Studies on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire

Peter Charanis

Studies on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire Collected Studies

With a preface by Speros Vryonis Jr.

VARIORUM REPRINTS London 1972

ISBN 0 902089 25 0

Published in Great Britain by VARIORUM REPRINTS 21a Pembridge Mews London W11 3EQ Printed in Switzerland by REDA SA

1225 Chine-Bourg Geneva

VARIORUM REPRINT CS8

CONTENTS

Author's preface Introduction I

Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine

1-19

Empire Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Main Papers, XIV. Oxford, 1966.

Il

Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century

25-44

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XIII. Washington, 1959.

III

The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire

140-154

Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.III, No.2. Mouton & Co. The Hague, 1961.

IV

Some Remarks on the Changes in Byzantium in the Seventh Century

71-76

Recueil des travaux de 1lnstitut d'Etudes byzantines, VIII, I (Melanges G. Ostrogorsky, 1). Belgrade, 1963. V

The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

196-240

Byzantinoslavica, XXII. Prague, 1961.

VI

A Note on the Ethnic Origin of the Emperor Maurice

412-417

Byzantion, T. XXXV. Bruxelles, 1965.

VII

The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century

69-83

Byzantion, T. XVIII (1946-48). Bruxelles, 1948.

VIII

On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century Studies offered in Honour of St. Kyriakides (Prosphora Eis Stilpona P. Kyriakiden). Thessalonica, 1953.

140-147

IX

The Jews in the Byzantine Empire under the First

75-77

Palaeologi Speculum, Vol. XXII, No.1, (1947). The Mediaeval Academy of A merica.

X

The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece

141-166

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, V. Washington, 1950. XI

On the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece during the Middle Ages

254-258

Byzantinoslavica, X. Prague, 1949.

XII

The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History of Athens and Corinth in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries

163-172

Historia. Zeitschrift fur alte Geschichte, Band IV. Heft 2/3, 1955.

XIII

Nicephorus 1, The Savior of Greece from the Slavs (810 A.D.)

75-92

Byzantina-Metabyzantina, VoLI, Part I. New York, 1946.

XIV

On the Question of the Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy during the Middle Ages

74-86

The American Historical Review, VoLLII, No.l, Washington, 1946.

XV

On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs and its Recapture by the Byzantines

343-350

Speculum, VoLXXVII, No.3, (1952). The Mediaeval Academy of America.

XVI

On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Band 46. Munich, 1953.

91-103

XVII

The Term `Helladikoi' in Byzantine Texts of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Centuries

615-620

Epeteris Byzantinon Spoudon, 23. Athens, 1953.

XVIII

Hellas in the Greek Sources of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Centuries

161-176

Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr., edited by Kurt Weitzmann. Princeton, New Jersey, 1955.

XIX

Graecia in Isidore of Seville

2-25

Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Band 64. Munich, 1971.

XX

Kouver, the Chronology of his Activities and their Ethnic Effects on the Regions around Thessalonica

229-247

Balkan Studies, VoLXI, No.2. Thessalonica, 1970,

XXI

Observations on the History of Greece during the

1-34

Early Middle Ages Balkan Studies, VoLXI, No.1. Thessalonica, 1970.

XXII

How Greek was the Byzantine Empire? Bucknell Review, VoLXI, No.3. Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, 1963.

Index

This volume contains a total of 364 pages

101-116

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

Chronologically the first of these studies was published in 1946; the last in 1971. Each one of them was written to stand by itself and as a consequence there is, in the case of a few, some repetition, but this repetition does not affect

the essentials of any one of them. When written there was much in them, particularly in those which relate to the problem of the Slavic settlements in Greece proper, which was controversial, but the views which they express are now generally accepted. Paul Lemerle's reservation on my position, which I based on the Chronicle of Monemvasia, to the effect that the Slavs established themselves in the Peloponnesus as early as the reign of Maurice, in view of a recent publication, sponsored by Lemerle himself, which puts the foundation of Monemvasia during the reign of Maurice, is no longer tenable. [Peter Schreiner,

"Note sur la fondation de Monemvasie en 582-583", Travaux et Memoires, 4 (1970), 471-475.] There is very little in these studies which I would not hold were I writing them today. On one important matter, however, I have changed my mind. I think now, in view of the oddness of the number of Slavs settled in Asia Minor by Constantine V given by one of the chroniclers, that that number should be taken at its face value, instead of trying to reduce it as I did in Study VII, a study which in other respects remains solid. Two further observations: the term Slavesiani was most probably formed [Cf. G. Soulis in Epiteris Byzantinon

Spoudon, 19 (1949), 339]by analogy with Thracesiani, Carabisiani, and as a consequence does not derive from Slavisia as I had thought; the Gypsies, originally from India, came to Byzantium from Armenia and as a consequence my view that they were the descendants of the Zatt does not hold. [G. Soulis, "The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 15 (1961)

143ff.] There is also a misprint which I would like to call to the reader's attention. On page 240, line 16 of Study XX one should read 658 and not 568 as is there stated. The confused setting of lines 19-20 on page 219 of Study V can be easily corrected by eliminating: "hence his birth at Lakapa (Laqabin), a place south of Melitene"_

I should like to acknowledge with thanks the kindness of journals and institutions which granted permission for the reproduction of these studies in this volume. These include: the Cambridge University Press; Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection; l'Institut d'Etudes byzantines (Belgrad); the Medieval Academy of America; the Princeton University Press, and the Society for the Promotion of Macedonian Studies. Also the editors of the American Historical Review, the Bucknell Review, Byzantina-Metabyzantina, ByzantinoSlavica, Byzantion, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Epiteris Byzantinon Spoudon, Historia, and the Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies.

