Shifting Sands: Land Legislation and Imperial Strategy in the Macedonian Dynasty

By Conrad Goerl

The Byzantine Empire’s Macedonian emperors, particularly Romanos I Lekapenos, Constantine VII, Nikephoros II Phokas, and Basil II, employed land legislation not only as a means of social reform but as a strategic instrument that shifted in emphasis over time. From protecting the smallholder peasantry to managing the economic clout of the dynatoi (the powerful landed elite), these laws reveal the evolving priorities of Byzantine rulers in their approach to governance, religion, and social justice.

The Rise of the Dynatoi: Wealth and Power Consolidation

In the 10th century, the Byzantine Empire witnessed the rise of the dynatoi—aristocrats with extensive wealth and influence, often due to their acquisition of lands from struggling peasants. Romanos I Lekapenos, who famously described the dynatoi as “illustrious magistroi or patrikioi … any of the persons honored with offices, governorships, or civil or military dignities,” clearly recognized the broad and wealthy elite accumulating power within his empire. His reign marked a turning point as these wealthy elites and even ecclesiastical institutions began amassing lands previously owned by free peasants, a trend accelerated by a famine around 927 that further pushed peasants to sell off their lands. Romanos’s response to this socio-economic shift would set the tone for land legislation under his successors.

Romanos I: A Religious and Social Justification

Romanos’s laws were steeped in a rhetoric that invoked both religious duty and social justice, framing his reforms as a defense of the impoverished. He asserted that God had placed him on the throne to protect the poor, portraying his legislation as both a Christian duty and a moral obligation. His primary measure? A rule that mandated that land up for sale must first be offered to neighbors within the village, a move designed to protect small landholders from being edged out by powerful buyers. However, the law stopped short of banning land sales outright, which hints at a more nuanced concern for preserving the village economy and protecting the Empire’s tax base rather than strictly policing land transactions.

The next key provision addressed the dynatoi directly: transactions were to be reversed, and land was to be returned to original owners or neighboring villagers. Romanos’s legislation thus aimed to restore the social equilibrium disrupted by famine and to prevent further disintegration of the rural tax base and military levy system that depended on small landholders. His concerns were not only economic but also military, rooted in the protection of the Stratiotika Ktemata—military lands assigned to soldiers, which enabled them to sustain themselves and maintain military readiness.

Nikephoros II Phokas: Prioritizing Military Stability

As the dynatoi continued to grow in influence, Romanos’s successors adapted the legislation to reflect new priorities. Nikephoros II Phokas, an emperor with a military background, sharpened the focus on preserving soldiers’ lands, enacting restrictions on land ownership specifically designed to ensure that soldiers retained enough land to sustain their military obligations. Nikephoros, deeply conscious of the strategic importance of the Empire’s military resources, raised the minimum size of landholdings for soldiers and further restricted monasteries from acquiring such lands.

Nikephoros also introduced a pragmatic solution to the issue of land seized by the dynatoi: they could retain lands acquired during crises if they paid twice the original value. This provision may be seen as either a concession to the dynatoi’s influence or a calculated compromise to preserve improvements made to the land under their stewardship while still discouraging aggressive land acquisition.

Basil II: A Relentless Pursuit of Elite Landholdings

Basil II, known for his assertive stance on the aristocracy, adopted an even more rigorous approach toward the dynatoi. While he may have repealed some of Nikephoros’s restrictions on monasteries (a matter still debated), his policies were unambiguously hostile toward the elite landholders. Basil abolished the forty-year statute of limitations for reclaiming land, demanding extensive documentation to validate dynatoi landholdings, with some requirements tracing ownership claims as far back as the time of Augustus. By doing so, he essentially granted himself a tool to repossess land as he saw fit.

Basil’s approach to land legislation wasn’t merely theoretical; he actively enforced it in dramatic displays of imperial power. In one case, upon discovering a once-poor villager who had amassed substantial property in his village, Basil confiscated his holdings, reverting him to his original station. Basil’s actions can be interpreted as a culmination of a life spent under the watchful eye of the aristocratic elite, some of whom, like Bardas Skleros, had even rebelled against him. His legislation reflected a profound skepticism of the dynatoi and a desire to curb their influence decisively.

A Shifting Framework: Legislation as Reflection of Imperial Priorities

From Romanos to Basil, each emperor’s approach to land legislation reveals their underlying priorities and political strategies. Romanos’s policies emphasized protecting the poor and upholding Christian ideals, yet were couched in a rhetoric that underscored economic and military stability. Under Nikephoros, the emphasis shifted to sustaining military assets, with a recognition of the pragmatism necessary for enforcing such laws. By Basil’s time, the focus had evolved into a pointed campaign against the dynatoi, as his legislation grew more stringent and symbolic of his personal distrust of the elite.

Throughout these reigns, the emperors consistently framed their laws as acts of charity and religious devotion. But beneath this altruistic façade lay a complex blend of economic pragmatism, military strategy, and a desire to consolidate imperial power. These land laws reveal much about the Byzantine Empire’s internal struggles and shifting imperial values, encapsulating an era where social reform was as much a matter of power dynamics as of religious conviction.

In conclusion, the land legislation of the Macedonian emperors offers a compelling lens into Byzantine priorities, highlighting how concerns for the rural poor, military readiness, and aristocratic power intertwined in a delicate dance of policy, faith, and imperial will.