclusion: While Peter Crawford and al-Azdi detail the six days of complex maneuvers, cavalry charges, and heroic stands that decided the fate of Syria, Fredegar condenses it into a single, divine thunderclap. His "Sword of God" is the legendary echo of Khalid ibn al-Walid's decisive strike—a miraculous event in the West that was, in the East, the culmination of one of history's most brilliant military campaigns.
💀 The Death of Heraclius: A Polemical Obituary for a Broken Emperor
Fredegar's account of Heraclius's demise is not a neutral historical record but a fiercely polemical judgment. It transforms the emperor's death from a natural end into a theological morality play, blaming his personal sins for the catastrophic loss of the Roman East.
Fredegar's Text:
"Cum iam Hierusolemam propinquassint, Eraglius uedens quod eorum uiolenciae non potuissit resistere, nimia amaretudines merorem adreptus infelex Euticiana aerese iam sectans, Christi cultum relinquens, habens uxorem filiam sorores suae, a febre uexatus crudeleter uitam finiuit. Cui successit emperiae gradum Constantinus filius eius, cuius tempore pars publeca a Saracines nimium uastatur."
English Translation:
"When they had already drawn near to Jerusalem, Heraclius, seeing that he could not resist their violence, was seized by the grief of too much bitterness and, wretched man, now following the Eutychian heresy, abandoning the worship of Christ, and having as a wife the daughter of his sister, tormented by a fever, he cruelly ended his life. His son Constantine succeeded him to the rank of Emperor, in whose time the public part [of the empire] was excessively laid waste by the Saracens."
🔍 The Threefold Accusation: Deconstructing Fredegar's Polemic
Fredegar lays out a precise triad of transgressions to explain divine retribution. This framework comes directly from the anti-Heraclian propaganda of his opponents.
| Fredegar's Accusation | Historical Context & Polemical Purpose |
|---|---|
| 1. "Following the Eutychian heresy... abandoning the worship of Christ." 🚩 | The Monothelete Controversy: As Sean Anthony explains, Heraclius, with Patriarch Sergius, promoted Monothelitism/Monoenergism (the doctrine that Christ had one will/energy) as a compromise to unify the empire with anti-Chalcedonian (Miaphysite) churches. To its orthodox opponents in Rome and Palestine (like Sophronius of Jerusalem and Maximus the Confessor), this was a betrayal of the Council of Chalcedon, equivalent to the Eutychian/Monophysite heresy they abhorred. ➡️ Polemical Purpose: Framing the emperor as a heretic provided the ultimate theological cause for God withdrawing His favor and allowing the Muslim conquests. The loss of Syria was divine punishment for apostasy. |
| 2. "Having as a wife the daughter of his sister." 👰♀️➞👨👧 | The Marriage to Martina (613 CE): Heraclius married his niece, Martina, which was legal in the East but considered incestuous and scandalous in the Latin West and by many of his own subjects. This union was politically troubled and produced children with physical disabilities, which critics saw as divine judgment. ➡️ Polemical Purpose: This was a long-standing mark of his personal immorality. It painted him as a corrupt ruler whose sinful life further justified the empire's downfall. |
| 3. "Seized by grief... tormented by a fever, he cruelly ended his life." 😭🔥 | Historical Death (Feb 641 CE): Heraclius died of dropsy (edema) after a long, painful illness, possibly prostate cancer. He was in his mid-60s, worn out by a lifetime of war and the trauma of losing the provinces he had just reconquered from Persia. ➡️ Polemical Purpose: Fredegar portrays this not as a sad end, but as a tormented, "cruel" death—a fitting final punishment for a wretched apostate. The "fever" is a symbol of his inner spiritual and emotional torment. |
🧩 The Source of the Slander: A Palestinian Monastic Lens
Sean Anthony's analysis is crucial here. He argues that Fredegar's source for this entire narrative—the prophecy, the battles, and this damning obituary—originated in Palestinian Christian circles hostile to Heraclius.
The "Ghost of Eutyches": The specific accusation of "Eutychian heresy" was a hallmark of the polemics used by the dyothelete (Two-Wills) faction in Palestine, led by Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem. They viewed Heraclius's compromise doctrine as a catastrophic betrayal.
Explaining the Inexplicable: For these monks, the Muslim conquests were not just a military disaster but a theological crisis. How could God allow this? The answer was that the emperor himself had become a heretic. His sins had doomed the empire.
Transmission to the West: This polemical narrative, forged in the traumatized monasteries of Palestine, then traveled to the Frankish West, where Fredegar incorporated it. This is why a Frankish chronicle from 660 CE so perfectly echoes the theological grievances of Palestinian monks from the 630s.
⚖️ Fredegar's Narrative vs. Historical Reality
The following table contrasts Fredegar's polemical conclusion with the documented historical events.
| Aspect | 🏛️ Fredegar's Polemical Narrative | 📜 Historical Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Timeline | Heraclius dies as the Saracens approach Jerusalem. | Heraclius dies in 641 CE, four years after the peaceful Muslim conquest of Jerusalem (637 CE) under Caliph Umar. |
| Cause of Death | A "cruel" fever from despair and divine wrath. | A long, painful illness (likely dropsy or cancer), after a reign of 31 years marked by immense physical and mental strain. |
| Spiritual State | A wretched apostate who abandoned Christ for heresy. | A deeply pious, though theologically innovative, emperor who spent his life defending Christendom and seeking ecclesiastical unity. |
| Legacy | His heresy and incest explain the loss of the empire. | His exhaustion of the empire in the 26-year Persian War left it vulnerable, but his reign saved the empire from total collapse and redefined Roman identity. |
✅ Conclusion: The Saint to Sinner Transformation
For Fredegar and his sources, Heraclius undergoes a dramatic transformation:
The Early Heraclius: The restorer of the True Cross, the Christian champion who defeated Persia.
The Late Heraclius: The incestuous heretic whose sins brought the "Sword of God" down upon his empire.
This narrative served a vital purpose. It provided a clean, moral explanation for one of the most traumatic events in Christian history: the loss of the Holy Land to a new, non-Christian power. It was not that the Muslims were stronger or that their faith was compelling; it was that God was punishing his own people for their ruler's failures.
➡️ In the end, Fredegar’s Heraclius is not the complex historical figure but a cautionary tale. His story warns that even the greatest of emperors, if they fall into heresy and immorality, can become the agents of their empire's ruin, paving the way for the "Saracens" to continue their divinely-permitted "laying waste."
👑 The Unraveling Empire: From Heraclius to Constans II
Following the dramatic death of Heraclius, Fredegar's chronicle tracks the rapid dissolution of the Roman Empire in the East under his successors. This section provides a stark, if simplified, account of the Islamic conquests that continued unabated, portraying an empire reduced to a tributary state.
