Draft:Racing factions

Four teams on the circus arena. Roman mosaic, France

Hippodrome factions, also known as circus factions or simply factions (partes, factiones, δῆμοι, μοιραι), were associations of spectators and residents of the Roman Empire, and later Byzantium, centered around teams participating in various athletic competitions and gladiatorial combats, and later in chariot races. The emergence of hippodrome factions dates back to the Principate era, when they were primarily athletic associations. During the period of Late Antiquity, with the decline of urban self-governance, the factions took on responsibilities for organizing spectacles. The factions further evolved in later periods, becoming one of the main social forces in Constantinople and other major Byzantine cities.

Traditionally, factions were associated with the colors under which their charioteers competed. The green and blue factions were the primary ones, exercising patronage over the "red" and "white" factions, respectively. The factions were responsible for preparing athletes and organizing the entertainment aspects of circus performances. During the Roman Empire, emperors often favored the greens, while emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire typically supported the blues. In the context of Byzantine sources, the blues are more commonly referred to as the Veneti, and the greens as the Prasini. The peak of the factions' influence is considered to be from the early 5th century to the mid-6th century, culminating during the reign of Emperor Justinian I (527–565), when the factions were actively involved in a series of major disturbances across the empire's cities, the most significant of which was the large-scale Nika revolt (532). By the end of the 7th century, the factions had lost their political influence, but they retained ceremonial functions for a considerable time. The treatise On Ceremonies (10th century) describes various ceremonial processions and festive events involving the factions. The most important of these ceremonies were the imperial coronations, in which the factions participated, starting with the coronation of Justin I in 518.

Although references to hippodrome factions are extremely numerous in Byzantine historiography, particularly in early Byzantine historiography, no source specifically addresses this subject in detail. As a result, there is currently no universally accepted theory regarding the origin and functioning of hippodrome factions in Byzantium. The main point of debate is whether the factions had a political role or were solely athletic associations with additional societal functions. The "athletic" theory was proposed in the 19th century by Alfred Rambaud and developed by modern Byzantinist Alan Cameron. The "political" theory was supported by Russian historians Fyodor Ivanovich Uspensky, Alexander Petrovich Dyakonov, and many others, while in the West, it is associated with the name of G. Manojlović. A closely related issue to understanding the significance of hippodrome factions is the interpretation of the terminology used in sources from that period, particularly terms designating the "people," circus factions, and similar concepts. Significant historiographical discussions focus on the terms δῆμος and δῆμοι, which broadly refer to the "people" or "specific groups of people". According to the "factional" theory, supported to varying degrees by Charles Du Cange, Edward Gibbon, Sophocles, G. Manojlović, Gheorghe I. Brătianu, Mikhail Yakovlevich Syuzyumov, and John Fine, these terms also referred to circus factions. Other scholars, including Fyodor Ivanovich Uspensky, Alexander Petrovich Dyakonov, Georgy Lvovich Kurbatov, and Alan Cameron, deny such a connection.

Historiography

Main rheories

Horses of Saint Mark – a sculptural group from the 4th century BC by the great ancient Greek sculptor Lysippos, which adorned the Constantinople Hippodrome for many centuries

Chariot races on the Diptych of the Lampadii, early 5th century

Byzantium, viewing itself as a continuation of the Roman Empire, retained all its institutions, but their meaning often differed from the original. Since the Renaissance, the prevailing view was that the Byzantine period of the Roman Empire's history was a time of decline and decay. This perspective was reflected in Edward Gibbon's famous The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "Constantinople adopted not the virtues of ancient Rome, but its follies, and the same factions that agitated the circus raged with redoubled fury in the hippodrome".^[1] However, Gibbon did not delve deeper into this issue in his work. Some attention to hippodrome factions was given by early Byzantinists, with significant remarks made in 1711 by the Benedictine historian Anselmo Banduri. The first to attempt a serious study of the factions was the German historian Friedrich Wilken. Conducting an extensive analysis of information on the emergence and role of factions in the Roman Empire and Byzantium, he introduced all the main sources later used by subsequent generations of scholars. However, he analyzed only the external manifestations of faction activity, without perceiving any political underpinnings.^[2] This viewpoint dominated until the end of the 19th century, and leading Byzantinists of the 18th–19th centuries, Ludwig Friedländer and Alfred Rambaud (De byzantino Hippodromo et circensibus factionibus, 1870), denied any connection between circus factions and political movements, arguing that the rivalry between the Veneti and Prasini had no socio-political basis and that their activity began and ended at the hippodrome.^[3][4]

Alternative viewpoints existed as well. For instance, Ioannis Zambelios compared the struggle between the green and blue factions in Constantinople to the conflict between Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy, suggesting that the blues were supporters of Roman monarchism and defenders of imperial authority, while the greens were opponents of any foreign rule, true patriots, and advocates of democratic principles. The issue of factions was also considered from the perspective of Christian denominational struggles, with claims that the blues always supported the dominant religion, defended the Church's interests and its political independence, while the greens sympathized with heretical emperors, not fully abandoning pagan traditions.^[5] This "mechanistic" theory, which established continuity between liberal greens, iconoclasts, and later Orthodox Christians, was criticized in 1880 by Fyodor Afanasyevich Kurganov, though he did not propose his own theory.^[6]

A new perspective emerged in the 1894 work by Fyodor Ivanovich Uspensky —Circus Parties and Demes in Constantinople— which demonstrated that circus factions were not merely athletic organizations but also had civic and military functions, representing organizations of the people.^[7] Uspensky was also the first to propose, with many supporters, that Byzantine demes were continuations of the demes known from 4th-century BC Athens.^[8] Uspensky's main points served as the foundation for an article by the Serbo-Croatian scholar G. Manojlović, published in 1904 and gaining prominence after its re-publication in French in 1936. Manojlović argued that factions were genuine people's parties and that color differences were rooted in class distinctions.^[9][10] His work established a connection between factions and the territorial (by city quarters) and property-based divisions of Byzantine society. The blue faction was associated with the upper classes—landowning aristocracy—while the greens were linked to merchants and industrialists. There were also differences in religious preferences.^[11] Although later studies showed that such distinctions were not always clear-cut and were often violated, this view of the factions' political sympathies generally persisted^[4]. According to the French historian Évelyne Patlagean, Manojlović's ideas became the foundation for all subsequent research.^[12] In Soviet historiography, the theory linking circus factions to popular movements was developed in the 1930s–1940s by Mitrofan Vasilyevich Levchenko and Alexander Petrovich Diakonov. Dyakonov's posthumously published article, "Византийские димы и факции (τα μέρη) в V—VII вв." (1945), significantly influenced the development of the issue and gained widespread recognition. In the USSR in the mid-1950s, it sparked a debate about the role of factions in the political struggles of Byzantine city dwellers. Levchenko and Nina Viktorovna Pigulevskaya defended the progressive nature of the factions, while Mikhail Yakovlevich Syuzyumov proposed that city dwellers in the 4th–6th centuries defended slave-owning structures. In subsequent works by Zinaida Vladimirovna Udaltsova, Georgy Lvovich Kurbatov, and Syuzyumov, a concept of periodization of socio-political struggles in early Byzantium was formulated.^[13]

The main objections to viewing demes as distinct from circus factions were articulated in the 1976 monograph by British researcher Alan Cameron, Circus factions: blues and greens at Rome and Byzantium. Building on the concept of A.H.M. Jones, he rejected the distinction between the terms δῆμοι and δῆμος, arguing that the difference between them is linguistic and arose due to the evolution of Greek Koine. The primary meaning of these terms is closer to "mob," referring to relatively small groups of the population—sports fan clubs numbering a few hundred people. Accordingly, Cameron believed that demes should be viewed as associations of sports fans, and their activities, even major events like the Nika revolt, were nothing more than acts of vandalism. Thus, attempts at social analysis of demes are meaningless.^[14][15] Cameron's arguments were found convincing by many researchers, though some questions, particularly the reasons why faction activity was limited to the mid-5th to early 7th centuries, remained insufficiently clarified. Hopes of British Byzantinist Cyril Mango that Cameron's book would spark lively debates were not realized.^[16][17] In 1997, Russian researcher Aleksandra Alekseyevna Chekalova noted that, due to selective use of sources, Cameron mistakenly equates demes with their most active component—the stasiotai.^[18] Cameron's views were criticized by British historian Peter Bell in his monograph on social conflicts during the era of Justinian I. According to Bell, Cameron's philological approach prevented him from thoroughly analyzing the factions' significance beyond the hippodrome. While rightly rejecting Manojlović's thesis about long-term factional sympathies, Cameron overlooked their role as representatives of popular aspirations communicating directly with the emperor, as noted by Rambaud in the 19th century.^[19]