New Brunswick, N.J. January 1972

PETER CHARANIS

INTRODUCTION

Not the least of the fascinations which the Byzantine Empire has held for historians is its remarkable variety. It lies in the tradition of the earlier Macedonian and Roman and of the later Ottoman empires. As a multinational, polyglot, multisectarian political entity Byzantium ruled over Greeks, Latins, Slavs, Vlachs, Copts, Syrians, Armenians, Georgians, Lazes, Albanians, Patzinaks, Cumans, Jews, Gypsies, Berbers, many of whom preserved their languages and among them there existed a variety of religious affiliations: pagan, Orthodox,

Catholic, Monophysite, Islamic, Judaic, not to mention the bewildering variety of heresies from each group. The study of Byzantine demography has, conse-

quently, been one of the most important aspects in the development of Byzantinology. Byzantinists have concerned themselves with the identification

of ethnic-religious groups, the nature of their own particular culture, their numerical extent, the imperial policies of colonization with various ethnic groups, and the nature and extent of cultural interaction among various groups and particularly the interaction of their cultures with the formal culture of the imperial establishment which propounded religious Orthodoxy in the form of the seven ecumenical councils and utilized Greek as the language of administration

and in its formal cultural expressions. The study of Byzantine demography has encountered two basic obstacles, obstacles which are to be seen in historical investigations of the ethnic aspects of other multinational empires such as those of the Ottomans, Romanovs, and Hapsburgs. The first of these obstacles which has affected the study of Byzantine pluralistic society is ultimately of a political nature and arose from the onset of modern nationalism and the irredentist aspirations of the Greeks, Bulgars, Serbs, Albanians, Rumanians,'and Armenians (formerly subjects of the Ottomans) who after liberation emerged as competitors for various lands once ruled by the Turks. Thus history was seized as a tool to be utilized in support of national aspirations. This warping of history to political ends has not remained limited exclusively to the national historians of the Balkans, for it has enjoyed a substantial tradition among a number of historians from central and northern European countries who also had certain political and emotional predispositions in regard to the history of southeast Europe. As scholarship began to refine the study of the Byzantine phenomenon, and particularly as the .Gibbon-inspired odium was dispelled and replaced by a vision of Byzantium as a civilizing force, the various national historians of the Balkans began to vie in claiming various shares of the Byzantine accomplishment as their ethnic contribution.

The second obstacle to the study of Byzantine demography is a direct result of the general development in European historiography during the latter half of the nineteenth century. The appearance of Gobineau's brilliantly written Inegalite des races humaines in 1853 established new canons for the interpretation of world history, canons which employed the test of `purity of

blood' or the `proper mixture of blood', and in which the `Nordic race' and `Nordic blood' were the determinants in politico-cultural greatness and creativity.

For over two generations scholars, students, and unfortunately politicians and

legislators, imbibed this racist or biological interpretation of history. He wrote in the introductory chapter to his famous work: "And when I have shown by examples that great peoples, at the moment of their death, have only a very small and insignificant share in the blood of the founders, into whose inheritance they come, I shall thereby have explained clearly enough how it is possible for civilizations

to fall - the reason being that they

are no longer in the same hands."

[The Inequality of Human Races, tr. A. Collins (London, 1915), 26.] Gobineau's fallacious principles were applied to history throughout Europe, America and the Near East, wherever there were to be found practitioners of the `critical' historiography evolved by the West. Consequently many Greek, Bulgar, Slav, and Turkish scholars, along with numerous western scholars, have approached Byzantine demography, and argued their own ethnic claims, in terms of the canons of Gobineau: purity of blood.

It is as a result of these two baneful influences, political preoccupation and racist conceptions, that one of the most important and fascinating aspects of Byzantium, its demographic composition, has been discussed in largely unintelligible and meaningless terms. Indeed Byzantine demography has become the

Homeric question of Byzantine studies by dint of the voluminous outpouring on the subject. Unfortunately the legacy of Gobineau continues to lie heavy on this field, much as that of Gibbon at an earlier period. As late as 1963, in a lecture delivered at the University of Cincinnati, one of the most distinguished Byzantinists of our era made the following pronouncement: "Well, then: as regards the fifteenth, and subsequently the nine-

teenth, century claim to historical, that is, racial continuity with ancient times in the Greek peninsula: no educated person nowadays would maintain this claim in the realm of sober, historical fact. The failure of the Hellenes to survive as a recognisable racial group in the later Roman empire mattered the less since, after the conquest of Greece by Alexander, its people themselves evinced a striking, and continuously increasing, decline in the creative genius which had characterised them during the past four and a half centuries. They now became, over a wide area of the Mediterranean and the Near East, the interpreters and codifiers of their ancestors. It may well be that the chief reason for this decline lies in the region of biology rather than of politics: I mean, in a final disequilibrium between the two racial stocks, Nordic and Mediterranean, whose harmonious

fusion had till then produced so much of glory and nobility, of creative artistry and intellectual majesty." [R. Jenkins, Byzantium and Byzantinism (Cincinnati, 1963), 22.1

The Gobineau stereotype, purity of blood (or the right mixture), culture, and ethnic affiliation, is immediately evident, though the writings of the two men are separated by over a century. The collection and printing in one volume of Peter Charanis' articles on Byzantine demography mark an important landmark in the study of the subject. His studies are characterized by insight, objectivity, and an impeccable fidelity to the primary sources. Because of the paucity and difficulty of the sources on demography their critical evaluation has assumed a dominating position in demographic scholarship. Charanis, in a life time of study, has subjected the written records, numismatics, and toponymy to an intense and searching analysis, and in his synthesis has remained bound to primary sources, refusing to abandon them in the face of seductive secondary speculations. It is this austerity of historical method and rich knowledge of the primary historical monuments which have made of the author the foremost authority on Byzantine demography, and have enabled him to remain free of the passionate pronouncements of nationalist and racist historians. The present volume constitutes the basic study of

Byzantine demography and will serve as the foundation and sure guide for further investigation of the subject.