📜 The Latin Text & English Translation
Latin Text English Translation "Eo anno Constantinus emperatur moretur. Constans filius eius sub tenera aetate consilio senato emperio sublimatur." "In that year the Emperor Constantine died. His son Constans, at a tender age, was raised to the empire by the counsel of the senate." "Idem eius tempore grauissime a Sarracinis uastatur imperiom. Hierusolema a Saracinis capta ceterasque ciuitates aeuersae." "In his time the empire was most grievously laid waste by the Saracens. Jerusalem was captured by the Saracens and other cities were overthrown." "Aegyptus superiur et inferior a Saracines peruadetur, Alexandria capetur et praedatur. Afreca tota uastatur et a Saracinis possedetur paulolum ibique Gregorius patricius a Saracinis interfectus." "Upper and Lower Egypt were overrun by the Saracens, Alexandria was captured and plundered. All of Africa was laid waste and possessed by the Saracens a little later, and there the Patrician Gregory was killed by the Saracens." "Constantinopolis tantum cum Traciana prouincia et paucis insolis, etiam et Romana prouincia emperiae dicione remanserat, nam maxeme totum emperium a Saracines graueter fuit adtritum..." "Only Constantinople with the province of Thrace and a few islands, and also the Roman province, remained under the sway of the empire, for almost the whole empire was grievously worn down by the Saracens..." "...etiam et in postremum emperatur Constans constrictus adque conpulsus, effectus est Saracinorum tributarius, ut uel Constantinopoles cum paucis prouincies et insolis suae dicione reseruaretur." "...and indeed, in the end, the Emperor Constans, constrained and compelled, became a tributary of the Saracens, so that at least Constantinople with a few provinces and islands might be preserved under his rule." "Trebus annis circeter et fertur adhuc amplius per unumquemque diem mille soledus auri aeraries Saracinorum Constans emplebat. Tandem resumtis uiribus Constans emperium aliquantisper recoperans tributa Saracines emplendum refutat." "For about three years and, it is said, even more, Constans paid the Saracens a thousand gold solidi every single day. At length, having regained his strength and recovered the empire somewhat, Constans refused to pay the tribute to the Saracens any longer."
| Latin Text | English Translation |
|---|---|
| "Eo anno Constantinus emperatur moretur. Constans filius eius sub tenera aetate consilio senato emperio sublimatur." | "In that year the Emperor Constantine died. His son Constans, at a tender age, was raised to the empire by the counsel of the senate." |
| "Idem eius tempore grauissime a Sarracinis uastatur imperiom. Hierusolema a Saracinis capta ceterasque ciuitates aeuersae." | "In his time the empire was most grievously laid waste by the Saracens. Jerusalem was captured by the Saracens and other cities were overthrown." |
| "Aegyptus superiur et inferior a Saracines peruadetur, Alexandria capetur et praedatur. Afreca tota uastatur et a Saracinis possedetur paulolum ibique Gregorius patricius a Saracinis interfectus." | "Upper and Lower Egypt were overrun by the Saracens, Alexandria was captured and plundered. All of Africa was laid waste and possessed by the Saracens a little later, and there the Patrician Gregory was killed by the Saracens." |
| "Constantinopolis tantum cum Traciana prouincia et paucis insolis, etiam et Romana prouincia emperiae dicione remanserat, nam maxeme totum emperium a Saracines graueter fuit adtritum..." | "Only Constantinople with the province of Thrace and a few islands, and also the Roman province, remained under the sway of the empire, for almost the whole empire was grievously worn down by the Saracens..." |
| "...etiam et in postremum emperatur Constans constrictus adque conpulsus, effectus est Saracinorum tributarius, ut uel Constantinopoles cum paucis prouincies et insolis suae dicione reseruaretur." | "...and indeed, in the end, the Emperor Constans, constrained and compelled, became a tributary of the Saracens, so that at least Constantinople with a few provinces and islands might be preserved under his rule." |
| "Trebus annis circeter et fertur adhuc amplius per unumquemque diem mille soledus auri aeraries Saracinorum Constans emplebat. Tandem resumtis uiribus Constans emperium aliquantisper recoperans tributa Saracines emplendum refutat." | "For about three years and, it is said, even more, Constans paid the Saracens a thousand gold solidi every single day. At length, having regained his strength and recovered the empire somewhat, Constans refused to pay the tribute to the Saracens any longer." |
🔍 Line-by-Line Commentary & Historical Analysis
👑 The Succession Crisis: From Heraclius to Constans II
Fredegar's brief statement, "Constans filius eius sub tenera aetate... sublimatur" (His son Constans, at a tender age, was raised to the empire), masks a brutal and complex power struggle that nearly tore the Roman Empire apart at its most vulnerable moment.
Fredegar's Text:
"Eo anno Constantinus emperatur moretur. Constans filius eius sub tenera aetate consilio senato emperio sublimatur."
English Translation:
"In that year the Emperor Constantine died. His son Constans, at a tender age, was raised to the empire by the counsel of the senate."
"Eo anno Constantinus emperatur moretur. Constans filius eius sub tenera aetate consilio senato emperio sublimatur."
"In that year the Emperor Constantine died. His son Constans, at a tender age, was raised to the empire by the counsel of the senate."
🔍 Behind Fredegar's Words: A Throne of Daggers
Fredegar compresses a year of political chaos, regicide, and civil war into a single, serene line. The reality was a dramatic succession crisis.
Fredegar's Simplified Version The Historical Reality (641 CE) Analysis "The Emperor Constantine died." ☠️ Heraclius Constantine III dies after a 3-month reign (Feb-May 641). Officially from tuberculosis, but strong rumors circulated that he was poisoned by his step-mother, Empress Martina. Fredegar records the death but omits the scandalous accusation of murder, which was the catalyst for the ensuing chaos. "Constans... at a tender age... raised to the empire." 👶➡️🪙 Constans II was the grandson of Heraclius, not the son of Constantine III. He was only 11 years old when finally made sole emperor in November 641. Fredegar simplifies the genealogy. The phrase "tender age" correctly highlights the profound instability of a child emperor ascending during an invasion. "by the counsel of the senate." 🏛️ The Senate was one player in a much larger power struggle. The true kingmaker was Valentinus, a powerful military commander, who marched his army to Constantinople to impose Constans II on the throne. Fredegar credits the Senate to frame the transition as orderly and legitimate for his Frankish audience, obscuring the raw military coup that actually took place.
| Fredegar's Simplified Version | The Historical Reality (641 CE) | Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| "The Emperor Constantine died." ☠️ | Heraclius Constantine III dies after a 3-month reign (Feb-May 641). Officially from tuberculosis, but strong rumors circulated that he was poisoned by his step-mother, Empress Martina. | Fredegar records the death but omits the scandalous accusation of murder, which was the catalyst for the ensuing chaos. |
| "Constans... at a tender age... raised to the empire." 👶➡️🪙 | Constans II was the grandson of Heraclius, not the son of Constantine III. He was only 11 years old when finally made sole emperor in November 641. | Fredegar simplifies the genealogy. The phrase "tender age" correctly highlights the profound instability of a child emperor ascending during an invasion. |
| "by the counsel of the senate." 🏛️ | The Senate was one player in a much larger power struggle. The true kingmaker was Valentinus, a powerful military commander, who marched his army to Constantinople to impose Constans II on the throne. | Fredegar credits the Senate to frame the transition as orderly and legitimate for his Frankish audience, obscuring the raw military coup that actually took place. |
⚔️ The Power Struggle: A Step-by-Step Breakdown
The period from Heraclius's death in February 641 to Constans II's sole rule in November 641 was a dramatic four-act play.