Terminological disputes

Late Roman mosaic from the 4th century depicting a two-horse chariot and riders in colored garments. Basilica of Junius Bassus

A problem closely related to understanding the significance of hippodrome factions is the interpretation of the terminology used in sources from that period, particularly those designating the people, circus factions, and so forth. Significant historiographical discussions focus on the term δῆμος and its plural form δῆμοι, broadly meaning "people" or "specific groups of people." According to the pioneer of Byzantinology Charles Du Cange, δῆμοι meant factiones agitatorum, and δήμαρχος referred to "factionum princeps," or "faction leader." His interpretation was questioned in the late 19th century by Fyodor Ivanovich Uspensky, who noted the semantic heterogeneity of the term.^[20] According to Uspensky, alongside another term used in similar contexts, τἁ μέρη, δῆμοι should be understood as "the entire city population organized by demes," i.e., factions.^[21] G. Manojlović, agreeing with this identification, recognizes δῆμος as having, in a narrow sense, the meaning of a circus faction and, in an even narrower sense, units of urban militia.^[22] Soviet historian Alexander Petrovich Diakonov notes that the presence in sources of expressions like οἰ δῆμοι τοῦ πρασίνου μέρρους ("demes of the Prasini faction") indicates that these concepts were distinct. Byzantine demes, like the demes of Attica and Roman times, were organizations of specific city quarters or districts. They performed certain economic and political functions, maintained order and amenities in their quarter, and typically united people of the same profession who lived nearby. Collectively, they claimed the role of a city popular assembly. Their gathering place and expression of their desires was usually the city circus or hippodrome, which, as in Ancient Rome, was a favorite place of entertainment for the masses in Constantinople and other major cities of the empire.^[23] Soviet Byzantinist Nina Viktorovna Pigulevskaya analyzed terms used for the masses in an anonymous military treatise from the second half of the 6th century and concluded that the words δῆμος and δῆμοι were linked to "that new form of population organization known as demes." In the same source, when examining various groups of the urban population in terms of their utility, it distinguishes estates (μέρη, singular μέρος, "part" or "share"), highlighting among them the "theatrical estate" of charioteers, actors, and musicians necessary for celebrating coronations. The anonymous author calls them idlers who should be employed in something useful for the state. According to Pigulevskaya, the term μέρη indicates a division of the population by another principle, namely estates led by demarchs.^[24]

According to A. Cameron, the Latin word factio and its derivatives referred to professional race participants, not spectators. Moving to Byzantium, the historian notes that there was no direct equivalent to "factional" terms in Greek, and the early historiographical identification with μέρος is incorrect, as the Greek term applies to both professionals and spectators. Moreover, conflating the precise technical meaning of the Latin word with the rather vague Greek term leads to semantic confusion.^[25] Subsequent attempts were made to clarify the exact meaning of this group of terms using fragments of specific texts. For example, Canadian historian Athanasios Fotiou analyzed an anonymous dialogue from the first half of the 6th century, On Political Science (Περί πολιτικῆς ἐπιςτήμης). One of its chapters discusses the destructive role played by the struggle between supporters of different colors in cities. In the dialogue, δῆμος is characterized as a large social stratum (tagma, τάγμα), consisting mainly of youth. The author claims that the demos, divided into μέρη, fights against each other and against the rest of the polis. According to Fotiou, this source supports Cameron's conclusions.^[26][27] Some historians suggest that the use of terms denoting the people reflects not an objective socio-historical category but rather the subjective perspective of individual authors. For instance, T. Gregory, based on the historian Zosimus, found no basis for equating the "demotai" (δημοτικοί) mentioned in connection with disturbances in Constantinople in the early 5th century with circus faction members.^[28][29]

Another term used by ancient authors in the context of faction activity is stasiotai (στασιῶται). A. Cameron considers it undeniable that they represented a distinctive segment of urban youth. Their provocative hairstyles and clothing were described by Procopius in his Secret History.^[30] According to Cameron, the stasiotai had no particular factional loyalties and were distinguished from other fans solely by their age.^[31] In contrast, Aleksandra Alekseyevna Chekalova sees the stasiotai as the most active, militarized component of the factions.^[32]

Origin of factions and their names

Ancient Roman mosaic depicting the winner of a race from the "red" faction

Main article: Chariot racing

During the early period of the Principate, individuals known as Latin: domini factiotum existed, who provided services for race organizers, such as hiring horses, selecting personnel, and securing necessary equipment. In practice, agonothetes could not organize games without them. After Nero increased the number of prizes and, consequently, races, domini began refusing to hire teams for less than a full day.^[33] Under these conditions, maintaining teams that did not win imperial prizes became unprofitable, and small entrepreneurs ceased their activities. The domini, not the charioteers, were the primary force in their organizations. They were the ones capable of resolving conflicts. Suetonius recounts that when Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, Nero's father, refused to pay a winner, only a complaint lodged by the chariot owners forced him to relent.^[34][35] By the 4th century, the organization of games was taken away from private individuals and became the prerogative of emperors, as were gladiatorial games. In provinces where the emperor could not personally organize games, festivities were tied to the imperial cult.

Martial, XI, XXXIII

The palm of victory, even after Nero's death, the "green" faction
Took, and more victorious prizes fell to its share.
Will you say, spiteful envier, that you yielded to Nero?
But the "green" came first—not Nero at all.

This ensured that no one could receive the peoples gratitude except the emperor. A series of laws secured the imperial monopoly on the best horses. A law addressed to the prefect of Rome in 381 mandated that all winning horses be handed over to the city's residents, which ultimately undermined the financial incentive for private agonothetes.^[36] In 401, the senator Quintus Aurelius Symmachus could only find horses for games organized by his son in Spain.^[37] Although the domini lost commercial interest in organizing games, they retained the responsibility of overseeing stables and training teams, which included, in addition to the charioteers themselves, a large number of support staff. In this capacity, they were called Latin: factionarius.^[38] The origin of the faction names is not precisely known. The first mention of circus factions dates to 70 CE and is attributed to Pliny the Elder.^[39] The early Christian apologist Tertullian in his treatise claims that initially there were two teams, "white" and "red," dedicated to winter and summer, respectively. However, later, "due to increased luxury and the spread of superstitions," the "red" faction was dedicated to Mars, and the "white" to Zephyrus. He also mentions the "green" faction, dedicated to Mother Earth or spring, and the "blue" faction, dedicated to the sea and sky or autumn.^[40] Emperor Domitian, who initiated many short-lived reforms, created two new teams, "purple" and "gold."^[41] Sixth-century sources, the chronicle of John Malalas and the dependent Paschal Chronicle, propose a version similar to Tertullian's view. According to them, the circus factions represent the Solar System and correspond to the four elements—earth, water, fire, and air. These elements are metaphorically associated with the four circus factions.^[42]

• Series of mosaics depicting the best charioteers of the four factions. First half of the 3rd century, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme
• 
  Charioteer of the "red" faction
• 
  Charioteer of the "white" faction
• 
  Charioteer of the "blue" faction
• 
  Charioteer of the "green" faction