SPEROS VRYONIS, Jr.

I

Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine Empires

IN i9r t a general history of the Byzantine empire appeared in England, written by Edward Foord. It was a small book, characterized by a straightforward narrative simply told, with no attempt at an analysis of the institutions of the empire or of the various problems associated with its historical evolution. It is a book which no scholar today will use as a reference. But the ordinary reader may still read it with profit, for the general narrative is on the whole sound and the spirit which impregnates it is one of sympathy for the empire. Foord's critical observations on the image of the Byzantine empire created by such men as Voltaire, Gibbon, and Lecky are well taken.

What is particularly interesting in Foord's book, however, at least in so far as the present study is concerned, is the series of tables which he appended.2 The peculiarity about these tables is this: in three of them we are given the area in square miles of the empire at various epochs of its existence; in only one are we given an estimate of its population. This is at the end of the reign of Theodosius I (395), when, according to Foord, the combined population of the provinces which came to form the eastern empire numbered (on estimate) 65,ooo,ooo souls. In giving this figure Foord gives no reference to his sources nor does he explain the basis of his calculations. The omission is serious, but what immediately comes to one's mind is not so much this omission as the question, why was it that he gave a figure for the population of the empire in 395 and failed to do so for the other periods for which he gave

the area of the empire in square miles. The answer, I think, is simple: he had no sources and no basis for making a calculation himself.

Fifty-five years have elapsed since the appearance of Foord's book and, despite the tremendous progress we have made in our knowledge of Byzantium, we are hardly any further advanced than he was. The problem, however, has not remained without some investigation. W. G. Holmes in the second edition of his Age of ,Justinian examined the question and came to the conclusion that the population of the empire during the reign of Anastasius numbered fifty-six million. His reasoning for so concluding, however, has no real scientific value. He urges, and gives as evidence the existence of a number of large cities, that the regions which constituted

the empire toward the end of the sixth century were much more flourishing and 'considerably more, perhaps even double, as populous' as the same regions at the ' These observations do not include Italy and chronologically do not extend, except incidentally, much beyond the end of the twelfth century. ' Edward Foord, The Byzantine Empire: The Rearguard of European Civilization (London, 19, 1), Tables I and III.

I 2

P. CHARANIS

beginning of the twentieth century, when, according to him, they had a population of twenty-eight million.' The first really systematic attempt, however, to examine the question of the size of the population of the Byzantine empire was made by A. Andreades. This was in the form of a paper which he delivered at the Fourth International Congress of Byzantine Studies held in Sofia, published in 1935 .2 But all that Andreades did in this paper was to pose the problem, expose its difficulties, and analyse the various factors which affected favourably or unfavourably the size of the population of the empire. Except for the population of Constantinople to which he had previously devoted a monograph he gives no figures.

About the same time that Andreades published his paper, E. Stein, then in the United States, prepared a series of lectures on the history and institutions of the Byzantine empire which he intended to deliver during the academic year 1935-6But owing to the illness of the author which occurred in 1936, the lectures were not delivered. However, after the war the text which Stein had prepared was revised

by G. G. Garitte and J. R. Palanque and was published in Traditio. Stein in this work gives actual figures of what he thought the size of the population of the empire

was at certain periods of its existence: 26 million during the fourth century (the eastern and Balkan provinces only); 30 million under Justinian; 20 million during the first half of the eleventh century; Io to 12 million during the period of the Comneni and about 5 million during the reign of Michael VIII Palaeologus.3 Stein gives no references, nor does he discuss the basis of his calculations. Hence, if there is any validity in these figures, this validity must rest on the profound erudi-

tion of the author, an erudition, however, which in its profundity did not extend much beyond the end of the sixth century. Another scholar by no means as well versed in the history of the Byzantine empire as Stein has also given some figures. J. C. Russell in his monograph on ancient and medieval population offers the following figures of the size of the population of the

eastern empire; 24 million in the year 350; Ig million in 600; about 11 million in 800; 15 million in Iooo; and about 7 million in i2oo.4 Russell's work is a serious and comprehensive study, but there is reason to doubt its conclusions. The figures which he gives are based, in the final analysis, on the assumption that the principal city of a region constituted approximately one and a half per cent of its population. But, apart from the arbitrariness of this assumption, there is also this problem: if the estimate of the population of the city involved is wrong, then the estimate of the population of the region will also prove to be wrong. To give an example: he estimates the population of Edessa at the time of the Crusades at 24,000. He considers Edessa as the second ranking city in Syria and relates its population, according to

another formula which he worked out, to the population of Antioch, the first ranking city of the region. The population of Antioch he fixes at 40,600, and so 1 W. G. Holmes, The Age of Justinian and Theodora, 2nd ed. (London, 1912), i, p. 237. In note 2 on the same page Holmes writes: 'Taking all things into consideration, to give a hundred

millions to the countries forming the Eastern Empire, in their palmy days, might not be an overestimate.' ' A. Andreades, 'La population de l'Empire byzantin', Bulletin de t'Institut archeologique bulgare, ix (Sofia, 1935), PP. 117-z6,

' E. Stein, 'Introduction a l'histoire et aux institutions byzantines', Traditio, vii (1949-

1951), P- 154.

