It may be said, therefore, that the battle of Mentzikert and the subsequent loss by the empire of eastern and central Asia Minor brought to an end the great role which, beginning with the end of the sixth century, the Armenians had played in the political and military life of the empire. But Armenians continued to live in the empire down to its very end (209). Two colonies of them, for instance, are known to have existed in western Asia Minor in the thirteenth century. One of them was located near Smyrna, the other around Abydus and in the valley of the Scamander (210). About the origin of these two colonies nothing definite can be said. The one near Smyrna may have been old, going back perhaps to the Armenian settlement in the neighborhood of Priene which is known to have existed in the tenth century. That around Abydus and in the valley of the Scamander, judging from its bitter hostility to the Greeks, may have been more recent, the result perhaps of the transfer of Armenians from another region, as that, for instance, which was effected by John II Comnenus when he took Anazarbus in 1138 (211). When after the fall of Constantinople in 1204 Henry of Flanders crossed over into Asia Minor in an attempt to conquer this region for the Latin empire, the Armenians of this colony flocked to his standards and helped him take Abydus which he entrusted to an Armenian garrison. When, however, shortly afterwards, Henry crossed back over into Europe, the Armenians who had taken his side went there also. They followed him because they feared the vengeance of the Greeks, but in the end they did not escape this vengeance. Settled in Thrace, they were attacked and destroyed by the Greeks in that region. We are told that the Armenians who had followed Henry into Europe numbered 20,000 and that they took along with them their wives and children. Though this figure is, no doubt, an [55] exaggeration, it does serve to indicate that the Armenian colony around Abydus and in the valley of the Scamander was a numerous one (212).
Armenian colonies continued to exist also in the European provinces of the empire. The Armenians had come there for trade and other purposes, but primarily through the policy of forced transfers, a policy to which the Byzantines, as the reader already knows, resorted very frequently. Byzantine historians of the twelfth century often refer to Armenians inhabiting the country around Philippopolis, especially in order to emphasize their disloyalty to the empire. Though what these historians had in mind were the Paulicians of this region, many of whom at this time, were racially not Armenian in origin, there can be no doubt that the population of Philippopolis and the surrounding country included also Armenians (213). There were Armenians in most of the large towns of the empire. They were particularly numerous in Constantinople (214) and also in Thessalonica where they are known to have possessed in the thirteenth century a church of their own (215). But besides the Armenians who lived in Thessalonica there were others who dwelt in villages nearby. Armenian villages situated elsewhere in the European regions of the empire are known to have existed at least as late as the end of the twelfth century. An Armenian village was located in the Rila mountains not far south from Dupnica and Samokov in Bulgaria; another near Bitolj in the southwestern corner of what is now Serbian Macedonia; and there were Armenians in the towns of Stromitza and Moglena and along the river Pchinja (216). Though nothing definite can be said about the origin of these Armenian villages, it is quite possible that they went back to the period of Basil II, who, it will be recalled, had settled numerous Armenians in Macedonia, some of whom deserted to the Bulgars (217).
[56] The hostility to the Greeks shown by the Armenians of Abydus at the time when Henry of Flanders tried to conquer that region was not peculiar to that particular group, but reflects the attitude of the Armenians of the empire in general. Known instances of the expression of this attitude are very numerous. This has been noted and commented upon by modern scholars. "The Armenian", writes J. Laurent, "was never able to fraternize completely with the Greeks. However high he may have risen in the empire, however great his fortunes may have been, however devoted the services which he may have rendered in the army and in the administration, the Armenian never became a Byzantine like others. He kept at least for himself and his private life, his language, his habits, his customs and his national religion; grouped with him were other Armenians, immigrants like him; instead of hellenizing himself in Greece, he armenized the Greek territories where he settled; he remained in the Byzantine empire an unassimilated foreign element, which on occasions became dangerous" (218). And elsewhere in the same paper: "There it is how at the hour of danger, when the Seljuk Turks were depriving the Byzantine empire of Asia Minor, Byzantium, instead of finding defenders in the Armenians whom it had established in its territories, saw them stand against it and contribute to the success of its ferocious adversaries" (219).
Another scholar who himself points out the distrust and dislike of the Armenians for the Byzantine empire has called this statement "fantastic-nonsense" (220). Runciman touches upon the Armenians only incidentally and as a consequence, his studies concerning them are less exhaustive than those of Laurent, but his judgment in that matter is certainly closer to the truth. There is no doubt at all that Greeks and Armenians disliked each other and that at times this dislike turned into bitter hostility and found expression in atrocious deeds as, for instance, that of Gagik, the dispossessed king of Ani, who had the Greek bishop of Caesaria seized and put into a sack together with his large dog and then had his men beat bishop and dog until the maddened animal tore his master to shreds (221). There is no doubt either, as the reader already knows and later generations among the Armenians acknowledged (222), that this hostility between Greeks and [57] Armenians was an important factor in the conquest of Asia Minor by the Seljuk Turks. But to say that "however high he may have risen in the empire, however great his fortunes may have been, however devoted the services which he may have rendered in the army and in the administration, the Armenian never became a Byzantine like others" is indeed to talk nonsense, as anyone who knows something about the role of the Armenians in Byzantine society can readily see.
For something like five hundred years, Armenians played an important role in the political, military and administrative life of the Byzantine empire. They served as soldiers and officers, as administrators and emperors. In the early part of this period during the seventh and eighth centuries, when the empire was fighting for its very existence, they contributed greatly in turning back its enemies. But particularly great was their role in the ninth and tenth centuries when as soldiers and officers, administrators and emperors they dominated the social, military and political life of the empire and were largely responsible for its greatness. So dominant indeed was their role during this period that one may refer to the Byzantine empire of these two centuries as Graeco-Armenian; 'Graeco', because as always, its civilization was Greek, 'Armenian', because the element which directed its destinies and provided the greater part of the forces for its defense was largely Armenian or of Armenian origin. It was a role, moreover, of world-wide historical significance for it was during this period that the empire achieved its greatest success, when its armies triumphed everywhere, its missionaries spread the gospel and with it civilization among the southeastern Slavs, and its scholars resurrected Greek antiquity, thus making possible the preservation of its literature. Herein lies perhaps the most important part of the legacy of the Armenians to civilization. But while all this may be true, the point should be made and made with emphasis that the Armenians in Byzantium who furnished it with its leadership were thoroughly integrated into its political and military life, identified themselves with its interest and adopted the principal features of its culture. In brief, like many other elements of different racial origins, as, for instance, Saracens, Slavs and Turks, who had a similar experience, they became Byzantines.