Some years later, during the reign of Leo VI (886--912) additional Armenian territory was annexed, when the Armenian chieftain Manuel was induced to cede his lands, the region known as Tekis, to the empire. Located between the Euphrates and the Chimishgezek-su and bounded on the south by the Arsanas, Tekis was inhabited entirely by Armenians. Manuel, accompanied by his four sons, moved to Constantinople where he was showered with honors; two of his sons were vested with important commands, while the other two were given new holdings in the neighborhood of Trebizond (82). His former possessions, augmented by the. addition of two districts, Kelzene and Kamacha, the one taken from the theme of Chaldia, the other from that of Coloneia, and both Armenian speaking, were organized, sometime between 899 and 912, into the theme of Mesopotamia (83). The new theme wTas entirely Armenian.
In the meantime, a considerable Armenian element moved westward and settled in the territory formed by the regions along the upper Tocha-su where the so-called desert of Symposion seems to have been located; the territory north of Arabisos where several bodies of water join to form the Pyramos river (Gaihan-su) and where the old fortress of Lycandos was most probably located; and the territory finally along the upper Karmalas river (Zamanti-sii) where at a high point near the river, not far from Azizie, the Ariaratheia of the Greeks, on the road which went from Caesarea to Gurun and thence to Melitene, the fortress of Tzamandos was built (84). The initiative in this settlement was taken by several Armenian chieftains, [30] chief among whom, and no doubt the ablest and most aggressive, was a certain Mleh, the Melias of the Byzantine sources.
Melias had entered the military service of the empire and had fought against the Bulgarians in the battle of Bulgarophygon in 896, but subsequently fell in disfavor and fled to the Arabs in Melitene. Some years later, Melias and four other Armenian chieftains, three of them brothers, who were with him in Melitene, were granted permission to return to the empire and were put in command of certain frontier districts, located in the territories referred to above. But as the four other Armenian chieftains soon passed from view--one was killed fighting the Arabs, another was exiled and nothing more is said of the two brothers of the latter--it was really Melias who reclaimed the country, whose grassy valleys, so favorable for the raising of cattle, are especially noted, and settled it with Armenians. It was he also who rebuilt the old fortress of Lycandos and founded the new one of Tzamandos. He was given the title of patrician, then that of magister and when about 914 the regions which he reclaimed were erected into a theme, the theme of Lycandos, he was made its first strategos or governor. Throughout the period after his return from Melitene, Melias served the empire loyally and well. His Armenian following never ceased to increase. By the time he died in 934 the theme of Lycandos, to use the words of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, was full of Armenians (85).
The number of Armenians within the empire increased still more as a result of the Byzantine offensive along the eastern frontier, which began about 927. The most decisive event of this offensive in the annexation of new territory was the capture of Melitene in 934. Melitene was not Armenian country, though, at the time of its capture, some Armenians may have lived there. It was not long, however, before Melitene became an Armenian town (86).
The capture of Melitene opened the way for the annexation of several territories across the Euphrates. As some of these territories belonged to the emir of Melitene, their occupation by Byzantium must have taken place shortly after the capture of that city. But no precise dates can be given. Included among these territories were: the country of Khanzit located south of the Arsanas in the loop formed by that river and the Euphrates and extending eastward in a southerly direction as far as the regions beyond [31] Lake Golgik (Buhairat Sumnin) where, near the point where the Arghana-su, one of the sources of the Tigris, breaks through the Taurus, the fortress of Romanopolis was built; the city of Arsamosata (Asmosata, Shimshat), located on the southern banks of the Arsanas further east, and its surroundings; and the country north of the Arsanas and east of the Chimishgezek-su. The Khanzit with Romanopolis was added to the theme of Mesopotamia (87), but Arsamosata and the region east of the Chimishgezek-su were organized into new themes known respectively as the Asmosaton (88) and Charpezikion themes, though the latter gave way shortly after 949 to the new theme of Chozanon which seems to have been established about this time and included the same general area (89). The year 949 saw also an important new annexation. This was Theodosiopolis (Erzerum, Qaliqala) which was made the center of a new theme consisting of the country about the source waters of the Euphrates and the Araxes (90). All these territories were Armenian speaking.