' J. C. Russell, Late, Ancient and Medieval Population (= Transactions of the American

Philosophical Society, N.S. xlviii, Part 3; Philadelphia, 1958), p. 148.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

3

comes to the conclusion that Syria at the time of the Crusades had a population of about 2.7 million.' But according to information recently cited by Vryonis2 and whose accuracy can hardly be doubted, the population of Edessa about this time numbered 36,000. If we take this figure as the actual population of Edessa and use the formula of calculation which the author worked out, we will get for Antioch a population of just over 6o,ooo and for Syria as a whole a figure of about 4 million, 1.3 million more than the figure given by Russell. Accordingly, in the figures given by Russell there is indeed much room for doubt. These are, as far as I know, the only attempts made to arrive at figures of the population of the empire at some of the periods of its existence. Boak's work, while giving some figures of the population of the empire at the time of Constantine, deals essentially with the west and is concerned primarily with the problem of manpower shortage, which he thinks was brought about by a decline in population.3 A. H. M. Jones in his monumental work which covers the period from z84 to 6oz delves into the matter of population, but with the exceptions of Rome, Constantinople, Alexan-

dria, and Antioch gives no figures.4 And my own sketch, which discusses the problem in the thirteenth century, does no more than to point out that there was a decline. The figures which it gives relate to a few cities, including Constantinople.5

In one of his studies A. Andreades stated that on matters relating to the demography of the empire the sources are lacking. The statement has been challenged by D. Jacoby who has himself devoted two important works to the problem, one relating to the question of the size of the population of Constantinople and the other to the population of the countryside for the period covered by the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries.s In the latter work Jacoby seems to have taken his cue from

Dolger, who, in the introduction to his edition of certain documents, praktika, relating to the monastery of Iveron, discussed among other things certain rural demographic phenomena which these documents reveal.' What Dolger pointed out

in particular was that in certain villages, as, for instance, Gomatou in western Macedonia, certain conditions in the population after 1301 may be noticed: there is some decline in the number of households; new households make their appearance; but while some of the old ones disappeared, others continued to exist. And so, despite

the fluidity in the agrarian population in the first half of the fourteenth century, caused by the general disturbance which characterized the period, there was nevertheless a certain degree of stability in the rural population of the empire. Jacoby's study, based on the same kind of documents, i.e. praktika and others of a similar nature, is more extensive and covers more villages but comes pretty much to the same conclusions. On the matter of numbers, of the twelve villages which Jacoby Ibid., p. tot. Speros Vryonis, 'Problems in the History of Byzantine Anatolia', Ankara Univ. D. T. C. Fahultesi Tarih Arayttrmalars Dergisi, Cilt 1. (1963), p. 119, n. 21.

'A. E. R. Boak, Manpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West (Ann Arbor, 1955), PP. 5-6. On Boak's book see the critical review by M. I. Finley, Journal of Roman Studies, xlviii (1958), pp. 156-64. 'A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602 (Oxford, 1964), ii, PP. 1040-45.

s P. Charanis, 'A Note on the Population and Cities of the Byzantine Empire in the Thir-

teenth Century', The Joshua Starr Memorial Volume (New York, 1953), PP. 135-48.

' D. Jacoby, 'Phinomenes de demographic rurale k Byzance aux XIIIe, XIVI et XVI sitcles', Etudes Rurales, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Sorbonne), VII Section (5-6) (1962), pp. 16t-86.

' F. Dolger, 'Sechs byzantinische Praktika des 14. Jahrhunderts fur das Athoskloster

Iberon', Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klosse. Neue Folge, xaviii (1949), pp. 23-30.

H

4 studied only four seem to show a slight increase in population as between an earlier and a later date. The general picture is that of decline. The documentation used by Dolger and Jacoby has thus been made to yield some rather interesting results. Knowing the nature of this documentation, however, and

its fragmentary condition, it is hardly possible to expect that it can be made to produce any figures as to what the total rural population of the empire may have been at any one time during the period over which this documentation extends. As for the period not covered by this documentation, i.e. the period before the middle of the eleventh century, the task of arriving at any figure for the rural population of the empire is absolutely hopeless. The social and economic structure of the Byzantine empire was predominately agrarian, but it was never just a society of villages. Numerous agglomerations of people, which, whatever their character, we may call cities, existed throughout the long history of the empire. The Byzantine city has recently become the subject of considerable discussion, but this discussion has been centred around two points: (i) the form and evolution of the Byzantine city' and (2) the question as to whether the Byzantine city did not cease to exist during the critical period in the history of the empire covered by the seventh and eighth centuries.' On the matter of population only Constantinople has been the subject of systematic discussion. We need not go here into details with reference to the sources on the question of the size of the population of Constantinople. They have been repeatedly examined. Andreades, who was the first to study the problem systematically, at one time came to the conclusion that from the fourth to the twelfth century the population of the Byzantine capital must have rarely fallen below 500,000 souls, and at times must have approached the 8oo,ooo or i,ooo,ooo mark.' Subsequently, however, he revised his figures. In a study published posthumously, he wrote, 'The population of Constantinople in its palmy days cannot have been under 500,000 souls and, occasionally perhaps, was in excess of that figure'.4 In making the last statement Andreades

was perhaps influenced by E. Stein who had in the meantime re-examined the problem and come to the conclusion that the population of Constantinople in the first quarter of the fifth century was probably in the neighbourhood of 250,000, but by the beginning of the reign of Justinian it must have risen to well over 500,000, very close indeed to 6oo,ooo and perhaps more than this.' But the same Stein some years later, in a more general work to which reference has already been made, expressed the view that from the period of Justinian to 1204, when Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders, its population was without doubt never inferior to 500,000 and may have at times reached the figure of 9oo,ooo.' See, for instance, the important study by Ernst Kirsten, 'Die byzantinische Stadt',

Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress (Munich, 1958), pp. 1-48. Also the discussion of this paper where additional bibliographical references are given: DiskussionsBeitrdge zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress (Munich, 1961), pp. 75-102. ' George Ostrogorsky, 'Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xiii (t959), PP. 45-66. The problem of town and village was one of the subjects which was given full discussion at the twelfth international Congress held in Ochrida, Yugoslavia, in 1961: Actes du XII Congres International d'Etudes Byzantines (Belgrade, 1963), i, pp. 1-44, 275-98. Some Russian scholars hold that the city in the Byzantine empire disappeared in the course of the seventh and eighth centuries, but this is not the generally accepted view.