Mosaic depicting a chariot, Tunisia, 4th century

The largest racing clubs began to form under Nero, who was an avid fan of chariot racing. The emperor was skilled at driving a chariot and even won a race at the Olympic Games, competing for the "green" faction.^[43] Caligula, also a supporter of the "green" faction, once gifted a charioteer 2 million sesterces.^[44] Other Roman rulers' preferences are also known—Vitellius supported the "blue" faction, while Elagabalus and Lucius Verus favored the "green." Numerous references to emperors' support for circus factions are found in Dio Cassius.^[45][46] In Greece, no phenomenon analogous to Roman circus factions is known, but the tendency of Hellenes toward internal conflicts was frequently noted by Roman historians. For instance, Herodian, describing the disputes that arose in the Anatolian provinces following Septimius Severus's victory over Pescennius Niger, makes the following generalization: "… and this was not due to any enmity or, conversely, loyalty to the warring emperors, but out of jealousy, envy, hatred toward each other, and a desire to destroy their own compatriots. This is an ancient affliction of the Hellenes, who, constantly in conflict and striving to eliminate those who seemed to stand out, ruined Greece".^[47][48]

The expenses for circus spectacles in the provinces were borne by curiae, wealthy individuals, and magistrates; in Constantinople, they were covered by consuls, praetors, nobles, and the emperor himself. However, event organizers could not repeatedly acquire the complex equipment needed. For this purpose, as in Rome, specialized organizations existed that took on contracts to arrange games; each had its own treasuries, menageries, permanent staff of charioteers, and actors. These organizations, also called demes, were distinguished by the conventional colors of the charioteers' clothing, such as veneti ("blue"), prasini ("green"), leuki ("white"), and russii ("red"). Each aimed to outdo its rivals in performances and win horse races. These formed the organizational units around which, according to their sympathies, the demes gathered, evolving into broader self-governing organizations—both civic and military, akin to political parties. In Constantinople, where the Roman Empire's capital was moved in 330, the factions retained a district-based division: the veneti settled in quarters along the main street Mese and the Pittakion district, while the prasini lived in the Mesentiolos quarter.^[49]

During Late Antiquity, with the cessation of athletic games and gladiatorial combats, entertainment events lost their former scale and variety. Theatrical performances and chariot races persisted and became the primary entertainment in major cities. With the decline of local self-government in cities, the responsibility for organizing performances shifted from decurions to the factions, which transformed into large organizations providing the necessary personnel, animals, and equipment for spectacles. The funding for these factions' activities came primarily from collected taxes, effectively from the emperor. As a result, in the words of British classicist, the organization of performances was "imperialized".^[50] By the 5th century, only the "blue" and "green" factions retained significant influence.^[51] The "white" and "red" factions did not disappear and are known to have participated in competitions at least until the 12th century. They are also mentioned in a detailed description of ceremonies associated with the hippodrome in Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus's treatise On Ceremonies.^[52] Also from the 5th century, the traditional faction colors spread to organizers of spectacles in theaters and amphitheaters. For example, Procopius recounts that the father of the future empress Theodora was a bear-keeper for the prasini.^[53] At that time, administrative duties for organizing games were transferred to special imperial officials, known as actuarii thymelae et equorum currilium, and from the 10th century, to one of the treasury's domestics.^[54]

Factions as a source of urban unrest and violence

Causes of the factions' destructiveness

Base of the Obelisk of Theodosius from the Constantinople Hippodrome: the emperor prepares to crown the winner with a laurel wreath, with the stands filled with spectators (4th century)

According to A. P. Dyakonov, the populace in early Byzantium, alongside the Senate and the army, was one of the main societal forces and had significant opportunities to participate in resolving major political issues, not only through uprisings but also in "constitutional forms" such as "euphemia," "requests," or "supplications".^[55] This thesis sparked significant debate; some Byzantinists sharply criticized it (N. V. Pigulevskaya, G. Seidler, S. Winkler), while others supported and developed it (H.-G. Beck, G. Dagron,). Numerous examples in the sources demonstrate the importance of the populace's expressed consent or dissent through acclamations. This situation arose during the social changes of the 4th century, when the traditional municipal aristocracy, which also served as the cultural elite, was overshadowed by a new military-administrative nobility. In the course of struggles between these groups, which often took place in traditional public gathering places such as the theater and the hippodrome and frequently assumed sharp forms, each side sought to enlist and utilize the masses for their own interests. To this end, claquers were bribed to shout political demands, criticisms, or praises directed at officials during large gatherings. Typically, such shouts were prepared in advance and crafted into short, rhythmic phrases that the crowd could easily pick up and indeed did so if they approved. This form of communication, an example of which has survived in the so-called Acts concerning Kallopodios,^{[Notes 1]} was how the populace interacted with the emperor before the Nika revolt in 532. To regulate this form of political struggle, Emperor Constantine the Great issued an edict on acclamations in 331, allowing the praise of just rulers and condemnation of unjust ones so that the emperor could reward or punish accordingly. On the other hand, praetorian prefects were tasked with ensuring that these exclamations were not instigated by clients' shouts.^[56] Groups of claquers included not only the unemployed and vagrants but also affluent young people from noble families.^[50]

One of the statues of Porphyrius, depicting a chariot from the front. Istanbul Museum

Starting with F. I. Uspensky, followed by the works of G. Manojlovich and A. P. Dyakonov, and later in Marxist historiography, the idea of social causes for the antagonism between factions developed. According to the framework established in Soviet historiography, the antagonism between the municipal and military-administrative nobility lost its intensity when, by the 5th century, the service nobility and the traditional aristocracy merged into a single class. Subsequently, conflicts between the aristocracy and the commercial-usurious elite came to the forefront, manifesting in economic, political, and religious spheres.^[57] There was also opposition to the central government from provincial large landowners, driven by administrative and tax pressures from Constantinople. Amid the growing role of ecclesiastical structures and trade-craft corporations in large and small cities, the decline of polis political forms, and the development of acclamations, the expression of discontent, according to A. S. Kozlov, took the form of struggles for "purity of faith" and circus factions.^[58] Through acclamations, the populace could appeal to officials and rulers against the curia, while the administrative apparatus, established by the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine, could exploit the contradictions between the curia and the demos for its own interests. Political life, which became increasingly active around spectacles in the 4th century, was not confined to sports arenas. Personal discreditation of opponents, gathering compromising information, political espionage, spreading slanderous rumors, and accusations of treason or engaging in magic became the most common tactics of struggle. G. L. Kurbatov highlighted the importance of a 426 law that granted permanent city residents the right to participate in socio-political life, which was realized through faction struggles.^[59]

Soviet historians emphasized the importance of both religious and economic factors in the dynamics of popular sympathies. In a series of articles published in the 1980s, A. S. Kozlov linked 5th-century emperors to various power-adjacent groups. For instance, the leadership of the Theodosius II-supported prasini (408–450), according to Kozlov's analysis, reflected the interests of commercial-industrial circles and the "pro-Egyptian" faction of the capital's nobility. During the reign of Marcian (450–457), who favored the veneti and whose election may have been influenced by the factions, taxes on large senatorial landholdings were reduced, and the aristocracy's expenses related to the costly praetor function were alleviated. However, the historian notes that the influence of imperial faction sympathies should not be overstated, as the tax policy changes under Marcian occurred amid a shifting foreign policy landscape and reduced religious tensions. The Hunnic threat on the borders diminished, allowing the government to ease tax pressures on senators by abolishing the Latin: follis senatorius, an annual tax on senators introduced by Constantine.^[60]

Significant efforts to refute theories about religious, social, or regional factors were made by Alan Cameron, who, using extensive historical material, argued that the causes of factional clashes were purely sporting in nature.^[61][62] According to A. Fotiou, the accounts of Procopius of Caesarea and John Malalas support Cameron's theory. Consequently, a common analogy in modern literature compares hippodrome factions to modern football hooligans.^[63][64]

From an economic perspective, the participation of factions in urban unrest was analyzed by Évelyne Patlagean. In her work Economic and Social Poverty in Byzantium, 4th–7th Centuries, published almost simultaneously with Cameron's book, she rejected the interpretation of factions as "vulgar sporting contests," as proposed by Alfred Rambaud, in favor of G. Manojlovich's social theory.^[12]

