eugyppius

OK. Now to sources. This is the tweet, way down here, where I give away all my secrets and remove all your reasons for my thread, and indeed for reading any other histories of seventh century Byzantium.

Because the major narrative sources for this period exist in excellent English translations and you can read them yourself and develop your own ideas. In my fantasy of how this thread develops, some of you even go to library, look things up, pick a fight with me. Maybe we do that

Historians, a strange dusty breed of scholar, mainly depend on narrative sources to develop a basic political/chronological frame, upon which they then hang the evidence of other non-narrative sources, be they numismatic, documentary, archaeological.

For 7th century Byzantium, we have (only) two major narrative sources, that is, things that actually try to relate the history of political events as they occurred.

Both date to the 9th century. That is, they are substantially *later* than the events they describe. What is moar, the manuscripts that transmit them are even later.

Also keep this in mind going forward, when we begin to probe the boundaries of what might possibly be true about 7th century history (as opposed to the boring stuff we are fed in Wikipaedia-adjacent pseudo-oracles).

The first and most important is the Chronographia, or Chronicle, of Theophanes the Confessor. Available to everybody in excellent English translation: Mango & Scott, Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Oxford 1997.