' A. Andreades, 'De Is population de Constantinople sous leg empereurs byzantins', Metron, vol. i, no. z (1920), pp. 69-119. This is a revised and enlarged article which was published in Greek in 1917, and republished in his Oeuvres, i (Athens, 1938), PP- 387-421. In Byzantium, ed. N. H. Baynes and H. St. L. B. Moss (Oxford, 1948), p. 53 ' Ernst Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, i (1959), pp. 128, 480, n. 194.

"Introduction Introduction k l'histoire ...' (seep. 2, n. 3), p. 154.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

5

Since Stein, if we except two or three incidental notices,' there have been two other systematic re-examinations of the question, one by J. C. Russell and the other

by D. Jacoby. Russell puts the population of Constantinople at the height of its prosperity (the reign of Justinian before 541) at no more than 192,000,2 and Jacoby

thinks that it did not exceed 375,000, or at the most 400,000. Russell's figure is somewhat vitiated by calculations essentially hypothetical in nature and also by the

fact that he interprets the 8,ooo,ooo measuring units of grain, reported in Edict xnu, c. 8 of Justinian as the quantity which Egypt was required to furnish annually to Constantinople, to have been modii. To be sure the measuring unit in this instance is left out, but, as elsewhere in the same edict (c. 6) the artaba, a unit roughly three times as large as the modius, is specifically stated as the measuring unit, the artaba must have been meant. Now 8,000,000 artabae were enough to feed considerably more than 500,000 persons, indeed, according to Russell himself, 670,000. Jacoby's

study, a piece of work most cautiously done,3 takes into account and examines minutely all the material that there is, but in the final analysis what constitutes the basis of its calculations is the area of the city and the density of the population per hectare. This would work perfectly if the area and the density of the population per hectare were both known, but in the case before us, while the area given may be accepted as fairly accurate, the density is conjectural, based on elements - the existence in Constantinople of large public buildings, squares, gardens, open cisterns, and analogies with western medieval towns of a later period and with

Ottoman Constantinople - whose significance in determining the density of population per hectare of Byzantine Constantinople is itself conjectural. Russell, using the same approach, comes out with entirely different figures from those given by Jacoby. Both Russell and Jacoby, in giving their estimates, do not take seriously the testimony of Procopius as to the number of victims of the pestilence which hit Constantinople in 541. Procopius, an eye-witness to the outbreak, says that the greatest virulence of the disease lasted three months, with between 5,000 and 10,000 and at times more dying each day.4 If, taking this information, we strike an average ' R. S. Lopez puts the population of Constantinople between Heraclius and Leo VI (d. 912) at no more than ioo,ooo. In arriving at this figure Lopez says that he used his 'own judgment and the preliminary data collected by [his] student John Teall': 'East and West in the Early Middle Ages, Economic Relations', Relationi del X Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Storiche, iii (Florence, 1955), p. 120, and note i. When Lopez wrote this article, Teall had not yet published his work. It appeared in 1959: John L. Teall, 'The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xiii (1959). He estimates the population of Constantinople as follows: 'probably 500,ooo souls within the walls' in about 400 (p. 92); the disasters, ushered in by the reign of Heraclius, 'probably all but halved the population of Constantinople and its suburbs' (p. xoo); 250,000 before the plague of 747 (pp. 104-5); attained probably its maximum population, i.e. over Soo,ooo, in the tenth century (p. io6 et seq.). On page 134 Teall justifies his figures, but his references pertain only to the fifth century. ' Russell, op. cit., p. 66: about 147,880 as of the middle of the fifth century; p. 93: 'the city would have had about 192,000 persons at its height under Justinian'. ' D. Jacoby, 'La population de Constantinople 6 l'epoque byzantine: un probl6me de demographic urbaine', Byzantion, xxxi (1961), pp. 81-109. For figures, pp. 107-8. ' Procopius, 11. xxxociu. 1-3; for figures given by John of Ephesus, J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1923), ii, pp. 64-65. Further outbreaks of the pestilence took place in 555, 558, 56o-61, 585 and 6o8. Agathias (Historia, Bonn ed., p. 297), describing the outbreak of 558, says that tens of thousands died in Constantinople. Also Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, ed. by J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London, 1898), pp. 177-9. Writing about the pestilence of 585, a late oriental writer says that it carried away 400,000 of its inhabitants: Agapius de Menbidj, Histoire Universelle, tr. by A. A. Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis, viii (Paris, 1912),

P 439. This figure is, of course, an exaggeration, but it does indicate a populous city at the end of the sixth century. On the plague of the sixth century, see further John L. Teall, 'The