To these territories was added in 966 the country of Taron, situated in the regions where the Arsanas is joined by its tributary, the Qara-su, which rises in the mountains of Nimrud to the west of Lake Van. Its capital was the city of Mush. The country was ceded, no doubt under pressure, to Byzantium in exchange for other lands located elsewhere in the empire by the Armenian brothers Gregory and Pancratios (Bagrat) who had inherited it from their father. The Byzantines probably did not consolidate their position until 975 (91). Taron was, of course, Armenian country. Meanwhile the westward expansion of the Armenians continued. "During the patriarchate of Khatchik, patriarch of Armenia", writes the [32] Armenian historian Asoghik, "the Armenian nation scattered and spread itself to the countries of the west to such an extent that he appointed bishops for Antioch of Syria, Tarsus of Cilicia, Soulndah (Lulnday) and for all these regions" (92). Soulndah is the fortress of Lulon situated south of Tyana and commanding the road which wrent through the Cilician Gates (93). It was annexed definitely by the Byzantines in 876--77.
Khatchik was the Armenian Catholicus from 972--992 (94), but the scattering and spreading of the Armenians for whom he saw fit to establish new bishoprics began somewhat earlier, a fact which can be established on the basis of other oriental sources. One of these sources, for instance, while describing the successful campaigns of Nicephorus Phocas against the Arabs, remarks that many Armenians, having fled to the frontiers of Byzantium, were settled by the Byzantines, some in Sebasteia of Cappadocia where they "multiplied exceedingly", others in the fortresses of Cilicia which had been captured from the Arabs (95). This movement of the Armenians was no doubt encouraged, perhaps even forced, by the imperial authorities in order to repeople the various towns captured from the Arabs as, for instance, Melitene; Tarsus, captured in 965; Antioch, captured in 969 and others, which suffered considerable losses in population as the result of the departure of most of the Moslems. It is known, for instance, that Armenians and Syrian Jacobites were used by Nicephorus Phocas to repeople Melitene which had become virtually deserted (96). The spread of the Armenians into Byzantine territory in the tenth century was not restricted to the newly conquered Cilician and Syrian lands but extended, as the mention of Sebasteia in the reference quoted above indicates, into older provinces including the Cappadocian regions around Caesarea and Nazianzus where the existence of Armenian settlements in the tenth century has been confirmed by the investigation of modern scholars (97).
A later oriental source in describing the spread of the Armenians into the Byzantine empire in the tenth century adds that in all the wars waged by the Romans "the foot soldiers of the Armenians marched and they aided them greatly" (98). There is nothing in this statement indicating the relative numerical strength of the Armenian element in the Byzantine army, but the statement does attribute to this element a role of major importance. The Byzantine army in the tenth century as in all other centuries to the [33] very end of the empire was composed of different peoples. The army of 50,000 men, for instance, which Bardas Phocas, the father of Nicephorus, the future emperor, led against Saif al-Daula in 954, consisted, we are told, of Armenians, Turks, Russians, Bulgars, Slavs and Khazars". To these we may add Georgians (100), converted Saracens (101) and other peoples, who fought on other occasions and whose numbers were by no means insignificant. Nevertheless, as one examines the various campaigns of the Byzantine forces in the tenth century, one is struck by the ever presence of the Armenian element. Armenians participated in every major campaign. They constituted about one-third of the cavalry sent against Crete in the ill-fated expeditions of 911 and 949, and figured prominently among the forces of Nicephorus Phocas which succeeded in conquering the island in 960 (102). They are found fighting in Italy under the elder Nicephorus, grandfather of the conqueror of Crete, during the reign of Basil I, and again in 934 under the patrician Cosmas (103). They fought in the Balkan peninsula as, for instance, in 971 when they contributed greatly to the victory of John Tzimiskes against the Russians and again in 986 when they served under Basil II against the Bulgars (104).
It was in the campaigns against the Arabs along the eastern frontiers, however, that the Armenian contingents in the Byzantine forces stand out most prominently. Their role can hardly be overestimated in the armies of John Curcuas whose appointment as generalissimo (Domestic of the Schools) of the Byzantine forces in the East in 923 may be said to mark the beginning of the brilliant general offensive against the Arabs. Melias and his Armenian followers were, for instance, a major factor in the capture of Melitene and the surrounding country in 934 (105). In the multinational army of 50,000 men which Bardas Phocas put in the field in 954 the Armenian contingents were among the most important. They are said to have suffered the greatest losses in the disaster which followed (106). The Armenians are much in evidence too in the Cilician and [34] Syrian campaigns of Nicephorus Phocas (107), and they constituted the principal backers of Bardas Skleros when in 976 he rebelled against Basil II (108). While it would be going too far to refer to the rebellion of Skleros as an Armenian national movement, there is no question at all about the Armenian composition of his forces. This prominence of the Armenian element in the forces of Byzantium along the eastern frontiers was no doubt the basis of the observation of the modern scholar which we have tried to analyze above that the Armenian (i. e., of Armenian origin) and the Armenian-speaking element must have been predominant in the Byzantine army from the ninth century to the Crusades. Predominant indeed it was if by predominant we mean it was more important than any other national group that served in the Byzantine army.