Main events

Diagram of the Constantinople Hippodrome. The green and blue dots mark the locations of statues of the famous charioteer Porphyrius the Charioteer, erected by the respective factions

From the mid-5th century to the early 7th century, large cities of the empire regularly suffered from outbreaks of violence provoked by groups associated with organizing entertainment. There are various opinions regarding the causes of such events. One of the first initiatives of Justinian I after his appointment as co-emperor on April 1, 527, was a ban on riots involving stone-throwing and murders. According to the Easter Chronicle, this resulted in fear and peace in all provinces, though it did not prevent the powerful Nika revolt in January 532 in the capital or a series of disturbances in the 550s and 560s. The Antiochene Evagrius Scholasticus, who lived in Constantinople during those years, linked the causes of the riots to the emperor's favoritism toward the Blue faction, whose members "in broad daylight and in the city itself killed those belonging to the opposing faction, and the murderers not only feared no punishment but even received rewards, which led to their proliferation. They could attack homes, rob valuables within them, and sell people their safety for a price".^[65] The author of the surviving fragmentary dialogue On Political Order struggled to pinpoint the reason why "a group of people who gained power" directed their energy toward destructive ends but did not consider color distinctions to be the cause. The root of the evil, the dialogue's author suggests, lies in poor upbringing and idleness. In his view, the struggle of the demes was akin to a natural disaster that would cease in a more favorable era.

During the turbulent period of the Isaurian dynasty, the number of riots involving circus factions increased. The demes supported the usurper Basiliscus (475–476) at the start of his brief reign, and conflicts between the "blues" and "greens" are mentioned by historians in accounts of the Samaritan uprising in the 480s.^[66] The reign of Anastasius I, a supporter of the "reds" (491–518), was marked by struggles between the Blues and Greens.^[67] In 491, major riots broke out in Constantinople, described by Marcellinus Comes as a "plebeian war," which began at the hippodrome in the emperor's presence. Sparked by the cancellation of spectacles in the capital, the uprising had deeper causes — a tense political situation surrounding the election of a new emperor inclined to make concessions to Monophysites, compounded by discontent among the Isaurian nobility, which had lost its privileges. In 498, the Greens initiated new riots, which, though brutally suppressed, led to the abolition of the main trade and craft tax, the chrysargyron.^[68] Riots often began over relatively minor incidents — a fight between supporters of different factions or the authorities' refusal to release a member of one faction arrested for improper behavior. Subsequent attempts to punish the instigators escalated the conflict and drew in other citizens.^[69]

In historiography, it is common to link factional divisions with religious divisions. This connection developed naturally: the old aristocracy, primarily residing in the West and the capital, adhered mainly to Christian Orthodoxy, while the commercial-industrial group, dominated by eastern elements, leaned toward Monophysitism and other non-orthodox teachings. This division, of course, was not absolute. For example, John Malalas reports that in 533, a crowd gathered at the Forum of Constantine demanded the burning of the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. During the reign of Justin I (518–527), an active segment of the factions, known as stasiotai, emerged. Procopius of Caesarea in his Secret History recounts that Justinian, openly favoring the Blues and encouraging them, caused significant changes in their traditional behavior. The Blue stasiotai introduced new fashion in hairstyles and clothing, not only zealously supporting their teams at the hippodrome but also attacking passersby at night, engaging in robberies and murders. Feeling complete impunity, they feared no judges, who were afraid for their own lives, and forced creditors to return debt notes.^[70] Justinian's wife, Theodora, is believed to have sympathized with the Greens and Monophysites, thereby balancing the factions.^[71] It was during Justinian's reign that the largest Nika riots occurred, beginning as disturbances at the hippodrome.

By the mid-6th century, there were numerous reports of deme riots. In 547 and 549, major clashes occurred between the Blues and Greens, and in the famine-stricken year of 556, both factions jointly demanded bread from the emperor. In both cases, the demes acted together.^[72] Factional activity remained high after Justinian's death. Under his successor Justin II, hostile actions reached such a scale that the emperor was forced to issue a special address to the factions. The Blues were told, "Emperor Justinian is dead for you," and the Greens, "Emperor Justinian lives for you".^[73] This calmed the factions temporarily, and the riots ceased.^[73] Subsequently, emperors sought to maintain a balance between the factions.^[74]

Military Significance of the Factions

Byzantine silk from the tomb of Charlemagne, depicting a quadriga, woven in Constantinople in 814

As mentioned above, not all researchers acknowledge the military role of the hippodrome factions. However, the arguments of their opponents are based on fairly numerous source testimonies. Fyodor I. Uspensky believed that the military character of the deme organizations emerged after Justinian enlisted refugees from the invasions of Slavs and Avars into Thrace in 564, assigning them to defend the Long Walls.^[75] However, it is known that during the Nika riots in 532, 250 Greens appeared fully armed, intending to seize the palace, suggesting an earlier militarization of the factions.^[76] Rodolphe Guilland attributes the start of the demes' military service to an even earlier period, when under Constantine the Great, the city guard, ό της πόλεως στρατός, was organized.^[77] During the reign of Theodosius II, the recorded strength of the "Greens" (likely together with the "Reds") numbered 8,000 men. For the year 602, sources report 1,500 fighters for the Greens, while the "Blues" together with the "Whites" had 900.^[78]

The basis of such units, formed to protect cities, likely consisted of the stasiotai. In 540, the stasiotai played an active role in the defense of Antioch.^[79] According to G. Manojlovic, by the end of Justinian I's reign, regular troops were insufficient to protect cities from barbarian invasions. Relying on the accounts of Agathias of Myrina about the Kutrigur attack on Constantinople, the historian assigns a significant role in the capital's defense to the militia of the hippodrome factions, capable of fielding even their own cavalry.^[80] Later, especially during the reign of Maurice, stasiotai units were also used to guard Constantinople's walls. In the late 6th century, the position of the head of the factions' military organization, the demarch, is first mentioned, which may indicate further organizational development of the factions.^[81][82]

At some point, which cannot be precisely determined, the main factions became associated with the primary tagmata of the imperial army, the Scholae and the Excubitors. Likely, a reform completed in the 9th century placed the demarch of the Blues at the head of the former and the demarch of the Greens at the head of the latter. Ceremonies involving demarchs in this capacity are described by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the 10th century, and Michael Attaleiates in his History notes that this connection persisted into the following century.^[83] A. Cameron, who denies the societal significance of the demes, argues that it would be a mistake to view the extensive ceremonial functions of the demes as a reflection of earlier times when faction leaders led their comrades into battle against enemies. After all, the Excubitors, the emperor's most trusted troops, participated in suppressing factional uprisings at least five times between 498 and 601, and it seems odd that their leadership was entrusted to the oppositional "greens." On the other hand, the Scholae, which had lost their military significance by the end of the 5th century, were hardly a suitable military institution for the "blues".^[84]

Decline of the factions

The factions are considered to have reached their peak at the end of the 6th century, when support from at least one faction was essential for those aspiring to the imperial throne. The favor shown to the Greens by the prefect John the Cappadocian was interpreted as evidence of his imperial ambitions. Emperor Maurice, according to later scholia to the History of Theophylact Simocatta, named his firstborn son Theodosius at the demand of the Greens, who wished to honor the memory of Theodosius II, while the Blues insisted on the name Justinian^[85]. The role of the demes in the overthrow of Maurice by the usurper Phocas in 602 is detailed by Simocatta. When the patrician Germanus declared his intent to free the empire from the rule of Phocas, who was supported by the Blues, he offered money to the Greens^[86][69]. Riots involving the factions occurred throughout the empire, except in Thessaloniki, which, according to the 7th-century sermon collection, was spared due to the intercession of the city's patron saint.^[87] During the reign of Heraclius (610–641), mentions of the factions in sources are scarce, limited to ceremonies surrounding the coronation of his eldest son Constantine and widespread condemnation of his second marriage to his niece.^[88] The overthrow of Justinian II in 694 occurred, according to the chronicler of the turn of the 8th–9th centuries Theophanes the Confessor, because he sought to exterminate the Blue deme. In the power struggle following Justinian II's first deposition, Leontius was likely supported by the Blues, while his opponent Apsimar was backed by the Greens.^[89][90] However, Rodolphe Guilland argues that in these events, as throughout the 7th century, the stance of the people, not the factions, was significant.^[91] He attributes the disappearance of the factions to the cessation of chariot races in the 13th century.^[92]