I 6

of 7,500 victims daily, this would mean that during the three months that the disease

was at its greatest virulence something like 675,000 persons died. But even if, allowing for exaggeration, we reduce this figure by two thirds, we are still left with 225,000 victims. This figure is not at all impossible, if we assume, as we shall have to assume, a population larger than either Russell or Jacoby are willing to admit. How much larger is, of course, difficult to say, but Stein's estimate of close to 60o,oo0 at the beginning of the reign of Justinian is, for the reasons he gives, very reasonable indeed. The poet Ausonius,r writing sometime after 379, described twenty notable cities of the Roman world and ranked Constantinople immediately after Rome and ahead

of Alexandria and Antioch. By the end of the first quarter of the fifth century, according to another writer of the period, Constantinople outstripped Rome both in wealth and numbers2 and, of course, stayed ahead of Alexandria and Antioch, ranked by Ausonius about even. Beloch3 has estimated the population of Alexandria in the period of Augustus at about 500,000 including slaves, but by the middle of the

third century, as the result of the civil wars and pestilence, if we are to believe Eusebius, it diminished considerably.4 Russell estimates the population of Alexandria at one period, after a documents somewhat similar to the Notitia of Constantinople, at 215,877 and for a later period at 121,948.6 Neither period, because of the nature of the document, can be given chronological precision but in both cases it is

before the end of the third century. Russell, however, is notoriously low in his estimates, and besides this there is a certain arbitrariness in the way he interprets this document. In any event before the end of the fourth century Alexandria had fallen behind Constantinople, and, if we are to believe Ausonius, was no larger than

Antioch. Now, the population of Antioch towards the end of the fourth century probably did not exceed 2oo,ooo. Libanius says that it numbered 150,ooo anthropoi, while John Chrysostom in one of his sermons, in a passage which has been variously

interpreted, speaks of its demos as numbering 200,000.7 Alexandria then, at the beginning of the fifth century, must be given a population of about 200,000. But it is quite possible that both cities grew in population in the course of the fifth century. The statement of Malalas that in the earthquake which hit Antioch in 526, 250,000 persons perished (Procopius puts this figure at 300,000) is no doubt an exaggeration, but does indicate a populous city. Another earthquake in 528, the sack of the city in 540 by Chosroes who carried many of its citizens away to found another Antioch Barbarians in Justinian's Armies', Speculum, xl (1965), pp. 3o5-7. Teall minimizes the figures

given by the historians, but cites official documents which show the destructiveness of the pestilence of 541-3. 1 Ordo Urbium Nobilium, consulted in the edition of the works of Ausonius, Loeb Classical Library, vol. i (London, 1961). I Sozomen, cxiii. J. Beloch, The Bevolkerung dergriechisch-rimischen Welt (Leipzig, 1886), p. 479-

4 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Loeb Classical Library, London, 1932), ii, p. 183. Cf.

Allan Chester Johnson, Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian (Baltimore, 1936), P. 235.

" P. M. Fraser, 'A Syriac Notitia Urbis Alexandrinae', Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,

xxxvii (1951), PP. 103-8. Russell, op. cit., pp. 66-67.

° On the population of Antioch see G. Downey, The Size of the Population of Antioch', American Philological Association: Transactions, lxxxix (1958), pp. 84-91. Downey gives various figures found in the sources and various estimates given by modem scholars, but comes to no conclusion of his own. The passage of Chrysostom, he thinks, refers to the population of Antioch in the time of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred at Rome under Trajan, c. 100-117. This is difficult to believe, for Chrysostom, in talking to his audience, must have had in mind the city of his time, if they were to understand his allusions.

0

The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

7

near Ctesiphon, the pestilence of the sixth century, and still another earthquake in 588, said to have killed 6o,ooo persons, must have reduced Antioch by the end of the sixth century to a mere shadow of what it had been at the beginning of that century. As for Alexandria, it is said that in 552, as a result of the riot which broke out over religion, 200,000 Monophysites were massacred;' and, according to an Arab writer, when it was first taken by the Arabs it numbered 6oo,ooo inhabitants.2 These are grossly exaggerated figures, of course, but they do suggest a populous city.3

The information which we have about the three principal cities of this early period of the empire has made possible certain estimates, however conjectural, of their population; but to pursue this inquiry into the numerous provincial towns would be a fruitless task. Apart from an isolated reference here and there, as for instance the statement of 'Joshua the Stylite' that when Amida was taken by the Persians during the reign of Anastasius more than 8o,ooo perished and many were led away,4 or that of Theophanes to the effect that when the Persians captured Caesarea in 611112 they took tens of thousands of prisoners,5 there is simply no information. This at the end of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh. As for the period that followed, i.e. the seventh and eighth centuries, the state of our information is much worse, indeed virtually non-existent. This lack of information, and the radical changes that took place in the society of Byzantium in the seventh and eighth centuries, have led some scholars to the belief that the city in the Byzantine empire had ceased to exist during this period.

This is not a tenable view, for while some cities did indeed disappear, in the Balkan peninsula especially, and others must have declined,6 while still others, with the loss of Syria and Egypt, ceased to be under the jurisdiction of Byzantium, the city as a phenomenon of the Byzantine landscape continued nevertheless to exist. But if it is certain that cities continued to exist, it is equally certain that we know very little about them, especially as concerns the size of their population. It is only

with the ninth century that we begin to find some references here and there; and though these references, as we enter the period covered by the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, become more numerous, they help us very little in determining the population of the cities to which they relate. Terms and expressions such as these: 'marvellous', 'great', 'populous', 'large', 'famous', 'city with a numerous population', or with 'a multitude of inhabitants', are frequently met with in the sources, particularly in those of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, but also of the tenth.' Obviously, while they may give us some idea of the importance 'Jean Maspero, Histoire des Patriarches d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1923), p. 163.

'Alfred J. Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of the Roman

Dominion (Oxford, 1902), p. 366, n. 3.