Act I: The Suspicious Death & A Divided Court (Feb-May 641)
Emperor Heraclius dies, leaving the empire to his eldest son, Constantine III, and his second wife (and niece), Martina, who ruled for her son, Heraclonas.
Fearing Martina, the dying Constantine III sent a vast sum of 2 million gold solidi to the army to buy their support for his own young sons.
Constantine III died after just three months. The rumor that Martina had him poisoned instantly shattered the court's stability.
Act II: Martina's Unpopular Regency (Summer 641)
With her son Heraclonas now sole emperor, Martina faced universal hostility.
She was hated for the poisoning rumor, her incestuous marriage to Heraclius, her support for the unpopular Monothelite heresy, and her inability to match the financial donatives her step-son had given the army.
The military, led by Valentinus, saw her as weak and illegitimate.
Act III: The Military Coup (Sept-Oct 641)
Valentinus marched his army to Chalcedon, directly across the Bosporus from Constantinople, and demanded that Constans II (the son of Constantine III) be crowned co-emperor.
A popular uprising in the city supported the army's demands.
Under this immense pressure, Martina was forced to crown the 11-year-old Constans II as co-emperor in September/October 641.
Act IV: The Final Purge & Sole Rule (Nov 641)
Valentinus's forces entered the city.
Heraclonas and Martina were publicly mutilated—Martina's tongue was cut out, and Heraclonas's nose was slit—a Roman practice to permanently disqualify them from rule. They were then exiled.
On November 5, 641, Constans II was proclaimed sole emperor.
Emperor Heraclius dies, leaving the empire to his eldest son, Constantine III, and his second wife (and niece), Martina, who ruled for her son, Heraclonas.
Fearing Martina, the dying Constantine III sent a vast sum of 2 million gold solidi to the army to buy their support for his own young sons.
Constantine III died after just three months. The rumor that Martina had him poisoned instantly shattered the court's stability.
With her son Heraclonas now sole emperor, Martina faced universal hostility.
She was hated for the poisoning rumor, her incestuous marriage to Heraclius, her support for the unpopular Monothelite heresy, and her inability to match the financial donatives her step-son had given the army.
The military, led by Valentinus, saw her as weak and illegitimate.
Valentinus marched his army to Chalcedon, directly across the Bosporus from Constantinople, and demanded that Constans II (the son of Constantine III) be crowned co-emperor.
A popular uprising in the city supported the army's demands.
Under this immense pressure, Martina was forced to crown the 11-year-old Constans II as co-emperor in September/October 641.
Valentinus's forces entered the city.
Heraclonas and Martina were publicly mutilated—Martina's tongue was cut out, and Heraclonas's nose was slit—a Roman practice to permanently disqualify them from rule. They were then exiled.
On November 5, 641, Constans II was proclaimed sole emperor.
🧩 Synthesis: Why Fredegar's Simplification Matters
Fredegar's version is not wrong, but it is diplomatically sanitized.
What Fredegar Says What Actually Happened Fredegar's Likely Reason Orderly, senatorial succession. A violent military coup, mutilation, and exile. To present Roman imperial succession as stable and lawful, a model for Frankish kings to emulate. A father-to-son transition. A complex struggle between step-brothers and a grandmother. To simplify a confusing genealogy for a distant audience. A single event. A year-long crisis amid a massive foreign invasion. To maintain narrative focus on the Saracen threat as the main story.
➡️ Conclusion: Fredegar’s line about Constans’s accession is a masterpiece of historical compression. It captures the essential truth—a child emperor taking power in a time of crisis—while glossing over the brutal dynastic strife that made the Roman Empire’s defense against Islam so perilously weak in the 640s. The "counsel of the senate" was, in reality, the point of a spear held by General Valentinus.
| What Fredegar Says | What Actually Happened | Fredegar's Likely Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Orderly, senatorial succession. | A violent military coup, mutilation, and exile. | To present Roman imperial succession as stable and lawful, a model for Frankish kings to emulate. |
| A father-to-son transition. | A complex struggle between step-brothers and a grandmother. | To simplify a confusing genealogy for a distant audience. |
| A single event. | A year-long crisis amid a massive foreign invasion. | To maintain narrative focus on the Saracen threat as the main story. |
🗺️ The Catalogue of Conquests: The Islamic Onslaught Continues
Fredegar's text provides a stunningly accurate, bird's-eye view of the second wave of Islamic expansion that shattered the Roman Empire's southern provinces. In just a few lines, he chronicles the loss of the empire's spiritual heart, its breadbasket, and its westernmost stronghold.
Fredegar's Text:
"Idem eius tempore grauissime a Sarracinis uastatur imperiom. Hierusolema a Saracinis capta ceterasque ciuitates aeuersae. Aegyptus superiur et inferior a Saracines peruadetur, Alexandria capetur et praedatur. Afreca tota uastatur et a Saracines possedetur paulolum ibique Gregorius patricius a Saracinis interfectus."
English Translation:
"In his time the empire was most grievously laid waste by the Saracens. Jerusalem was captured by the Saracens and other cities were overthrown. Upper and Lower Egypt were overrun by the Saracens, Alexandria was captured and plundered. All of Africa was laid waste and possessed by the Saracens a little later, and there the Patrician Gregory was killed by the Saracens."
"Idem eius tempore grauissime a Sarracinis uastatur imperiom. Hierusolema a Saracinis capta ceterasque ciuitates aeuersae. Aegyptus superiur et inferior a Saracines peruadetur, Alexandria capetur et praedatur. Afreca tota uastatur et a Saracines possedetur paulolum ibique Gregorius patricius a Saracinis interfectus."
"In his time the empire was most grievously laid waste by the Saracens. Jerusalem was captured by the Saracens and other cities were overthrown. Upper and Lower Egypt were overrun by the Saracens, Alexandria was captured and plundered. All of Africa was laid waste and possessed by the Saracens a little later, and there the Patrician Gregory was killed by the Saracens."
🔍 Fredegar's Chronicle vs. Historical Reality
Fredegar's summary is not just a list of tragedies; it is a precise, geographically logical sequence of the caliphate's campaigns against a reeling empire.