Byzantine textile from the 10th century depicting chariots in ornamental medallions

Researchers vary in dating the period when the influence of the hippodrome factions waned, placing it during the reign of either Heraclius or Leo III the Isaurian (717–741).^[93] Considering the factions' role in the struggle between Leontius and Apsimar, A. Cameron deems the latter period more likely. Nevertheless, throughout most of the 7th century, except for the overthrows of emperors at its beginning and end, the factions are barely mentioned in sources. Fyodor Uspensky attributes the decline of the factions to their integration into the state system, a result of deliberate imperial efforts. He also notes the separation of military and civilian components within the demes. Effectively, the armed demes, placed under the command of the Domestic of the Scholae, became part of the Byzantine army.^[94] Romanian historian Gheorghe I. Brătianu links the loss of the factions' political influence to the loss of African and Middle Eastern territories, which led to deteriorating grain supplies to the capital, increased taxation, and heightened antisemitism.^[95] A. Cameron suggests that the codification and expansion of the factions' ceremonial roles during Heraclius's reign did not align with continued hostile confrontations. Thus, it is more appropriate to speak not of a loss of political significance, which may never have existed, but of a reduction in the factions' belligerence.^[96]

The turbulent events of the 8th–10th centuries —the Iconoclastic movement, the rise and fall of the Isaurian dynasty, Amorian dynasty, and Macedonian dynasty— occurred without factional involvement. Lacking influence on public life, the factions continued their sporting activities. One faction still enjoyed greater imperial favor, with the Blues often preferred in the 9th–10th centuries. At the Constantinople hippodrome, they were the first to greet the emperor and held precedence over the Greens during ceremonies. Unlike in previous centuries, this situation no longer provoked discontent or led to conflicts.^[97] Under Emperor Basil I (867–886), the factional phialae (platforms with fountains) built under Justinian II in the Great Palace were dismantled, making the distinctions between factions even less pronounced.^[98][99]

Ceremonial Role of the Factions

Structure of the Factions

Initially, the simple and functional structure of the factions became more complex over time. The position of factionarius, previously the faction leader, quickly lost administrative authority and became an honorary title for the best charioteer. After 275, only two factionarii are known: the unmatched Porphyrius Calliopas in the early 6th century and Emperor Theophilos in the first half of the 9th century. The treatise On Ceremonies refers to factionarii only as charioteers of the Blues and Greens, while the Reds and Whites had to settle for the title of micropanites (Ancient Greek: μικροπανίτης, "[those] with the small flag")—having merged organizationally with the main factions, the "minor" factions continued to compete under their own flags.^[100]

Once Michael III stood on a chariot, poised to race from the barrier (he competed for the Blues, while for the Greens raced Logothete Constantine, father of Thomas, a patrician and former logothete of the drome; for the Whites—Chila; for the Reds—Kras. Neither the protasekretis nor the protonotary of the drome were idle, the former being the combinator of the Blues, the latter of the Greens), and as they stood on their chariots, dressed in charioteers' attire, news arrived that Amr was advancing uncontrollably, ravaging Thrakision, approaching Malagina, and threatening unparalleled calamities. When the distressed protonotary reported the response of the domestic of the scholae, presenting his letter from his own hands, the emperor said: "What audacity to speak to me of such matters during so important a contest; my only concern is to push the middle chariot to the left edge. That is all I compete in".

The significance of the early division of the factions into two parts, peratic (Greek: περατικοί) and political (Greek: πολιτικοί), is not entirely clear. Likely, the former resided in the suburban districts on the northern shore of the Golden Horn and held an advantage over the latter. Whether this division was tied to color differentiation, with the Blues and Greens as peratic factions and the Whites and Reds as political ones, is unknown, but indications in the treatise On Ceremonies suggest this possibility.^[101] A. P. Dyakonov hypothesized that the "peratic" parts of the factions consisted of military units, while the "political" parts comprised the privileged non-military elite.^[102]

Byzantine miniature depicting Michael III on a chariot before a burning church, from the Madrid Chronicle of John Skylitzes, 12th century

The primary information about the faction organization established by the 10th century is found in the treatise On Ceremonies. In the treatise, the demes appear as a key element in organizing ceremonial processions and formal receptions of Byzantine emperors, accompanied by their singers and musicians.^[103] Since the leadership positions of the factions were part of the broader system of Byzantine bureaucracy, additional information is found in surviving precedence lists, such as the Kletorologion of Philotheos compiled around 900 and the later Taktikon of Ekonomidis.^[104]

• Demarch (Ancient Greek: δῆμαρχος) represented the political part of the demes from the early 7th century, held the right to protest, and maintained lists of demes' members. Each leader of the main demes also represented the corresponding minor demes — democrats and demarchs of the Blues fulfilled this role for the White deme, and those of the Greens for the Red deme.^[105] Demarchs of the main factions were personally appointed by the emperor and typically held the 57th and 58th ranks in the precedence lists, usually with the title of protospatharios.^[106]
• Democrat (Ancient Greek: δημοκράτης) led the faction, representing its military part. Democrats represented the military component of the demes and were appointed from senior military ranks; the democrat of the Blues traditionally held the position of domestic of the scholae (Ancient Greek: δομέστικος τῶν σχολῶν), and the democrat of the Greens held that of the domestic of the excubitors (Ancient Greek: δομέστικος τῶν ἐξκουβίτων), both with the rank of protospatharios.
• Ancient Greek: δευτερεύων, possibly a deputy to the faction leader, appointed by the emperor for peratic factions.
• Ancient Greek: γειτονιάρχης led the quarter where the faction's deme resided, possibly overseeing only its military units.^[107]
• Ancient Greek: νοτάριος, scribes and archivists who recorded competition results. The combinator mentioned solely by the Continuator of Theophanes^[108] likely performed the same duties.
• Poet, who composed the libellarius, solemnly presented to the emperor during festivities.^[109]
• Singers and musicians.
• Ancient Greek: μαίστορες—the role of this position is unknown, except that its holder recited iambic verses to the emperor alongside the archivist during ceremonial processions, possibly leading the faction's choir.^[110]
• Tribunes and their deputies (Ancient Greek: βικάριοι), whose duties are unknown except that they, in distinctive costumes, joined democrats and demarchs in dances held during feasts after festivities.
• Ancient Greek: τευχεώτης—a position exclusive to the Green faction, with a similar ceremonial dance function.
• Heralds (Ancient Greek: οἱ κράκται), who led acclamations.