' A. H. M. Jones (op. cit., ii, p. 1o4o) estimates the population of Alexandria in the sixth century on the basis of its annona at between 250,000 and 375,000. He may be very close to the truth. ' The Chronicle of yoshua the Stylite, tr. by W. Wright (Cambridge, 1882), pp. 42-43. Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), ii, p. 594. The statement of Zonaras (xii, 23: Bonn ed., ii, p. 594) that about the middle of the third century Caesarea had a Population of 400,000 seems fantastic. ' The following passage drawn from Arabic sources of the ninth century does indicate a reduction in the number of cities even in Asia Minor: 'In the days of old cities were numerous in Rum but now they have become few. Most of the districts are prosperous and pleasant and have each an extremely strong fortress, on account of the frequency of the raids which the fighters for the faith direct upon them.' Hudud al-'Alum: The Regions of the World, tr. by V. Minorsky (London, 1937), P. 157. ' For instance, Nicaea: Theoph. Cont., Bonn ed., p. 464; Demetries: John Carneniates, Bonn ed., p 506; Trebizond; Macoudi, Les prairies d'or, tr. by C. B. de Meynard et P. de

I 8

of the cities to which they relate, they are of no help in determining the size of the population. Here and there, however, some figures are given which may help to conjecture an estimate, but the instances are very few. Both Greek and oriental sources agree in calling Amorium in Phrygia the greatest city of the empire next to Constantinople (probably of the cities in Asia Minor). Already in the eighth century it is referred to as a great city, a city of great extension.' At the time of its capture by the Arabs in 838 it is said by Mas'udi that 30,000 persons were killed, and according to another Arab writer many thousands were taken prisoners, many of whom were sold into slavery, while 6,ooo of them were killed for lack of food and water as they were being led away to the Moslem lands. The figure of those killed while being led away did

not include the wealthier element, presumably because they might be ransomed at a high price or exchanged for important Arabs held prisoners by the Byzantines.' One does not know how many of those killed or taken prisoners may have been villagers who had sought safety behind the walls of Amorium, but, with some allowance made for this, one may suppose, if the figures given are correct, that Amorium

at the time of its capture by the Arabs in 838 may have had a population in the neighbourhood of 40,000 souls. We have some similar information about Thessalonica, called by Theophanes at the end of the eighth century the megalopolis of Illyricum. When this great city of the Greek peninsula was sacked by Leo of Tripolis in 904, 15,000 persons were killed while 30,000 more were taken prisoners and were eventually sold as slaves.3 As most of the prisoners were made up of children, youths, and women, and in view of the later literary tradition that Thessalonica was indeed a most populous city, in this respect second only to Constantinople, one may suppose that its population at the beginning of the tenth century may have been as high as 500,000 and that in the course of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries it may have passed that figure.4 A few more figures may be given. When the Turks took

Erzeroum in 5049 they killed, it is said, 140,000 persons;s Edessa about 1071 is said to have had a population of 35,000;6 the population of Nicaea has been put at between 25,000 and 30,000, while that of Prusa has been estimated at about 30,000.7 Tralles, when reconstructed by Andronicus during the reign of his father, Michael VIII, was settled by 36,000 people.8 The statistical information given by Benjamin of Tudela might have been very useful, if, besides giving the number of Jews who inhabited the cities which he visited, he had also given some idea of the ratio of the number of Jews to that of the rest of the population. Still, when he says that in the Courteille, ii (Paris, 1904), p. 3; Claudiopolis in Galatia: Leo Diaconus, Bonn ed., p. 68; Attalia: H. Gr6goire, Recueil des inscriptions grecques chretiennes d'Asie Mineure, i (Paris, 1922), p.104, n. 304. Also on Attalia and Trebizond : Ibn Haugal in A. Vasiliev-H. Gr6goire, Byzance et les Arabes, ii, 2 (Brussels, 1950), P. 414. ' Ghevond, Histoire des guerres et des des Arabes en Armenie, tr. from Armenian by

G. V. Chahnazarian (Paris, 1856), p. 151; Michael Syrus, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarchejacobite d'Antioche (1166-1199), ed. and tr. by J. B. Chabot, iii (Paris, 1905), P. 95; Yaqubi, in Vasiliev-Gr6goire, Byzance et les Arabes, i (Brussels, 1935), P. 275. ' V. Vasiievsky and P. Nikitin, Skazaniya a 42 Amoriiskikh Mutenikakh (Martyres XLII Amorienses) (=M6moires de 1'Acad6mie des Sciences de St. P6tersbourg, VIIle serie, clause historico-philologique, vol. vii. no. 52. St. P6tersbourg, 1905), PP. 4, 11, 42, 71; VasilievGr6goire, op. cit., pp. 275, 294-5, 172, 173, 332, 337.

' H. Gr6goire, 'Le communiqu6 arabe sur Is prise de Thessalonique (9o4)', Byzantion,

xxii9g2 PP. 373-5.

f. Charanis, 'A Note on the Population ...', 140. ' Cedrenus, Bonn ed., ii, p. 558. Charanis, op. cit., pp. 144-5. ' Vryonis, op. cit., p. 119, n. 21.

' Ibid., p. 145.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

9

city of Thebes there were 2,000 Jews, we are entitled to suppose that the population of that city may have been i o,ooo and perhaps more.' The figures given here are really of no great significance compared to the relatively large number of cities which are attested to have existed at different periods of the empire. Nor can we turn to archaeology for help. We must agree, therefore, with Kirsten that 'estimates of the number of inhabitants of cities or of their losses ... are not possible. For even when the perimeter of a city fortification is preserved, the proportions of the surface actually covered with houses, as well as the number of the houses, cannot be determined'.2 Thus it is absolutely impossible to estimate on the basis of the extant sources the total urban population of the empire at any one

period of its existence. As pointed out above, it is also impossible to give any estimate of the total rural population of the empire. This in turn makes it impossible

to give any figures as to what the total population of the empire at any one time may have been. All we can say is that at times Byzantium was a great power, and as a great power it must have had a population whose size must have been considerable.