Fredegar's Account Historical Conquest & Key Figures Impact on the Roman Empire "Jerusalem was captured..." 🕌 Conquest: 637 CE
General: Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab
Context: Siege and peaceful capitulation. Spiritual Catastrophe: Loss of Christianity's holiest city and the True Cross. A profound theological shock that resonated across the entire Christian world. "Upper and Lower Egypt were overrun... Alexandria captured..." 🌾➡️⚔️ Conquest: 639-646 CE
General: Amr ibn al-As
Context: A brilliant campaign culminating in the siege and capture of the second city of the empire. Economic & Strategic Collapse: Loss of the empire's primary grain supply and wealthiest province. The fall of Alexandria, a center of Hellenistic culture and Christian theology, was a blow to Roman prestige and identity. "All of Africa was laid waste... Gregory the Patricius killed..." 🛡️☠️ Conquest: Begins 647 CE
General: Abdullah ibn Sa'd
Context: The Battle of Sufetula; the defeat and death of the Exarch Gregory. The Final Western Frontier: The loss of the Exarchate of Africa marked the end of major Roman power in the West. It severed the connection to the Mediterranean and opened the path for the future Muslim conquest of Spain.
| Fredegar's Account | Historical Conquest & Key Figures | Impact on the Roman Empire |
|---|---|---|
| "Jerusalem was captured..." 🕌 | Conquest: 637 CE General: Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab Context: Siege and peaceful capitulation. | Spiritual Catastrophe: Loss of Christianity's holiest city and the True Cross. A profound theological shock that resonated across the entire Christian world. |
| "Upper and Lower Egypt were overrun... Alexandria captured..." 🌾➡️⚔️ | Conquest: 639-646 CE General: Amr ibn al-As Context: A brilliant campaign culminating in the siege and capture of the second city of the empire. | Economic & Strategic Collapse: Loss of the empire's primary grain supply and wealthiest province. The fall of Alexandria, a center of Hellenistic culture and Christian theology, was a blow to Roman prestige and identity. |
| "All of Africa was laid waste... Gregory the Patricius killed..." 🛡️☠️ | Conquest: Begins 647 CE General: Abdullah ibn Sa'd Context: The Battle of Sufetula; the defeat and death of the Exarch Gregory. | The Final Western Frontier: The loss of the Exarchate of Africa marked the end of major Roman power in the West. It severed the connection to the Mediterranean and opened the path for the future Muslim conquest of Spain. |
🧭 The Strategic Logic of the Onslaught
Fredegar’s list is not random; it follows the logical expansion path of the Caliphate, exploiting the Roman Empire's weaknesses.
Consolidate the Core (Jerusalem): After defeating the main Roman armies at Yarmuk (636 CE), securing Palestine and its holy city was the immediate priority.
Strike the Economic Engine (Egypt): With Syria and Palestine secure, the rich, but often discontented, province of Egypt was the next logical target. Its capture bankrupted Constantinople and fed the burgeoning Caliphate.
Isolate and Destroy the Periphery (Africa): With the Eastern Roman heartland reeling, the Caliphate could now project power westward to pick off the more isolated Roman Exarchate of Africa.
Consolidate the Core (Jerusalem): After defeating the main Roman armies at Yarmuk (636 CE), securing Palestine and its holy city was the immediate priority.
Strike the Economic Engine (Egypt): With Syria and Palestine secure, the rich, but often discontented, province of Egypt was the next logical target. Its capture bankrupted Constantinople and fed the burgeoning Caliphate.
Isolate and Destroy the Periphery (Africa): With the Eastern Roman heartland reeling, the Caliphate could now project power westward to pick off the more isolated Roman Exarchate of Africa.
⚔️ The Death of an Exarch: A Case Study in the Empire's Fragility
Fredegar's specific mention of Gregory the Patricius is a crucial detail that reveals his access to good information.
Who was Gregory? He was the Exarch (supreme military and civilian governor) of the Roman province of Africa, based in Carthage.
His Ambition: In 646 CE, taking advantage of the chaos in Constantinople, Gregory had declared his independence from the empire.
His Downfall: Just a year later, in 647 CE, a powerful Arab army invaded. Gregory, now facing the Caliphate's forces alone without imperial support, was decisively defeated and killed at the Battle of Sufetula.
Why It Matters: Fredegar’s accurate report of this event shows that news of even a regional Roman defeat in North Africa was circulating widely, reaching as far as Francia within a generation. It underscores that the entire Roman world, from Egypt to Tunisia, was under simultaneous assault.
Who was Gregory? He was the Exarch (supreme military and civilian governor) of the Roman province of Africa, based in Carthage.
His Ambition: In 646 CE, taking advantage of the chaos in Constantinople, Gregory had declared his independence from the empire.
His Downfall: Just a year later, in 647 CE, a powerful Arab army invaded. Gregory, now facing the Caliphate's forces alone without imperial support, was decisively defeated and killed at the Battle of Sufetula.
Why It Matters: Fredegar’s accurate report of this event shows that news of even a regional Roman defeat in North Africa was circulating widely, reaching as far as Francia within a generation. It underscores that the entire Roman world, from Egypt to Tunisia, was under simultaneous assault.
✅ Conclusion: A Panorama of Imperial Collapse
Fredegar’s catalogue is a powerful and essentially accurate summary. For his Frankish audience, it painted a terrifying panorama of a superpower's collapse:
Jerusalem fell, wounding the empire's soul. 😔
Egypt fell, starving the empire's treasury and stomach. 💰🌾
Africa fell, severing the empire's western limb. 🪓
➡️ In just three sentences, Fredegar captures the scale of the disaster that transformed the Roman Empire from a Mediterranean-wide power into a rump state fighting for survival in Anatolia and the Balkans. His account proves that the speed and totality of the Islamic conquests were clearly understood—and feared—in the distant courts of Western Europe.
Jerusalem fell, wounding the empire's soul. 😔
Egypt fell, starving the empire's treasury and stomach. 💰🌾
Africa fell, severing the empire's western limb. 🪓
💰 The Shrinking Empire: From Superpower to Tributary State
Fredegar concludes his narrative of the Islamic conquests with a stark and powerful summary of the Roman Empire's reduced state. His description, while sweeping, captures the profound geopolitical shift that occurred within a single generation.
Fredegar's Text:
"Constantinopolis tantum cum Traciana prouincia et paucis insolis, etiam et Romana prouincia emperiae dicione remanserat, nam maxeme totum emperium a Saracines graueter fuit adtritum ; etiam et in postremum emperatur Constans constrictus adque conpulsus, effectus est Saracinorum tributarius, ut uel Constantinopoles cum paucis prouincies et insolis suae dicione reseruaretur."
English Translation:
"Only Constantinople with the province of Thrace and a few islands, and also the Roman province [Italy], remained under the authority of the empire, for almost the entire empire had been severely worn down by the Saracens; and even in the end, the Emperor Constans, constrained and compelled, became a tributary of the Saracens, so that at least Constantinople with a few provinces and islands might be preserved under his authority."
