112 | CHAPTER 4
by the empire’s Mediterranean base, could open much more directly and self-
confidently eastward. Viewed from the Constantinopolitan perspective of
Justinian or Süleyman the Magnificent exactly a millennium later, whoever
possessed Asia Minor was in a position to dominate or influence, culturally if
not politically, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean but also the Black
Sea, the Caucasus, the Caspian and Syro- Mesopotamia, the Persian Gulf,
Arabia, the Red Sea, and even the Indian Ocean. From roughly the same
vantage point, the same horizons have now been revived by Turkey’s neo-
Ottomanist Foreign Minister (2009–), Ahmet Davutoǧlu, whose book Stra-
tegic depth (2001) pays considerable attention to the historical as well as geo-
graphical factors that influence strateg y.^69
The theological and ecclesiastical crisis provoked by the Council of Chal-
cedon in 451 saw a strong anti- Chalcedonian movement emerge both in the
Mountain Arena (Arabia, Palestine, Alexandria, Syria, Armenia) and beyond
(Asia Minor as far as Constantinople)^70 by the early sixth century, and severe
imperial repression of it. Our most useful source, the anti- Chalcedonian Ec-
clesiastical history by John of Ephesus (d. c. 588), emphasizes the role played
by the Jafnid (Ghassanid) Arab dynasty in Syria—perhaps suggesting more of
a political hypostasis than the movement really possessed,^71 though beyond
the Roman frontier the kings of Aksum (Ethiopia) too were not unwilling to
be called upon. On the theological front one of the leading anti- Chalcedonian
missionaries, Simeon of Beth- Arsham (d. c. 540) “the invincible demon, the
debater” as his opponents called him,^72 extracted statements of belief from
the communities he tirelessly visited on both sides of the Sasanian- Roman
frontier, and kept them together on “great linen cloths” specially treated to
preserve them. “Above the [statement of ] belief he affixed the seals of the king
of that people and of the bishops of the same and of their chief men in lead
upon these cloths, and thus confirmed it,” lest anyone make alterations.^73
69 A. Davutoǧlu, Stratejik derinlik: Türkiye’nin uluslararası konumu (Istanbul 2001), tr. (Greek:
the version used here) N. Raptopoulos, Το στρατηγικό βάθος: Η διεθνής θέση της Τουρκίας (Αthens 2010)
193, 240, 253–54, 281, 335.
70 List of regions affected: John of Ephesus, Lives of the eastern saints [ed. and tr. E. W. Brooks in
R. Graffin and F. Nau (eds), Patrologia orientalis (Paris 1907–) 17–19 (Paris 1923–26)] 50, p. 500. N. J.
Andrade, “The Syriac Life of John of Tella and the frontier politeia,” Hugoye 12 (2009) 199–234, discusses
the application of the term “politeia” to anti- Chalcedonian clerical and ascetic networks.
71 John of Ephesus’s line is adopted with gusto by I. Shahîd in his account of the Ghassanid phyl-
archate: Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century (Washington, D.C. 1995–2009) 1.398–406, 587–
89, 774, 838, 859–60. If to one critic my East Roman Commonwealth seemed too much like a preview of
the Muslim world (P. Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (451–491) [Rome 2006] 88 n. 405), my
attention to John’s testimony is perhaps to blame.
72 John of Ephesus, Lives of the eastern saints [4:70] 10, p. 144. On Simeon, see A. Grillmeier, Jesus
der Christus im Glauben der Kirche (Freiburg 1979–2002; 1^3 , 1990; 2/1^2 , 1986) 2/3.263–65, 276–78 (T.
Hainthaler), 2/4.315–16.
73 John of Ephesus, Lives of the eastern saints [4:70] 10, p. 156. Public display of late Roman impe-
rial pronouncements on linen cloths: Theodosian code [ed. P. Krueger and T. Mommsen (Berlin 1905); tr.
C. Pharr (Princeton 1952)] 11.27.1. The Romans and before them the Etruscans had long used linen for