There is evidence in the sources to the effect that the Armenians serving in the Byzantine army did not constitute a disciplined lot. They could not be relied on to keep their posts: they often deserted; and they did not always obey orders (109). As these accusations come to some extent from official sources, they cannot be dismissed entirely. But lack of discipline often is associated with spiritedness and of the spiritedness, bravery and fighting qualities of the Armenian soldiers serving in the Byzantine army, there can be no question at all. There can be no question either about the great contribution which these soldiers made to the brilliant successes of this army in the tenth and eleventh centuries.
The role of the Armenians in the political and military life of the Byzantine empire, in the late ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries appears still more impressive when one examines the leadership which guided the empire during this period. For virtually every major figure in that leadership was of Armenian origin.
First of all, there is the dynasty, the most brilliant in the history of the empire. The imperial house which ruled the state throughout this period is known as the Macedonian dynasty, but the term Macedonian as used here has no ethnic connotations. It refers rather to the place of the birth of Basil I, the founder of the dynasty. Basil was an Armenian, born in Macedonia where numerous Armenians had been settled. To be sure, there are references found in Arabic sources which raise the question whether Basil may not have been a Slav. In some of these references he is called simply a Slav without any further explanations; in others he is called [35] a Slav because his mother was a Slav (110). Some modern scholars have taken these references seriously and as a consequence have given to Basil a Slavic or Armeno-Slavic origin (111). But in view of the Byzantine and Armenian traditions both of which insist on the Armenian origin of Basil, their opinion is more than questionable. As for the Arabic references, they can best be explained as the result of a confusion arising from the fact that Basil's birthplace was Macedonia whose inhabitants were regarded by the Arabs as Slavs. That Basil I, the founder of the most brilliant dynasty of the Byzantine empire, was indeed Armenian and Armenian on both sides, can be regarded as an established fact (112).
Thus, the dynasty which Basil I founded was Armenian by descent. There was some gossip recorded and passed on by the chronicles that Basil's successor, Leo VI, was actually sired by Michael III and as a consequence was not Basil's genuine son. The careful study of this gossip has shown that it has no basis in fact (113), but even if it were true that Michael III was indeed the father of Basil's successor, that would still make Leo at least partly Armenian for, as the reader will recall, Michael's mother was the Armenian Theodora.
The Armenian element in the Macedonian dynasty was strengthened by the marriage of Constantine Porphyrogenitus to Helen, the daughter of Romanus Lecapenus. Thus Basil II, no doubt the ablest military leader that the Macedonian dynasty produced, had as a grandmother an Armenian lady and as a grandfather an emperor who was himself the grandson of the Armenian founder of the dynasty. The dynasty was, of course, hellenized--Byzantinized is perhaps a more appropriate term -- but the form which this hellenization took was no doubt influenced by its Armenian antecedents, though the extent of this influence is a matter which the historian cannot really determine.
Three of the ablest emperors of the tenth century were not legitimate members of the Macedonian dynasty, but they were associated with it and respected the rights of its members to the throne, though in the case of one, he would have liked, and indeed tried to have his family prevail. Two of these Emperors, Romanus Lecapenus (919--944) and John Tzimiskes (969--976) are definitely known to have been of Armenian origins.
[36] Romanus Lecapenus is said by the chroniclers to have been born in the Armeniac theme (114), but a modern scholar places his birth at Lakape (Laqabin), a place south of Melitene; hence his name Lecapenus (115). He was of obscure origin and of limited, if any, formal education. His father was a certain Theophylact, called Abastactus, who, as a simple soldier, once saved Basil I from being captured by the Saracens (116). But the favor which was shown to him as a consequence of this feat apparently did not make him wealthy. In any case, the son is said to have been poor when he came to Constantinople and entered the naval services of the empire. But he was able and a good judge of men and so rose in rank until he became governor of the naval theme of Samos and then Grand Admiral (Drungarius) of the Fleet. The latter position enabled him to prevail in the struggle for power which took place during the minority of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the son of Leo VI. In December 919 he was crowned Emperor to rule with young Constantine. Meanwhile, his daughter Helen was married to the young Emperor. Thus did this rustic Armenian become emperor and his daughter the wife of an emperor, himself the grandson of another Armenian. But this was not all. Romanus had four sons, three of them, Christopher, Stephen and Constantine, he raised to the throne to be his associates; the fourth, Theophylact, he eventually made patriarch. Thus, church and state fell completely into the hands of the son and grandsons of the simple Armenian soldier who had served under Basil I and whose granddaughter besides was married to the only surviving descendant of that Emperor. Though the son and grandsons of this Armenian eventually fell from power, his granddaughter, as the wife of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, remained Empress and gave to the empire its next Emperor, the man who sired the great Basil II (117).