"Constantinopolis tantum cum Traciana prouincia et paucis insolis, etiam et Romana prouincia emperiae dicione remanserat, nam maxeme totum emperium a Saracines graueter fuit adtritum ; etiam et in postremum emperatur Constans constrictus adque conpulsus, effectus est Saracinorum tributarius, ut uel Constantinopoles cum paucis prouincies et insolis suae dicione reseruaretur."
"Only Constantinople with the province of Thrace and a few islands, and also the Roman province [Italy], remained under the authority of the empire, for almost the entire empire had been severely worn down by the Saracens; and even in the end, the Emperor Constans, constrained and compelled, became a tributary of the Saracens, so that at least Constantinople with a few provinces and islands might be preserved under his authority."
🔍 Analysis: The Stark New Reality of the Mid-7th Century
Fredegar's assessment is a dramatic but essentially accurate snapshot of the Roman Empire circa 650-660 CE. Let's break down his claims against the historical record.
Fredegar's Claim Historical Reality & Corroboration "Only Constantinople, Thrace, a few islands, and Italy remained." ✅ Largely Accurate. By the 650s, the empire had lost its richest provinces:
• Syria & Palestine: Lost after Yarmuk (636).
• Egypt: Fell by 642, a catastrophic blow to grain supplies and revenue.
• Armenia: Became a contested client state, often aligning with the Caliphate.
• North Africa: Was under sustained attack and gradually being lost.
The core was indeed Anatolia (which Fredegar omits, likely subsuming it under the capital's defense), the Balkan foothold (Thrace), Italy, and the strategic Aegean islands. "The Emperor Constans... became a tributary of the Saracens." 💸 ✅ Corroborated by Multiple Sources. This is not a Frankish exaggeration. Both Sebeos and Theophanes record that Emperor Constans II (641-668) was forced to sue for peace and pay tribute to Mu'awiya.
• Sebeos (c. 660s): "King Constans was terrified, and he reckoned it better to give tribute and make peace through ambassadors..."
• Theophanes (c. 810): "The emperor Constans sent a certain Prokopios as ambassador to Mauias [Mu'awiya] to ask for peace..."
This treaty, likely around 649 CE, was a humiliating but necessary act of realpolitik to buy time and secure the Anatolian frontier. "Constrained and compelled... so that at least Constantinople... might be preserved." 🛡️ ✅ The Ultimate Strategic Goal. This perfectly captures the existential threat. As detailed by historian Leif Inge Ree Petersen, the Umayyad Caliphate's grand strategy was not merely raiding but the conquest of Constantinople itself.
• The massive, though ultimately failed, Arab naval expedition of 654 (mentioned by Sebeos and hinted at by Khalifa ibn Khayyat's reference to Mu'awiya "entering the straits of Constantinople" in 32 AH/653 CE) proved the city was the ultimate target.
• Paying tribute was a desperate measure to avert a full-scale siege and preserve the heart of the empire.
| Fredegar's Claim | Historical Reality & Corroboration |
|---|---|
| "Only Constantinople, Thrace, a few islands, and Italy remained." | ✅ Largely Accurate. By the 650s, the empire had lost its richest provinces: • Syria & Palestine: Lost after Yarmuk (636). • Egypt: Fell by 642, a catastrophic blow to grain supplies and revenue. • Armenia: Became a contested client state, often aligning with the Caliphate. • North Africa: Was under sustained attack and gradually being lost. The core was indeed Anatolia (which Fredegar omits, likely subsuming it under the capital's defense), the Balkan foothold (Thrace), Italy, and the strategic Aegean islands. |
| "The Emperor Constans... became a tributary of the Saracens." 💸 | ✅ Corroborated by Multiple Sources. This is not a Frankish exaggeration. Both Sebeos and Theophanes record that Emperor Constans II (641-668) was forced to sue for peace and pay tribute to Mu'awiya. • Sebeos (c. 660s): "King Constans was terrified, and he reckoned it better to give tribute and make peace through ambassadors..." • Theophanes (c. 810): "The emperor Constans sent a certain Prokopios as ambassador to Mauias [Mu'awiya] to ask for peace..." This treaty, likely around 649 CE, was a humiliating but necessary act of realpolitik to buy time and secure the Anatolian frontier. |
| "Constrained and compelled... so that at least Constantinople... might be preserved." 🛡️ | ✅ The Ultimate Strategic Goal. This perfectly captures the existential threat. As detailed by historian Leif Inge Ree Petersen, the Umayyad Caliphate's grand strategy was not merely raiding but the conquest of Constantinople itself. • The massive, though ultimately failed, Arab naval expedition of 654 (mentioned by Sebeos and hinted at by Khalifa ibn Khayyat's reference to Mu'awiya "entering the straits of Constantinople" in 32 AH/653 CE) proved the city was the ultimate target. • Paying tribute was a desperate measure to avert a full-scale siege and preserve the heart of the empire. |
🧩 The Big Picture: A Empire Under Siege
Fredegar's passage reflects the culmination of a process that historians like Petersen have worked to reconstruct from fragmented and often biased sources.
The "Damnatio Memoriae" of Constans II: As Petersen notes, Constans II suffered a "double damnatio memoriae." In Roman sources, he was vilified for his unpopular religious policies (Monothelitism). In Arabic sources, his successes and the scale of the Arab defeats (like the storm-wrecked fleet of 654) were minimized or erased. This created a historiography that underestimated both the Roman resistance and the true, massive scale of the Arab offensive.
The Reality of "Attrition": Fredegar's phrase "graueter fuit adtritum" (severely worn down) is apt. The empire wasn't just losing territory; it was in a state of perpetual, exhausting warfare. Annual raids sapped its strength, and the loss of Egypt's wealth and grain crippled its economy.
Tributary Status as Strategy: Becoming a "tributary" was not a sign of total defeat but a classic late antique survival strategy. By redirecting some of the state's wealth to the Caliphate, Constans II hoped to secure his remaining borders and buy the precious time needed to reorganize the army and fortify Anatolia—which ultimately proved successful in preventing a complete collapse.
The "Damnatio Memoriae" of Constans II: As Petersen notes, Constans II suffered a "double damnatio memoriae." In Roman sources, he was vilified for his unpopular religious policies (Monothelitism). In Arabic sources, his successes and the scale of the Arab defeats (like the storm-wrecked fleet of 654) were minimized or erased. This created a historiography that underestimated both the Roman resistance and the true, massive scale of the Arab offensive.
The Reality of "Attrition": Fredegar's phrase "graueter fuit adtritum" (severely worn down) is apt. The empire wasn't just losing territory; it was in a state of perpetual, exhausting warfare. Annual raids sapped its strength, and the loss of Egypt's wealth and grain crippled its economy.
Tributary Status as Strategy: Becoming a "tributary" was not a sign of total defeat but a classic late antique survival strategy. By redirecting some of the state's wealth to the Caliphate, Constans II hoped to secure his remaining borders and buy the precious time needed to reorganize the army and fortify Anatolia—which ultimately proved successful in preventing a complete collapse.