In addition to leadership roles, each faction had a large staff of other stage attendants and zookeepers.^[110] The "demes" (Ancient Greek: δημώται) at the Hippodrome likely had no duties and were merely spectators.^[111]

Participation in Ceremonies

Diagram of the center of Constantinople

Participation in ceremonial events was one of the few opportunities for an ordinary Byzantine to enter the imperial palace. Events took various forms—large outdoor gatherings, processions, festive performances with acclamations, songs, and dances, and imperial receptions^[112]. Representatives of the factions participated in these public events, as well as in various coronation ceremonies (of emperors, empresses, and co-emperors) and weddings. Likely, when Theophylact Simocatta refers to the presence of "the most distinguished citizens" (Ancient Greek: τοὺς ἐπισημοτέρους τοῦ δῆμου) at the proclamation ceremony of Maurice as emperor, he meant the faction leaders. According to the treatise On Ceremonies, a common feature of such ceremonies was their performance in the Hall of the Nineteen Couches of the Great Palace, in the presence of Senate members standing on the terrace steps. Faction leaders stood below in the courtyard, alongside officers of the tagmata, opposite the displayed symbols of power and imperial regalia. Upon the emperor's appearance, heralds shouted a series of acclamations, repeated by "the entire people." The factions also participated in imperial wedding ceremonies held in the Magnaura. After the marriage rite in the Church of Saint Stephen, the imperial couple proceeded to the Magnaura hall through the Triclinium of the Candidates, greeted along the way by the demes with the sounds of organs and acclamations. The ceremony continued with acclamations in the bridal chambers. According to scholia, in later periods, the marriage took place in the Church of the Pharos, and the demes' greetings occurred in the Chrysotriklinos. The Blues and Greens accompanied the ritual procession of the empress to the bath for the first three days after the wedding with greetings and musical performances.^[113] In addition to coronation and wedding ceremonies, the demes were involved in organizing various imperial processions and receptions, which, according to the classification of D. F. Belyaev, were categorized as large, medium, and small. These took place on various church holidays, moving from the palace to the Hagia Sophia.^[114] Demarchs were notified in advance of upcoming events to assemble their demes at designated locations—five or six on the way to the cathedral and five on the return. The first part of the route passed from the Triclinium of the Excubitors through the Lychni hall, named for the lamps hanging there, and the Tribunal. In the Lychni, alongside the demes, the emperor, accompanied by the synkletos and retinue, was met by ambassadors and distinguished foreigners present in Constantinople, the eparch with his subordinates, city officials, and representatives of craft guilds (Ancient Greek: συστῆματα).^[115] As the empire's borders shrank over time, the splendor of palace receptions diminished, no longer fully matching the descriptions of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. During the first reception, as standard-bearers and synkletos members entered the Tribunal ahead of the emperor, who had not yet taken his place in the Lychni arch, the singers of the peratic Blue deme began a chant appropriate to the occasion. When the emperor took his place, the master of ceremonies solemnly led the domestic of the scholae, who also served as the democrat of the Blues, to him. The domestic bowed at the emperor's feet and presented a libellarius, a booklet or scroll containing congratulations and wishes suited to the occasion. The emperor accepted the libellarius, passed it to the praepositus, who, in turn, handed it to the cubicularius. At this moment, the singers, Blues, and the crowd began singing "many years," while the domestic made the sign of the cross over the emperor three times.^[116] The procession then moved through the Tribunal to the Triclinium of the Scholae, adjacent to the Church of the Apostles. After the emperor prayed and performed a triple bow with lit candles, the second reception began, similar to the first but performed by the Greens and their leader, the domestic of the excubitors.^[117] The third reception took place under the dome of the Chalke, with singing by the peratic Blue deme, and the fourth at the Chalke exit, involving the city Blue deme, i.e., the Whites. At the Chalke gate, the demarch of the Blues was brought to the emperor and also presented a libellarius. The fifth reception began as the emperor entered the Augusteion square, separating the Great Palace from the Hagia Sophia. Here, the emperor was met by the demarch of the Greens with his city deme, i.e., the Reds. The sixth and final reception on the way to the cathedral occurred as the emperor moved from the portico of the Milion to the cathedral's horologion, accompanied by the people's acclamations and the Blues' singing. At this point, the demes' receptions concluded, and the emperor entered the Hagia Sophia.^[118] On the return journey, the Blues' predominance persisted, accounting for 7 of the 11 receptions in the fullest version.^[119]

Provincial factions

Chariot racing events continued to be organized in Rome even after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476. The Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great, who completed the conquest of Italy in 493, made significant efforts to gain the favor of the Romans and thus financed the organization of public entertainments. By that time, the factions in Rome were named after the Greek model, pars prasina ("greens") and pars veneta ("blues"). Panegyrist Cassiodorus, a supporter of Theodoric, wrote in one of his letters that the king took the oppressed "Green" faction under his protection, a faction his father had also supported, and funded their mimes. Nothing is known about the fate of the factions in Rome under Theodoric's successors.^[120]

Among the eastern cities of the empire, the role of factions was most prominent in Antioch.^[121] According to a theory proposed by A. P. Dyakonov, circus factions originated in Antioch, and even the names of the main factions derived from the Syriac language. According to him, the term veneti meant benai etta, or "sons of the church," while prasini, or perišin, meant "schismatics."^[93] Although Dyakonov's theory faced numerous objections and did not gain traction, there are indeed many examples of faction activity in Antioch.^[4] John Malalas reports that in the third year of Caligula's reign, that is, in 40 CE, the "blues" began oppressing the "Greens," and during the ensuing riots, pagans attacked Jews and destroyed their synagogues. In response, the high priest of Jerusalem launched a punitive expedition and killed many city residents.^[122] In 175, during his stay in the capital of Syria, fearing conspiracies and rebellions from the factions, Emperor Marcus Aurelius banned all public events in the city.^[123] Similar considerations guided Septimius Severus in 196.^[124] The hippodrome factions were among the key participants in the riot of 387.^[125] The factions are also known to have participated in a revolt against Patriarch Gregory of Antioch in 588.^[126]

Factions also existed in the African provinces — it is known that in Carthage, even after the Vandal conquest, the circus and amphitheater continued to function, and the "blues" and "greens" organized mime performances and chariot races.^[127] During the reign of Maurice, chronicler John of Nikiu reports that factions clashed in northern Egypt.^[128] Numerous inscriptions and papyri mention the names of the Veneti and Prasini factions.^[129]

Although Jews during the Roman Empire condemned circuses, later midrashim contain many references to a magnificent circus and a grand hippodrome at the court of King Solomon in Jerusalem.^[130] One midrash recounts how Solomon sat on his throne in the middle of a circus resembling a Byzantine one, surrounded by four groups: royal servants, scholars, priests, and Levites, dressed in blue; Jerusalem residents, dressed in white; suburban dwellers, dressed in red; and envoys from distant lands bringing tribute and gifts, dressed in green.^[131] Epigraphic sources discovered in the second half of the 20th century show that the relationship of Byzantine Jews with the factions was more complex than previously thought. For instance, in the circus of Carian Aphrodisias, in the "Blues" section, inscriptions reading τόπος Έβρέων ("place of the Jews") and τόπος Βενετών Έβρέων των παλειών ("place of the old Jewish Veneti") were found. Similar inscriptions in Miletus and Tyre suggest a non-coincidental connection between Jews and the "Blues" faction. Since A. Cameron's theory denies stable religious preferences among factions, modern scholars reject the notion of Veneti sympathy for Jews, proposing psychological hypotheses instead. A. Cameron notes that in the mid-7th-century text Teaching of the Newly Baptized Jacob, both factions persecuted Jews equally, suggesting that the "blues," by allowing Jews to sit in their hippodrome section, aimed to provoke the "Greens".^[132] Within a religious paradigm, British historian Patricia Karlin-Hayter notes, in the context of the Acts Concerning Kallopodios, that the "blues" and Jews were, each in their own way, orthodox, which could have brought them closer together.^[133] According to Charlotte Roueché, the connection between the "Blues" and Jews arose somewhat coincidentally, as Jews had traditionally sat in areas that later became associated with the Veneti during the Roman Empire.^[134]

Sources note the rivalry between factions in the eastern provinces of the empire in the last decades under Byzantine rule. They actively participated in rebellions in the cities of the Nile Delta in the 590s; in 614, when the Persians besieged Jerusalem, the factions united against Patriarch Zechariah's decision to surrender the city; during the Arab conquest of Egypt, two rival Byzantine commanders, Menas and Domentianus, were supported by different factions.^[126]