Quite different was the background of John Tzimiskes. He is said to have been born in the Armenian district of Khozan in a place called after him, Chemshkacagh (118). John Curcuas, the commander (Domestic) of the Hikanatoi who served under and plotted against Basil I (119), was Tzimiskes' direct ancestor. The name of Tzimiskes' father is not known, but his [37] grandfather was Theophilos, an able provincial governor and military commander who distinguished himself in the wars against the Arabs during the reign of Romanus Lecapenus. Theophilos' brother was no other than the Armenian John Curcuas, the brilliant generalissimo (Domestic of the Schools) of the Byzantine forces in the East during the same period. Thus, Tzimiskes, one of the truly great soldier-emperors of Byzantium, belonged by birth to a distinguished Armenian family which had established itself among the military aristocracy of Byzantium. And through marriage he was related to other great families. His first wife Maria, who died before he became Emperor, was the daughter of Bardas Skleros, a member of an illustrious family of Armenian descent (120). Through his mother he was related to the Phocades, one of the most powerful Byzantine families in the tenth century (121). His second wife was Theodora, the daughter of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Armenian Helen (122). It was his marriage to Theodora that gave to his occupation of the imperial throne an air of legitimacy. He had come to the throne through murder, a murder for which he was not innocent, but he added greatly to its lustre and preserved it for the grandsons of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the great Basil II and his much less capable brother, Constantine VIII.
The third Emperor of the tenth century who was not a legitimate member of the Macedonian dynasty but was associated with it was Nicephorus Phocas (963--969), another of the truly great soldier-emporors of the empire. Phocas belonged to one of the most distinguished Byzantine families of the tenth century. Of the beginnings of this family nothing is known. The name Phocas appears as early as the fifth century; it is also attested for the sixth century; and there is of course, the Emperor Phocas, apparently of Cappadocian origin, who overthrew Maurice and was in turn overthrown by Heraclius early in the seventh century (123). But there is no evidence connecting the great tenth century family with any of these early Phocades. To be sure there was a tradition in Byzantium that the Phocades of the tenth century were an old family, and this tradition, apparently sponsored by the family, connected them with the descendants of the great house of the Fabii, who, it was said, had originally been brought to Constantinople, along with other distinguished families, by Constantine the Great (124). But no evidence corroborating this tradition exists. The fact of the matter is that the first known member of this family does not go further back than the second half of the ninth century.
[38] This was a certain Phocas, Cappadocian, i. e., born in Cappadocia, by origin, who became noted for his strength and courage and whom Basil I appointed turmarch (125). Phocas had a son, Nicephorus by name, who as a young man attracted the attention of Basil I and so became a member of that Emperor's immediate entourage. This was the beginning of a brilliant career which extended well into the reign of Leo VI and in the course of which Nicephorus distinguished himself as provincial governor and general commander in the field (126). His two sons Bardas and Leo followed in his footsteps. Leo, in his bid for the throne during the minority of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, lost out to Romanus Lecapenus (127), but Bardas continued to serve the empire for many years. He was the father of the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas (128).
Thus the Phocades were by origin natives of Cappadocia where their possessions were also located. In Cappadocia in the ninth century the Greek-speaking element no doubt predominated (129), a fact which, when taken in conjunction with the Greek name of the family, suggests a Greek origin for the Phocades. But this is not the view that has come to prevail. In the opinion of Adontz who is followed by Grégoire, the Phocades, like many other great families of Asia Minor in the tenth century, were Armenians. Their argument, based really on the fact that the Armenian name of Bardas was used by virtually every generation of the family, has something to recommend it. For in Byzantium where the tendency was definitely toward hellenization and changes in name assumed Greek forms, the retention of a non-Greek name should only mean that the person who bore it was, if not entirely, at least in part of non-Greek origins.