✅ Conclusion: Fredegar's Verdict
Fredegar, writing from the distant safety of Francia, nonetheless provides a remarkably clear-eyed conclusion to his narrative of the Islamic conquests.
➡️ His final passage makes three definitive points:
The Scale of Loss was Catastrophic: The Roman Empire of Heraclius, which had stretched from the Euphrates to the Maghreb, was reduced to a rump state centered on Anatolia and the Balkans.
The Military Situation was Dire: The empire was so threatened that the emperor himself had to accept the humiliating status of a tributary to a foreign power.
The Stakes were Existential: The entire goal of this grim policy was the preservation of Constantinople itself—the final redoubt of Roman power and Christian civilization in the East.
Fredegar’s chronicle thus ends its treatment of the Eastern crisis on a note of profound transformation. The invincible empire had been humbled, and the world had been irrevocably changed. The story he tells—from Heraclius's prophetic dream to Constans's paid tribute—is, in his eyes, the story of a divine punishment unfolding, a lesson in the fragility of earthly power that would have resonated deeply with his Frankish audience.
The Scale of Loss was Catastrophic: The Roman Empire of Heraclius, which had stretched from the Euphrates to the Maghreb, was reduced to a rump state centered on Anatolia and the Balkans.
The Military Situation was Dire: The empire was so threatened that the emperor himself had to accept the humiliating status of a tributary to a foreign power.
The Stakes were Existential: The entire goal of this grim policy was the preservation of Constantinople itself—the final redoubt of Roman power and Christian civilization in the East.
💰 The Price of Survival: The Roman Tribute to the Caliphate (649–652 CE)
Fredegar concludes his narrative of the eastern wars with a stark financial statement that reveals the new balance of power: the Roman Emperor was now a tributary to the Caliph.
Fredegar's Text:
"Trebus annis circeter et fertur adhuc amplius per unumquemque diem mille soledus auri aeraries Saracinorum Constans emplebat. Tandem resumtis uiribus Constans emperium aliquantisper recoperans tributa Saracines emplendum refutat."
English Translation:
"For about three years and reportedly even longer, Constans paid the Saracens a thousand gold solidi from the treasury for each and every day. Finally, having regained his strength and recovered the empire for a while, Constans refused to pay the tribute to the Saracens any longer."
"Trebus annis circeter et fertur adhuc amplius per unumquemque diem mille soledus auri aeraries Saracinorum Constans emplebat. Tandem resumtis uiribus Constans emperium aliquantisper recoperans tributa Saracines emplendum refutat."
"For about three years and reportedly even longer, Constans paid the Saracens a thousand gold solidi from the treasury for each and every day. Finally, having regained his strength and recovered the empire for a while, Constans refused to pay the tribute to the Saracens any longer."
🔍 Context & Analysis: A Treaty of Necessity
This passage describes the humiliating but strategically necessary peace treaty signed between Emperor Constans II and Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, the governor of Syria and future Umayyad Caliph.
Fredegar's Account Historical Corroboration from Sebeos & Ree Analysis "For about three years... Constans paid..." ⏳💰 The treaty was signed in 649 CE and broken in 652 CE, lasting roughly three years. Sebeos confirms Constans initiated peace talks through his ambassador Procopius. ✅ Chronologically Accurate. Fredegar's timeline is correct. The treaty was a temporary measure to buy time. "a thousand gold solidi... for each and every day" 🏛️➡️🕌 This equals 365,000 solidi per year. This is a specific, plausible figure for a large-scale peace agreement between empires, representing a massive drain on the Roman treasury but avoiding total war. ✅ Plausible Financial Detail. The amount is not a legendary round number but a precise daily figure, suggesting a genuine historical record of the treaty terms reached the West. "Having regained his strength... refused to pay the tribute" ⚔️✋ Sebeos records the treaty was broken in Constans's 11th regnal year (652 CE). Leif Inge Ree notes this was part of Constans's active and ambitious strategy to rebuild Roman power after a period of consolidation. ✅ Strategic Context. Constans did not pay out of weakness indefinitely. He used the breathing space to reorganize, and his refusal to pay was a calculated resumption of hostilities.
| Fredegar's Account | Historical Corroboration from Sebeos & Ree | Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| "For about three years... Constans paid..." ⏳💰 | The treaty was signed in 649 CE and broken in 652 CE, lasting roughly three years. Sebeos confirms Constans initiated peace talks through his ambassador Procopius. | ✅ Chronologically Accurate. Fredegar's timeline is correct. The treaty was a temporary measure to buy time. |
| "a thousand gold solidi... for each and every day" 🏛️➡️🕌 | This equals 365,000 solidi per year. This is a specific, plausible figure for a large-scale peace agreement between empires, representing a massive drain on the Roman treasury but avoiding total war. | ✅ Plausible Financial Detail. The amount is not a legendary round number but a precise daily figure, suggesting a genuine historical record of the treaty terms reached the West. |
| "Having regained his strength... refused to pay the tribute" ⚔️✋ | Sebeos records the treaty was broken in Constans's 11th regnal year (652 CE). Leif Inge Ree notes this was part of Constans's active and ambitious strategy to rebuild Roman power after a period of consolidation. | ✅ Strategic Context. Constans did not pay out of weakness indefinitely. He used the breathing space to reorganize, and his refusal to pay was a calculated resumption of hostilities. |
🧩 The Strategic Reality Behind the Tribute
This treaty was not a sign of simple defeatism but a key part of the complex military-diplomatic struggle of the era.
The Catalyst: As Sebeos describes, the treaty was prompted by Mu'awiya's massive naval buildup and an unsuccessful attack on Constantinople. Constans, "terrified" by the scale of the threat, chose to pay for time.
Constans's Grand Strategy: Leif Inge Ree's research rehabilitates Constans II as a proactive emperor, not a passive failure. His strategy from 652-660 involved:
Securing the Eastern Flank: Campaigning in Armenia and the Caucasus to prevent a two-front war.
Rebuilding the Army: Using the truce to restore the military's strength.
Breaking the Treaty: Once prepared, ending the tributary status was a declaration that Rome was back on the offensive.
The Consequences: The breaking of the treaty in 652 led directly to the resumption of all-out war. Mu'awiya launched a new, massive combined land-and-sea campaign aimed at the conquest of Constantinople itself, which was only thwarted by a storm that destroyed the Arab fleet in 654, an event Sebeos attributes to divine intervention.
The Catalyst: As Sebeos describes, the treaty was prompted by Mu'awiya's massive naval buildup and an unsuccessful attack on Constantinople. Constans, "terrified" by the scale of the threat, chose to pay for time.
Constans's Grand Strategy: Leif Inge Ree's research rehabilitates Constans II as a proactive emperor, not a passive failure. His strategy from 652-660 involved:
Securing the Eastern Flank: Campaigning in Armenia and the Caucasus to prevent a two-front war.
Rebuilding the Army: Using the truce to restore the military's strength.
Breaking the Treaty: Once prepared, ending the tributary status was a declaration that Rome was back on the offensive.