References

1. Uspensky 1894, p. 1–16.
2. Manojlovic 1936, p. 619.
3. Diakonov 1945, p. 144.
4. Grégoire 1946.
5. Герасим (Яред) (1872–1874). "Отзывы о св. Фотие, патр. Константинопольском его современников – в связи с историей политических партий византийской империи" [Reviews of St. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, by His Contemporaries – in Connection with the History of Political Parties of the Byzantine Empire]. Христианское чтение.
6. Курганов, Фёдор Афанасьевич (1880). Отношения между церковною и гражданскою властью в Византийской империи. Обзор эпохи образования и окончательного установления характера взаимоотношений между церковной и гражданской властью в Византии (325—565) [Relations Between Church and Civil Authority in the Byzantine Empire. Overview of the Era of Formation and Final Establishment of the Nature of Relations Between Church and Civil Authority in Byzantium (325–565)]. Kazan: Printing House of the Imperial University. pp. 154–160.
7. Levchenko 1947.
8. Cameron 1976, p. 25.
9. Diakonov 1945, p. 145.
10. Pigulevskaya 1946, p. 132-134.
11. Manojlovic 1936, p. 642.
12. Patlagean 1977, p. 205.
13. Kozlov 1982, p. 7—8.
14. Cameron 1976, pp. 276–277.
15. Chekalova 1997, p. 142—143.
16. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (1978). "Review: Alan Cameron, Circus Factions, Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium". Urban History. 5: 160–161. doi:10.1017/S0963926800003680.
17. Mango, C. (1979). "Fan Clubs A. Cameron: Circus Factions. Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium". The Classical Review. 29: 128–129. doi:10.1017/S0009840X00230746. Retrieved August 16, 2025.
18. Chekalova 1997, p. 143—148.
19. Bell 2013, pp. 143–145.
20. Uspensky 1894, p. 11—12.
21. Uspensky 1894, p. 3.
22. Manojlovic 1936, p. 631.
23. Diakonov 1945, p. 149—155.
24. Pigulevskaya 1946, p. 132—134.
25. Cameron 1976, pp. 14–15.
26. Fotiou, A. S. (1978). "Byzantine Circus Factions and their Riots". Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik. 27: 1–10.
27. Досталова, Р. (1990). "Напряженность социальной обстановки в Византии V–VI вв. в отражении анонимного трактата «Περὶ πολιτικῆς ἐπιστήμης»" [The Tension of the Social Situation in Byzantium in the 5th–6th Centuries as Reflected in the Anonymous Treatise "On Political Science"]. Византийский временник. 56: 45–57. Archived from the original on August 24, 2020. Retrieved August 16, 2025.
28. Gregory, T. E. (1973). "Zosimus 5, 23 and the People of Constantinople". Byzantion. 43: 71–77.
29. Астахова, Н. В. (1998). "К вопросу изучения цирковых партий" [On the Study of Circus Factions]. Православный палестинский сборник. 98 (35): 67–77.
30. Procopius of Caesarea. Secret History, VII, 8-14.
31. Cameron 1976, pp. 75–79.
32. Chekalova 1997, p. 158—159.
33. Suetonius, Nero, 22
34. Suetonius, Nero, 5
35. Cameron 1976, p. 6.
36. Cameron 1976, p. 7.
37. Cameron 1976, p. 8.
38. Cameron 1976, p. 9.
39. Kulakovsky 2003, p. 125.
40. Futrell 2006, p. 207.
41. Suetonius, Domitian, 7
42. Uspensky 1894, p. 2.
43. Martial, Book of Spectacles, XI, XXXIII
44. Suetonius, Caligula, 55
45. Cameron 1976, p. 55.
46. Futrell 2006, p. 213.
47. Herodian, Book III, 2.7-8
48. Ando 2000, p. 125.
49. Diakonov 1945, p. 156.
50. Liebeschutz 2000, p. 225.
51. Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin (1964). The Later Roman Empire 284—602. Vol. I–II. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 1019.
52. Cameron 1976, p. 76.
53. Procopius of Caesarea, Secret History, IX, 2—5
54. Cameron 1976, p. 11.
55. Diakonov 1945, p. 171.
56. Chekalova 1997, p. 162–163.
57. Chekalova 1997, p. 64.
58. Kozlov 1982, p. 24–39..
59. Kurbatov, G. L. (1991). Ранневизантийские портреты: К истории общественно-политической мысли [Early Byzantine Portraits: On the History of Socio-Political Thought]. Leningrad: LGU Press. pp. 179. ISBN 5-288-00543-5. Retrieved August 17, 2025.
60. Kozlov 1982, p. 24.
61. Cameron 1976, p. 278–285.
62. Whitby 2009, p. 229–231.
63. Schnapp, Jeffrey T.; Tiews, Michael (2006). Crowds. Stanford: Stanford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 0804754799.
64. Berno-Bellenkur, I. V. Социально-психологический анализ деструктивного поведения группировок футбольных фанатов // Неврологический вестник. 2008. V. XL, iss. 1. pp. 101—102.
65. Evagrius. Church History. 4.32
66. Kozlov 1982, pp. 58–74.
67. Guilland 1969, p. 14.
68. Kozlov 1982, pp. 82–92.
69. Liebeschutz 2000, p. 227.
70. Procopius of Caesarea 1993, p. VII.
71. Chekalova 1997, pp. 156–158.
72. Pigulevskaya 1946, pp. 142–147.
73. Theophanes the Confessor 1884, p. 6061.
74. Guilland 1968, p. 26.
75. Uspensky 1894, p. 872.
76. Pigulevskaya 1946, pp. 159.
77. Guilland 1969, p. 7.
78. Manojlovic 1936, p. 622.
79. Procopius of Caesarea 1993, p. 2, VIII.
80. Manojlovic 1936, pp. 625–627.
81. Yanssens 1936, pp. 500–507.
82. Chekalova 1997, pp. 158–159.
83. Guilland 1969, p. 8.
84. Cameron 1976, pp. 116–117.
85. Yanssens 1936, p. 500.
86. Yanssens 1936, pp. 517–518.
87. Liebeschutz 2001, p. 117.
88. Yanssens 1936, pp. 532–535.
89. Cameron 1976, pp. 299–301.
90. Haldon, J. F. (1990). Byzantiun in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of Culture. Cambridge University Press. p. 75. ISBN 0-521-26492-8.
91. Guilland 1968, pp. 24–25.
92. Guilland 1969, p. 9.
93. Diakonov 1945.
94. Uspensky 1894, pp. 14–15.
95. Brătianu, Gheorghe I. (1941). "La fin du règne des partis à Byzance et la crise antisémite du VIIe siècle" [The End of the Factions’ Rule in Byzantium and the Antisemitic Crisis of the 7th Century]. Revue historique du Sud-Est européen. XVIII: 49–67.
96. Cameron 1976, pp. 297–299.
97. Guilland 1968, p. 27.
98. Belyaev 1893, pp. 35–37.
99. Guilland 1968, p. 33.
100. Cameron 1976, pp. 11–12.
101. Magdalino 2015, p. 174.
102. Diakonov 1945, p. 149.
103. Guilland 1969, p. 2.
104. Cameron 1976, p. 20.
105. Uspensky 1894, p. 7.
106. Guilland 1968, p. 4.
107. Guilland 1968, p. 5.
108. Theophanes Continuatus, Book IV, 36
109. Belyaev 1893, p. 80.
110. Guilland 1968, p. 6.
111. Guilland 1969, p. 13.
112. Magdalino 2015, pp. 169–170.
113. Magdalino 2015, pp. 172–173.
114. Belyaev 1893, pp. 36–38.
115. Belyaev 1893, pp. 75–76.
116. Belyaev 1893, pp. 79–81.
117. Belyaev 1893, pp. 81–83.
118. Belyaev 1893, pp. 83–88.
119. Magdalino 2015, pp. 173–174.
120. Condurachi, E. (1941). "Factions et jeux du cirque à Rome au début du VIe siècle" [Factions and Circus Games in Rome at the Beginning of the 6th Century]. Revue historique du Sud-Est européen. XVIII: 95–102.
121. Vrionis, S. (1965). "Byzantine Circus Factions and Islamic Futuwwa Organizations". Byzantinische Zeitschrift. 58 (1): 46–59. doi:10.1515/byzs.1965.58.1.46.
122. Downey 1961, pp. 192–193.
123. Downey 1961, p. 228.
124. Downey 1961, p. 241.
125. Browning, R. (1952). "The Riot of A.D. 387 in Antioch: The Role of the Theatrical Claques in the Later Empire" [The Riot of A.D. 387 in Antioch: The Role of the Theatrical Claques in the Later Empire]. The Journal of Roman Studies. 42: 13–20. doi:10.2307/297505. JSTOR 297505.
126. Liebeschutz 2000, p. 228.
127. Liebeschutz 2001, p. 97.
128. Yanssens 1936, pp. 514–515.
129. Yanssens 1936, pp. 526–528.
130.  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Circus". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
131. Perles, J. (1872). "Thron und Circus des Königs Solomo" [Throne and Circus of King Solomon]. Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums. Breslau: 122–139. Retrieved August 19, 2025.
132. Cameron 1976, pp. 150–151.
133. Karlin-Hayter, P. (1973). "Les Akta dia Kalapodion. Le contexte religieux et politique" [The Acts Concerning Kallopodios: The Religious and Political Context]. Byzantion. 43: 96–77.
134. Horst, P. W. (1996). "Jews and Blues in Late Antiquity". Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-Roman Context. Mohr Siebeck. pp. 53–58. ISBN 3-16-148851-2.