Now, among the Phocades there are two given names wrhich appear frequently and with a remarkable regularity: Nicephorus and Bardas, the first Greek, the second Armenian. Thus Nicephorus Phocas, the famous general who served under Basil I and Leo VI, named one of his sons Bardas, the other Leo. Bardas in turn named his sons, one Nicephorus. the future Emperor, the other Leo. The Emperor Nicephorus had a son who died before his father became Emperor, whose name was Bardas (130). Had the boy grown to manhood and sired a son, he would have named him, no doubt, Nicephorus. The brother of the Emperor Nicephorus, Leo, had a numerous family. One of his sons was named Nicephorus, another Bardas, the famous Bardas Phocas who rebelled against Basil II. This Bardas Phocas had a son Nicephorus who in turn named his son Bardas (131). [39] When we next hear of the Phocades, it is in connection with the Emperor Botaneiates (1078--1081) who claimed descent from the Phocades and whose given name was Nicephorus (132).
It is quite obvious that in their use of the names of Bardas and Nicephorus the Phocades followed a pattern which consisted in this: that grandfather and grandson usually bore the same name. And if we may judge from this pattern the first Phocas, the man who was named turmarch by Basil I, whose given name is not known, most probably was called Bardas, his father, judging from the name of his son, probably Nicephorus.
The frequency and regularity with which these names were used among the Phocades represents quite obviously, an important family tradition. And this tradition is perhaps not unrelated to the ethnic origin of the family. The Phocades of the tenth century were most probably of mixed origin. One side of them was Greek or deeply hellenized, the other side was Armenian. Which side was Greek and which side was Armenian is, of course, impossible to say with any degree of certainty, but judging from the name of the family, the Greek side was probably the male one. Some Nicephorus Phocas, perhaps the father of the Phocas who was named turmarch by Basil I, married into an Armenian family whose head was a Bardas and so founded the great family of the tenth century.
This view, based entirely on the names used by the family, finds some corroboration in the tradition concerning the origin of the family to which reference has already been made. According to this tradition the Phocades, it will be recalled, descended from the Fabii whom Constantine the Great had brought to Constantinople. But that was only one side; the other side was Iberian in origin, going back to the Iberians whom Constantine, we are told, had brought from the west and settled in the country once inhabited by the Assyrians, then by the Medes and afterwards by the Armenians (133). Is this a cryptic allusion to the Armenian origin of one side at least of the Phocades? It may be so interpreted especially since the Armenian name of Bardas was so frequently and with such a regularity used by them.
The Phocades then, if not entirely Armenian in origin were at least partially so. That means, of course, that Nicephorus Phocas, one of the three emperors of the tenth century who were not legitimate members of the Macedonian dynasty, but were associated with it, was also at least partially Armenian in origin.
Thus, every emperor who sat on the Byzantine throne from the accession of Basil I to the death of Basil II (867--1025) was of Armenian or partially Armenian origin. But besides the emperors there were many [40] others among the military and political leaders of Byzantium during this period who were Armenians or of Armenian descent. Included among these were some of the ablest military commanders and administrative functionaries in the history of Byzantium. Some of these commanders and officials belonged to families of Armenian origin long established in the empire; others were new arrivals; while still others, though appearing for the first time, may have had established antecedents about which nothing is known.
No doubt the ablest Byzantine commander in the field during the first half of the tenth century was the Armenian John Curcuas. Curcuas belonged to a well-to-do family established in the empire for some time. He was related to a metropolitan of Gangra, Chistopher by name, who is said to have directed his early education. His grandfather, named also John, was the Curcuas wrho, as commander (Domestic) of the Hikanatoi served under, and plotted against, Basil I (134). The younger John Curcuas came into prominence with the rise to powrer of Romanus Lecapenus. Appointed generalissimo (Domestic of the Schools) of the Byzantine forces in the East in 923, Curcuas served in that capacity for more than twenty-two years in the course of which he was almost continuously engaged against the Arabs and almost always with striking success (135). Almost as able and equally accomplished was his brother Theophilos, who, as it has already been observed, was the grandfather of the Emperor John Tzimiskes. John Curcuas was removed from his command in 944 and was replaced by the patrician Pantherios, who, as a relative of Romanus Lecapenus, was probably also of Armenian origin (136). Descendants of John Curcuas were prominent in the political and military life of the empire throughout the rest of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century (137).