The Consequences: The breaking of the treaty in 652 led directly to the resumption of all-out war. Mu'awiya launched a new, massive combined land-and-sea campaign aimed at the conquest of Constantinople itself, which was only thwarted by a storm that destroyed the Arab fleet in 654, an event Sebeos attributes to divine intervention.
📜 The Treaty in the Wider Narrative
Perspective Interpretation of the Treaty 🏛️ Roman (Constans II) A necessary, temporary stratagem. A financial expedient to secure a crucial respite for military reorganization and strategic repositioning. The refusal to pay in 652 was an assertion of restored sovereignty. 🕌 Rashidun (Mu'awiya) A mark of supremacy. The Caliphate had forced the ancient Roman Empire into a tributary relationship, a powerful ideological and political victory. Its breaking was a casus belli. 🏰 Frankish (Fredegar) The ultimate symbol of humiliation. For a western audience, the image of the Roman Emperor paying daily gold to the Saracens was a shocking testament to the shifted world order.
| Perspective | Interpretation of the Treaty |
|---|---|
| 🏛️ Roman (Constans II) | A necessary, temporary stratagem. A financial expedient to secure a crucial respite for military reorganization and strategic repositioning. The refusal to pay in 652 was an assertion of restored sovereignty. |
| 🕌 Rashidun (Mu'awiya) | A mark of supremacy. The Caliphate had forced the ancient Roman Empire into a tributary relationship, a powerful ideological and political victory. Its breaking was a casus belli. |
| 🏰 Frankish (Fredegar) | The ultimate symbol of humiliation. For a western audience, the image of the Roman Emperor paying daily gold to the Saracens was a shocking testament to the shifted world order. |
✅ Conclusion: The Echo of a Shifted World Order
Fredegar’s brief note on the tribute is a tiny window into a monumental geopolitical shift. The payment of 1,000 solidi a day was more than just money; it was an admission that the Roman Empire could no longer defend its eastern provinces by force alone and had to negotiate from a position of weakness.
➡️ For historians, this treaty is a clear benchmark. It marks the point where the Caliphate transitioned from a regional power to a world empire capable of dictating terms to Constantinople. Constans II's eventual refusal to pay was a brave but desperate attempt to reverse this new reality, an effort that would define the brutal, decades-long struggle for survival that characterized his reign. The gold that flowed from Constantinople to Damascus for those three years was the price of a fleeting peace and the spark for the wars to come.
✅ Conclusion: The Chronicle as a Moral Lesson
For Fredegar and his 7th-century Frankish audience, the saga of the Eastern Roman Empire's collapse was not a distant geopolitical report; it was a compelling and terrifying cautionary tale. The rise of the Saracens served as a divine object lesson on the consequences of imperial sin.
➡️ Fredegar’s work is not merely a record of events; it is a theological interpretation of history. From the prophetic dream and the opening of the Caspian Gates to the "Sword of God" at Yarmuk and the final reduction of the empire to a tributary, every element is crafted to show God's hand at work, punishing the Romans for their sins. This narrative provided the Latin West with a framework for understanding the rise of Islam not as a random historical accident, but as a momentous event within a divine and moral plan.
🧭 Fredegar's Perception of Islam & the Saracens: A Summary
The table below distills Fredegar's complex narrative into his core perceptions.
Aspect of Perception Fredegar's Framing Underlying Message for Franks 🆔 Origin & Identity "Hagarenes" & "Saracens" — Biblically illegitimate descendants of the slave Hagar. A "circumcised" people. They are the scripturally prophesied "other," outside the covenant, defined by their non-Christian status. 🌍 Nature & Purpose An apocalyptic horde unleashed from behind Alexander's gates. A "sword of God" to punish the Romans. Their success is not their own but a divine scourge. They are instruments in a larger cosmic drama. ⚔️ Military Prowess Victory comes from divine intervention, not human skill. Vast, exaggerated numbers (150k, 200k). Roman defeat is due to God's withdrawal of favor, not military inferiority. A warning to remain in God's grace. 🎯 Theological Role Divine Chastisement. Their conquests are a direct punishment for Heraclius's heresy and moral failings. The health of the kingdom is directly tied to the orthodoxy and morality of its ruler. Sin leads to ruin.
| Aspect of Perception | Fredegar's Framing | Underlying Message for Franks |
|---|---|---|
| 🆔 Origin & Identity | "Hagarenes" & "Saracens" — Biblically illegitimate descendants of the slave Hagar. A "circumcised" people. | They are the scripturally prophesied "other," outside the covenant, defined by their non-Christian status. |
| 🌍 Nature & Purpose | An apocalyptic horde unleashed from behind Alexander's gates. A "sword of God" to punish the Romans. | Their success is not their own but a divine scourge. They are instruments in a larger cosmic drama. |
| ⚔️ Military Prowess | Victory comes from divine intervention, not human skill. Vast, exaggerated numbers (150k, 200k). | Roman defeat is due to God's withdrawal of favor, not military inferiority. A warning to remain in God's grace. |
| 🎯 Theological Role | Divine Chastisement. Their conquests are a direct punishment for Heraclius's heresy and moral failings. | The health of the kingdom is directly tied to the orthodoxy and morality of its ruler. Sin leads to ruin. |
➡️ The Narrative Arc of Divine Judgment
Fredegar structures his account as a tragic drama in five acts, each demonstrating a step in the divine punishment of the Roman Empire:
⚖️ The Sin: Heraclius, the once-great emperor, falls into heresy (Eutychianism) and moral corruption (incest).
👁️ The Warning: God sends a prophetic dream, revealing the coming of the "circumcised" conquerors.
🔓 The Desecration: In his desperation, Heraclius commits a sacrilegious act by opening the Caspian Gates, unleashing the eschatological hordes.
⚔️ The Punishment: The Roman army is not defeated but struck down by the "Sword of God" at Yarmuk, a clear act of divine judgment.
💰 The Humiliation: The empire is permanently diminished, forced to pay daily tribute to the very people it once dismissed.
⚖️ The Sin: Heraclius, the once-great emperor, falls into heresy (Eutychianism) and moral corruption (incest).
👁️ The Warning: God sends a prophetic dream, revealing the coming of the "circumcised" conquerors.
🔓 The Desecration: In his desperation, Heraclius commits a sacrilegious act by opening the Caspian Gates, unleashing the eschatological hordes.
⚔️ The Punishment: The Roman army is not defeated but struck down by the "Sword of God" at Yarmuk, a clear act of divine judgment.
💰 The Humiliation: The empire is permanently diminished, forced to pay daily tribute to the very people it once dismissed.
Fredegar’s chronicle provided its readers with a powerful and reassuring logic for a chaotic world. The loss of Roman Syria, Palestine, and Egypt was not a meaningless tragedy. It was a morality play on an imperial scale, a stark reminder that God's favor was conditional. For the rising kingdoms of the Latin West, like the Franks, the lesson was clear: orthodoxy, unity, and virtue were the essential bulwarks against the divine wrath that had shattered the ancient empire of the East.