Notes

1. From Roman times, the praises and greetings of the demes were called acts (Ancient Greek: ἁκτα, Latin: acta).

Cite error: A list-defined reference has a conflicting group attribute "" (see the help page).

Bibliography

Primary sources

• Martial, Marcus Valerius (1994). Petrovsky, Fyodor Alexandrovich (ed.). Epigrams. Series "Antique Library". Section "Antique Literature" (in Russian). Introduction by V. S. Durov. St. Petersburg: Komplekt. p. 448. ISBN 5-88596-009-7.

• Suetonius, Gaius (1964). The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Literary Monuments (in Russian). Moscow: Nauka. p. 376.

• Theophanes Continuator (2009). Biographies of Byzantine Emperors. Byzantine Library. Sources (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Aleteia. p. 400. ISBN 978-5-91419-146-4.

• Procopius of Caesarea (1993). War with the Persians. War with the Vandals. Secret History. Monuments of Historical Thought (in Russian). Translated, article, and commentary by A. A. Chekalova; editor G. G. Litavrin. Moscow: Nauka. p. 570. ISBN 5-02-009494-3.

• Theophanes the Confessor (1884). Chronicle of Theophanes the Byzantine from Diocletian to the Emperors Michael and His Son Theophylact (in Russian).

• Theophylact Simocatta (1996). History (in Russian). Arktos. p. 272.

In Russian

• Belyaev, Dmitry Fyodorovich (1891). Overview of the Main Parts of the Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors (in Russian). Vol. I (Byzantina. Essays, Materials, and Notes on Byzantine Antiquities ed.). St. Petersburg: Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. p. 200.

• Belyaev, Dmitry Fyodorovich (1893). Daily and Sunday Receptions of Byzantine Emperors and Their Festive Processions to the Hagia Sophia in the 9th–10th Centuries (in Russian). Vol. II (Byzantina. Essays, Materials, and Notes on Byzantine Antiquities ed.). St. Petersburg: Typography of I.N. Skorokhodov. p. 308.

• Diakonov, Alexander Petrovich (1945). "Byzantine Demes and Factions (ta merē) in the 5th–7th Centuries". Byzantine Collection (in Russian). Moscow-Leningrad: 144–227.

• Kozlov, A. S. (1982). "Main Directions of Political Opposition to the Byzantine Government in the First Half of the 5th Century". Ancient and Medieval History (in Russian) (19). Sverdlovsk: Ural State University named after A. M. Gorky: 5–31.

• Kulakovsky, Yulian Andreevich (2003). History of Byzantium. Byzantine Library. Studies (in Russian). Vol. I (3rd ed.). St. Petersburg: Aleteia. p. 492. ISBN 5-89329-618-4.

• Kurbatov, Georgy Lvovich (1962). The Early Byzantine City: (Antioch in the 4th Century) (in Russian). Leningrad: Publishing House of Leningrad University. p. 262.

• Levchenko, Mitrofan Vasilyevich (1947). "Veneti and Prasini in Byzantium in the 5th–7th Centuries". Byzantine Chronicle (in Russian). 1: 164–183.

• Pigulevskaya, Nina Viktorovna (1946). Struve, Vasily Vasilyevich (ed.). Byzantium and Iran at the Turn of the 6th–7th Centuries. Proceedings of the Institute of Oriental Studies, vol. XLVI (in Russian). Moscow-Leningrad: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. p. 291.

• Uspensky, Fyodor Ivanovich (1894). "Circus Parties and Demes in Constantinople". Byzantine Chronicle (in Russian). 1. St. Petersburg: 1–16.

• Chekalova, Aleksandra Alekseevna (1997). Constantinople in the 6th Century: The Nika Revolt. Byzantine Library. Studies (in Russian) (2nd ed., revised and expanded ed.). St. Petersburg: Aleteia. p. 329. ISBN 5-89329-038-0.

In English

• Ando, C. (2000). Imperial ideology and provincial loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 494. ISBN 0-520-22067-6.

• Bell, P. N. (2013). Social Conflict in the Age of Justinian: Its Nature, Management, and Mediation. Corby: Oxford University Press. p. 416. ISBN 978-0199567331.

• Cameron, A. (1976). Circus factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium. Oxf.: Clarendon Press. p. 364. ISBN 0-19-814804-6.

• Downey, G. (1961). History of Antioch. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 767.

• Futrell, A. (2006). The Roman Games: A Sourcebook. Oxf.: Blackwell Publishing. p. 253. ISBN 978-1-4051-1568-1.

• Liebeschutz, W. (2000). "Administration and politics in the cities of the fifth to the mid seventh century: 425–640". In Cameron, A. (ed.). The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. XIV. Cambr.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 207–237. ISBN 978-0-521-32591-2.

• Liebeschutz, W. (2001). Decline and fall of the Roman City. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. p. 479. ISBN 0-19-815247-7.

• Magdalino, P. (2015). "The People and the Palace". In Featherstone, Michael; Spieser, Jean-Michel; Tanman, Gülru; Wulf-Rheidt, Ulrike (eds.). The Emperor's House. Urban Spaces, vol IV. B.: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 169–180. doi:10.1515/9783110331769. ISBN 978-3-11-038228-0.

• Whitby, M. (2009). "The violence of the circus factions". Organised Crime in Antiquity. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. p. 278. ISBN 9781910589359.

In French

• Grégoire, H. (1946). "Le peuple de Constantinople ou les Bleus et les Verts" [The People of Constantinople or the Blues and the Greens]. Comptes-rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 90 (4): 568–578. doi:10.3406/crai.1946.78039.

• Guilland, R. (1968). "Études sur l'Hippodrome de Byzance" [Studies on the Hippodrome of Byzantium]. Byzantinoslavica. 29: 24–33.

• Guilland, R. (1969). "Études sur l'Hippodrome de Byzance" [Studies on the Hippodrome of Byzantium]. Byzantinoslavica. 30: 1–17.

• Manojlovic, G. (1936). "Le peuple du Constantinople de 400 à 800 après J. C." [The People of Constantinople from 400 to 800 AD]. Byzantion. XI (2): 617–716.

• Patlagean, E. (1977). Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance 4e–7e siècles [Economic and Social Poverty in Byzantium, 4th–7th Centuries]. Civilisations et Sociétés. Vol. 48. De Gruyter Mouton. p. 483. ISBN 978-3-11-080519-2.

• Yanssens, Y. (1936). "Les Bleus et les Vertes sous Maurice, Phocas et Héraclius" [The Blues and the Greens under Maurice, Phocas, and Heraclius]. Byzantion. XI (2): 499–536.