Romanus Lecapenus turned also to a member of a family of Armenian origin long established in the empire for his chief naval commander. This was the patrician Alexius Mushele whose family was already prominent at the beginning of the ninth century. Alexius was named Admiral (Drungarius) of the fleet and as such, participated in the wars against the Bulgarian Symeon in which he lost his life (138). Meanwhile Romanus had married one of his daughters to a member of the Mushele family, perhaps to Alexius himself, thus strengthening the Armenian element in the family. Born of this union was the magister Romanus Mushele who served [41] as governor of the Opsikian theme during the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus following the overthrow of the Lecapeni and whose possessions in the region of Philomelion were so vast that Basil II saw fit to seize them (139). Basil's act apparently impoverished the family. To the Mushele family belonged also perhaps the Armenian Alexius who served as governor of Cyprus during the reign of Basil I (140). Alexius was the favorite name in this family.
The Mushele family is also referred to as that of the Krenitae. The name Krenites is used for the first time in connection with the Alexius Mushele who, as has already been observed, was married to Maria, the daughter of the Emperor Theophilus. But the name was apparently older, for we are told that Alexius occupied the houses of Krenitissa, i. e., the houses of the lady of the family of Krenites. Whether the Krenitae were identical writh the main Mushele family or were a branch of it is not quite clear. In any case, they were of Armenian origin. A number of them are known to have occupied important positions. These include: George, Procopius, Arotras, Arotras' son Abessalom, and Paschal. George served under Leo VI and was charged by him to pursue Samonas (141) when the latter escaped. Procopius commanded the Byzantine troops sent against the Bulgarian Symeon in 894; he was defeated and killed. Arotras, a protospatharius, served as governor of the Peloponnesus and of Hellas during the reign of Romanus Lecapenus; Abessalom was implicated in the unsuccessful attempt in 913 of Constantine Ducas to seize the throne; he was blinded and exiled. Paschal served as the Byzantine governor of Longobardia during the reign of Romanus Lecapenus. Paschal also, as imperial ambassador to Hugh of Provence, negotiated the marriage between Hugh's daughter and the young son of the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. There is another Krenites, referred to simply as protospatharius, who was used by Romanus Lecapenus as interpreter in his negotiations with the Armenian princes of Taron. Who this Krenites was is impossible to say, but the information about him that he was an interpreter in negotiations with Armenian princes is interesting, for it shows, as Adontz has remarked, that the Krenitae, though long established in the empire, still spoke Armenian. The family seems to have retained its prominence past the middle of the eleventh century (142).
[42] The Skleroi, whose first known member, as had already been pointed out, was governor of the Peloponnesus at the beginning of the ninth century, was another established Armenian family of major importance in the political and military life of the empire in the tenth century. The patrician Nicetas Skleros served under Leo VI and was entrusted with the task of inciting the Hungarians against the Bulgarian Symeon, a task which he successfully carried out (143). No doubt the most famous member of the family was Bardas Skleros. As generalissimo of the Byzantine forces in the east during the reign of Tzimiskes (144), Bardas distinguished himself in the field, but he is better known for his revolt against Basil II, a revolt in which, as has already been pointed out, his forces were predominantly Armenian, and which almost brought him on the throne (145). The Skleroi were related by marriage to other powerful families. Bardas' sister Maria was married to John Tzimiskes; his brother Constantine, to a Phocas, niece of the emperor Nicephorus, and sister of Bardas Phocas, Skleros' antagonist (146); and his own grandson Basil, to a member of the Argyri, Pulcheria, the sister of Romanus, who later became emperor (147). The Skleroi were politically influential throughout the eleventh century. A Skleros was involved in the revolt of the military which put Issac Comnenus on the throne in 1057 (148); another took part in the conspiracy of the Anemas family against Alexius Comnenus (149).
Reference has already been made to the magister Stephen, the son of Calomaria and the Armenian Arshavir, who served as a member of the regency appointed to guide the state during the minority of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (150). But more important in the central administration of the empire were two other personages of Armenian or partially Armenian descent. One was Stylianos Zaoutzes, the other was Basil the paracoemomenos. Zaoutzes was an Armenian born is Macedonia whom we first find in the entourage of Basil I. He was apparently one of Basil's most trusted courtiers for just before he died he committed to Zaoutzes "the direction of all matters, ecclesiastical and political". Under Leo VI he became the most powerful imperial minister, directing indeed "all matters, [43] ecclesiastical and political" (151). The title of basileopator, 'father of the emperor', was expressly created for him even before his daughter Zoe, who was the mistress of Leo VI, became Leo's wife (152). His death early in 896 was followed not long afterwards by that of this daughter. His family, threatened now with loss of power, plotted against the government but their plot was discovered and they were destroyed (153). It was this plot of the family of Zaoutzes that first brought into prominence the Saracen Samonas, one of the most remarkable personages in the intelligence service of the imperial government.