🛡️ For the Franks, the story of the Saracens was, ultimately, a story about themselves and the kind of kingdom they must build to avoid a similar fate.
Fredegar’s chronicle provided its readers with a powerful and reassuring logic for a chaotic world. The loss of Roman Syria, Palestine, and Egypt was not a meaningless tragedy. It was a morality play on an imperial scale, a stark reminder that God's favor was conditional. For the rising kingdoms of the Latin West, like the Franks, the lesson was clear: orthodoxy, unity, and virtue were the essential bulwarks against the divine wrath that had shattered the ancient empire of the East.
🛡️ For the Franks, the story of the Saracens was, ultimately, a story about themselves and the kind of kingdom they must build to avoid a similar fate.
THE END
Works Cited
-
Primary Sources
al-Azdī. The Early Muslim Conquest of Syria: An English Translation of al-Azdī’s Futūḥ al-Shām. Translated and annotated by Hamada Hassanein and Jens Scheiner, Routledge, 2020.
al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā. Futūḥ al-Buldān [The Conquest of the Lands: A New Translation of al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-Buldān]. Translated and annotated by Hugh Kennedy, I.B. Tauris, 2022.
al-Dīnawarī, Aḥmad ibn Dāwūd. al-Akhbār al-Ṭiwāl [The Lengthy Reports]. Edited by ʿAbd al-Munʿim ʿĀmir, reviewed by Jamāl al-Dīn al-Shayyāl, Egyptian Ministry of Culture, 1960. Originally published by Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya.
al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ [The Biographies of the Noble Luminaries]. Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 2001. 24 vols.
al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Tārīkh al-Islām wa-Wafayāt al-Mashāhīr wa-al-Aʿlām [The History of Islam and the Deaths of the Famous and the Great]. Edited by ʿUmar ʿAbd al-Salām al-Tadmurī, 2nd ed., Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1993. 52 vols.
al-Khallāl, Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ. Tārīkh Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ [The History of Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ]. Edited by Akram Ḍiyāʾ al-ʿUmarī, 2nd ed., Dār al-Qalam & Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1977.
Harrak, Amir, translator. The Chronicle of Zuqnīn, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999. Mediaeval Sources in Translation, vol. 36.
Hoyland, Robert G., translator. 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.
Ibn al-Athīr, ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad. al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh [The Complete History]. Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1997. 10 vols.
Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī, Aḥmad. Kitāb al-Futūḥ [Book of Conquests]. Edited by ʿAlī Shīrī, Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1991.
Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUmar. al-Bidāyah wa-al-Nihāyah [The Beginning and the End]. Dār ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 2003. 20 vols.
Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-Yaʿqūbī. The Works of Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-Yaʿqūbī: An English Translation. Volume 1. Edited by Matthew S. Gordon, Chase F. Robinson, Everett K. Rowson, and Michael Fishbein, Brill, 2018.
Kaʿbī, Nasir Al, editor and translator. A Short Chronicle on the End of the Sasanian Empire and Early Islam: 590–660 A.D. Gorgias Press, 2016.
Palmer, Andrew, translator. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles. With translations and annotations by Sebastian Brock and historical commentary by Robert Hoyland, Liverpool University Press, 1993. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 15.
Penn, Michael Philip. Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.
———. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. University of California Press, 2015.
Thomson, R.W., translator. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated, with notes, by R.W. Thomson, historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, and assistance from Tim Greenwood, Liverpool University Press, 1999.
Turtledove, Harry, translator. The Chronicle of Theophanes: An English Translation of Anni Mundi 6095–6305 (A.D. 602–813), with Introduction and Notes. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., editor and translator. The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with its Continuations. Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1960.
Wolf, Kenneth Baxter, translator. Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain. 2nd ed., Liverpool University Press, 2011.
Yar-Shater, Ehsan, general editor. The History of al-Tabari. 40 vols., State University of New York Press, SUNY Series in Near Eastern Studies, edited by Said Amir Arjomand.
Secondary Sources
-
Anthony, Sean W. Muhammad and the Empires of Faith: The Making of the Prophet of Islam. University of California Press, 2020.
Crawford, Peter. The War of the Three Gods: Romans, Persians and the Rise of Islam. Pen and Sword Military, 2013.
Crone, Patricia. The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Donner, Fred McGraw. The Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press, 1981.
Eger, A. Asa, editor. The Archaeology of Medieval Islamic Frontiers: From the Mediterranean to the Caspian Sea. University Press of Colorado, 2019.
Görke, Andreas, and Gregor Schoeler. The Earliest Writings on the Life of Muḥammad: The ʿUrwa Corpus and the Non-Muslim Sources. Gerlach Press, 2024.
Grypeou, Emmanouela. "‘The Abomination of Desolation’: Eastern Christian Apocalyptic Literature and the Symbolic Construction of Islam." Collectanea Christiana Orientalia, vol. 20, 2023, pp. 57–71. Stockholm University.
Grypeou, Emmanouela, and Helen Spurling, editors. The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity: Encounters between Jewish and Christian Exegesis. Brill, 2013.
Harper, Kyle. The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. Princeton University Press, 2017.
Howard-Johnston, James. Witnesses to a World Crisis: Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Hoyland, Robert G. In God’s Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire. Oxford University Press, 2015.
———. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Darwin Press, 1997.
Hurvitz, Nimrod, Christian C. Sahner, Uriel Simonsohn, and Luke Yarbrough, editors. Conversion to Islam in the Premodern Age: A Sourcebook. University of California Press, 2020.
Kaegi, Walter E. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
King, Daniel, editor. The Syriac World. Routledge, 2019.
Little, Lester K., editor. Plague and the End of Antiquity: The Pandemic of 541–750. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Marsham, Andrew. Rituals of Islamic Monarchy: Accession and Succession in the First Muslim Empire. Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
———. The Umayyad Empire. Edinburgh University Press, 2024.
Petersen, Leif Inge Ree. Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400–800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam. Brill, 2013.
Pierre, Simon Victor, and María de los Ángeles Utrero Agudo, editors. From the Tigris to the Ebro: Church and Monastery Building under Early Islam. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), 2024.
Sahner, Christian C. Christian Martyrs under Islam: Religious Violence and the Making of the Muslim World. Princeton University Press, 2018.
Shaddel, Mehdy. “Periodisation and the Futūḥ: Making Sense of Muḥammad’s Leadership of the Conquests in Non-Muslim Sources.” Arabica, vol. 69, 2022, pp. 96–145. Brill.
Tolan, John, et al., editors. Jews in Early Christian Law: Byzantium and the Latin West, 6th-11th Centuries*. Brepols Publishers, 2014.
Wurtzel, Carl. Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History on the Umayyad Dynasty (660–750). Prepared for publication by Robert G. Hoyland, Liverpool University Press, 2015. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 63.
Comments
Post a Comment