Basil the paracoemomenos was the illegitimate son of the emperor Romanus Lecapenus who, as the reader already knows, was an Armenian. His mother was a Slav (154). Introduced into the government during the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus Basil became, beginning with the reign of Nicephorus Phocas, the real director of the civil administration of the empire. He was particularly effective during the early years of the reign of Basil II when his intelligence and cunning enabled the young emperor to weather the various storms which threatened him with destruction. Basil was indeed very greedy, but he was not only an able administrator, but also a statesman (155).
A number of personages, active during the late ninth and early part of the tenth century may have also been of Armenian origins. Included among these was Leo, surnamed Apostyppes, who, as governor of Macedonia, was sent in command of his troops to fight against the Saracens in Italy in 880. The failure of the campaign resulted in his disgrace and exile. It is on the basis of the names of his sons, Bardas and David, that one may suppose that he was Armenian (156). Another, this one certainly an Armenian, was Adrian the patrician. Adrian must have been a person of some importance, for Romanus Lecapenus married his son Constantine to his daughter (157). Still another was Gregoras Iberitzes, who was Domestic of the Schools in 906--907. Iberitzes was the father-in-law of Constantine Ducas and was implicated in the revolt attempted by the latter in 913 to seize control of the government (158). Implicated in the same revolt was another personage, Constantine Lips, who, judging from the name of his son Bardas, was probably also an Armenian. This Bardas, a patrician, was [44] involved in the plot to overthrow Romanus II in 961. Lips had another son, named also Constantine, who bore the title of anthypatos and patrician and was the great Hetaeriarch during the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (159). Kourtikes, known definitely to have been an Armenian and about whom more will be said below was also a partisan of Ducas (160). Indeed among the known partisans of Constantine Ducas there are so many who seem to have been Armenian that one may raise the question whether that powerful Byzantine family may not have been of Armenian origin (161).
Among the Armenians who entered the services of the empire toward the end of the ninth century and established a place for themselves and their families, the most famous no doubt was Mleh, the Melias of the Byzantines. Of this Melias and his activities along the eastern frontier reference has already been made. Melias was indeed a great figure whose deeds were later attributed to Digenes Akrites, the hero of the Byzantine epic in which, as Melimentzes, Melias himself appears as one of Digenes' opponents. Melias died in 934, but he apparently left a son who also distinguished himself in the service of the empire, first as provincial governor and finally, under John Tzimiskes, as Domestic of the Schools. He died before Amida in 973. It is this Melias who is represented in a fresco in one of the churches in Cappadocia not far from Caesarea, where he is referred to as magister (162). What happened to the family after 973 is not known; but it is interesting to observe that there were still at the beginning of the twentieth century heterodox tribes in the region of Adana and Tarsus which bore the name of Melemenjii (163).
Reference has also been made to another Armenian who entered the services of the empire in the last quarter of the ninth century. This was Kourtikios, called more often Kourtikes, who it will be recalled, was the chieftain of the fortress of Locana which he turned over to the empire following the destruction of Tephrike in 872 and, together with his Armenian followers, entered the services of the empire. It was this Kourtikes, no doubt, who as one of the commanders of the Byzantine troops sent against the Bulgarian Symeon in 894 lost his life (164). But he had already established his family in the political and military life of the empire. For a Kourtikes, probably the son of the chieftain of Locana, was, as has already been observed, a partisan of Constantine Ducas and died in his [45] attempt to seize power in 913 (165). A Manuel Kourtikes helped to dethrone Romanus Lecapenus in 944 and was later made patrician and Drimgarius of the Watch by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (166). Some years later a Michael Kourtikes was a naval commander and sided with Bardas Skleros in his revolt against Basil II (167). Thus, throughout the tenth century the Kourtikes family played a role of some importance in the political and military life of the empire. This role continued into the eleventh century.
A high water mark of the Byzantine offensive on the eastern front in the second half of the tenth century was the capture of Antioch in 969. The commander of the Byzantine troops which took this famous Syrian city was Michael Bourtzes (168). Bourtzes was an Armenian. In 976 he was named Duke of Antioch, but soon after joined the rebellious forces of Bardas Skleros, bringing along with him a contingent of Armenians. But by 992 we find him Duke of Antioch again. Meanwhile he had established his family in the political and military life of the empire. His elder son was already, as early as 976, active as military commander. The Bourtzes family remained prominent in the political and military life of the empire throughout the eleventh century. They seem to have been particularly active during the reign of Alexius Comnenus (169).
Another Armenian family active in the military life of the empire in the late tenth and eleventh century, was that of Theodorokanos. The first known member of this family was the patrician Theodorokanos who served as general in the Bulgarian wars of Basil II. When he retired from active life in 1000--1001 because of old age, he was governor of Philippopolis. The last knowrn member of the family, probably the grandson of the patrician Theodorokanos, was Constantine who died shortly after 1077. He had opposed Nicephorus Bryennios in his attempt to become emperor, was captured by him and was sent into exile wrhere he died. The other two members of the family known, George and Basil, were no doubt sons of the patrician. They both held important commands (170).
The Dalassenoi, one of the more prominent Byzantine families in the eleventh century, may also have been of Armenian origin. The first known member of this family was Damianos whom we find Duke of Antioch in 995. He was killed in 998 fighting the Saracens. His four sons [46] occupied important positions in the military and administrative organization of the empire. One of them, Constantine, apparently a popular figure, was twice considered for the throne, once in 1028 at the time of the death of Constantine VIII and again in 1042 following the overthrow of Michael V. His daughter became the wife of Constantine Ducas, the future Emperor. Another female member of the family, a descendant of Theophylact, a son of Damianos, became the mother of Alexius Comnenus. The family originally came from Dalassa, a place which, according to Adontz who has written the history of the family, was an Armenian center located in the montainous region to the east of Melitene known as Claudia. It is on this ground that he gives to the family an Armenian origin. His argument, if not entirely convincing, is, nevertheless, impressive (171).
Adontz has written the history of another Byzantine family, this one certainly of Armenian origin (172). The Armenian district of Taron, it will be recalled, was ceded to the empire by the brothers Gregory and Pancratios (Bagrat) who were given other lands located elsewhere in the empire. Discontented with this arrangement at first, the Taronite brothers joined Bardas Skleros in his rebellion, but were subsequently reconciled with Basil II, were entrusted with important commands, and established themselves in the military and administrative life of the empire. The family of Gregory particularly prospered. His son Ashot was married to the daughter of the Bulgarian King Samuel. Ashot's descendants intermarried with the Melissenoi and the Comneni, two of the most prominent Byzantine families of the eleventh century (173). They are known to have held important positions down to the middle of the twelfth century.
A branch of the Taronites, the Tornikios family, survived still longer, holding important military and administrative positions down to the beginning of the fourteenth century. We first meet with members of this family in 945 when a Nicolas and Leo Tornikios helped Constantine Porphyrogenitus to eliminate the Lecapeni from the throne. It is not until the eleventh century, however, that we find members of this family occupying important military posts. In 1047 one of them, Leo Tornikios, attempted to seize the throne. His failure was less heroic than that of another Armenian, George Maniakes, the famous general, who had attempted the same thing several years earlier (1042) (174). The John Tornikios who aided the [47] imperial forces at the time of the rebellion of Bardas Skleros belonged to the Georgian branch of the family, in its origins also Armenian (175).
Among those who supported Bardas Skleros at the time of his rebellion there was a certain Sachakios Vrachamios. Vrachamios was at the time, according to one source, an army general, according to another, the head of an important bureau. In any case, he was an important personage, already active during the reign of John Tzimiskes. A number of other persons, belonging to the same family and occupying positions of some importance, are known, but as all the information at our disposal is derived from seals, not much can be said about them. There is one, however, who figures prominently in the literary sources. This is Philaretus who, following the Byzantine disaster at Mentzikert in 1071, carved out a principality for himself in the Taurus mountains which was eventually extended to include the cities of Melitene, Antioch and Edessa. His forces consisted almost entirely of Armenians. The Vrachamios family was, of course, Armenian in origin (176).
In this analysis of the Armenian element in the leadership of the empire for the period under consideration, a number of other personages of Armenian origin might have been mentioned. For instance, the Machitars who appear in the service of the empire during the last quarter of the tenth century--the first Machitar seems to have been governor of Lycandos sometime after 973--and continued until the end of the eleventh century (177), or, the Kekaumenoi who produced two important personages in the eleventh century, Katakalon, one of the ablest Byzantine generals of the period, and the author Kekaumenos, the able and wise provincial administrator, whose work is no doubt the most original political treatise in the literature of Byzantium (178). One might mention also the Georgian-Armenian families of Apocapes and Pacurianus, members of both of which [48] are known to have held important positions in the eleventh century (179). Enough has been said, however, to show how important the Armenian element was among those who directed the destiny of the empire during what was the most brilliant period in its history.