But if it is not possible to determine in figures the size of the population of the empire at any one period of its existence, it is possible nevertheless to discern certain trends. The view is generally accepted that the Roman empire suffered serious losses in population during the third century, and that these losses continued on into the fourth and fifth centuries. These losses were apparently greater in the west than in the east, but the east suffered also. We have already noted the decline in the population of Alexandria in the course of the third century; the Egyptian countryside seems also to have suffered;3 and there are indications that there was some decline also along the western coast of Asia Minor and in the islands of the Aegean.4 By the end of the fourth century, however, this process of decline (we are thinking of the regions which constituted the eastern empire only) seems to have come to an end, with a recovery taking place in the century that followed. The indications attesting to this recovery are few, but unmistakable. The researches

of Tchalenko into the highlands of northern Syria between Cyrrhus, Antioch, Apamea, and Chalcis ad Belum have revealed a prosperous countryside, especially for the period between 45o and 55o.5 The diocese of Cyrrhus, a territory of about 1,6oo square miles, is said by Theodoret, its famous bishop in the early part of the fifth century, to have had 8oo parishes of orthodox Christians. Taking the number 250 as the average for each parish, Cumont, who was the first to make use of the

information given by Theodoret, puts the population of the diocese of Cyrrhus .during the period of the bishopric of Theodoret at 200,000, and this without taking into account the heretics who apparently were many but for whom no figure is given.' Another scholar, applying the number of inhabitants per square mile which these figures give, comes to the conclusion that Syria, including Palestine and Trans` Benjamin of Tudela, Travels, in Manuel Komroff, Contemporaries of Marco Polo (New

York, 1932), p. z62. Benjamin calls Thebes a large city. Kirsten, op. cit., p. 46.

Arthur E. R. Boak, 'The Population of Roman and Byzantine Karanis', Historia, iv

(1955), PP. 157-62. ` A. H. M. Jones, 'Census Records of the Later Roman Empire', _7ournal of Roman Studies,

('953),pp 49-64.

Georges Tchalenko, Villages antiques de la Syrie du nord. Le massif du Belus d l'e<poque

romaine, i (Paris, 1953), PP. 422 et seq.

' Franz Cumont, 'The Population of Syria', Journal of Roman Studies, xxiii (1933), PP.

I87-9o.

I 10

jordania, must have had a population of something like 10,000,000, almost twice as much as the estimates given by Beloch.' This figure is probably too large, but the fact that the diocese of Cyrrhus, a great deal of which was barren hill country, may have had more than 200,000 inhabitants in the early part of the fifth century offers some proof that Syria, whatever its losses in population - if any - as the result of the crises of the third century, had recovered, at least to some extent, by the end of the fourth century. On Egypt the information is of a different type, but here again we are justified in supposing an increase of, or at least a stability in, its population following the decline which may have taken place in the third century. At the time

of its conquest by the Arabs, we are told, there were 6,ooo,ooo Egyptians, not including women, old men, and boys below the age of puberty, subject to the poll tax.2 This compares favourably with the figure given by Josephus who says that during the reign of Nero the population of Egypt, not including Alexandria, numbered 7,500,ooo.3 We have no figures on Asia Minor, but given the fact that the fifth century was free of any pestilence and that at the same time, besides a minor skirmish, there were no invasions by the Persians, Asia Minor too must have more than recovered whatever ground it might have lost in population in the course of the

third century. Only in the Balkan peninsula, as the result of the repeated and devastating raids of the barbarians, do we have a definite decline. For this we have no less an authority than the emperor Anastasius himself who noted officially that the incursions of the barbarians had reduced the agricultural population of Thrace.4

But the population of the Balkan peninsula in relation to the population of the oriental provinces, including Egypt, must have been very small, and hence the decline that it may have suffered could not have affected very materially the population of the empire as a whole. One may say, therefore, that by the beginning of the sixth century the combined population of the regions which constituted the eastern empire was larger than the combined population of the same regions at the beginning of the fourth century. A new chapter in the demographic evolution of the empire began in 541. In that year broke out the great pestilence so vividly described by Procopius and which, at intervals, continued to manifest itself down to the end of the sixth century. A modern scholar has estimated the loss in population by 6oo as a result of this pestilence at 40 per cent for the Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor, and at 1o per cent for Syria and Egypt. How he arrived at these figures I do not know and in general I distrust his estimates, but there can be little doubt, evert if we show the greatest reserve in accepting the testimony of Procopius, John of Ephesus, and Evagrius, that the loss of life was great.5 And this at a time when the Persians were devastating the eastern provinces, looting their villages, and emptying their cities of their inhabitants, while

Kotrigurs, Utigurs, and then Avars were turning the Balkan peninsula into a desert, destroying its cities and making it ready for its occupation by the Slavs.e This depopulation, particularly of the Balkan peninsula, explains why some emperors, especially Tiberius and Maurice, sought to remedy the evil by transferring 1 F. M. Heichelheim, 'Roman Syria' in Tenney Frank, ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, iv (Baltimore, 1938),P. 758. ' Eutychius, Annales, P.G. cxi. col. 1105. ' Josephus, De Belloyudaico, it. xvi. 4. Cf. Johnson, Roman Egypt . . ., pp. 245 et seq. Codexjustinianus, x, xxvii, 2. ' See above, p. 5, n. 3; Russell, op. cit., p. 148.

' P. Charanis, 'Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century', Dum-

barton Oaks Papers, xiii (1959), P. 39, n. 99.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

rr

people from the newly acquired regions of Armenia to Thrace and elsewhere' In these transfers many motives were involved, but the military and economic were the dominant ones: to furnish the lands where the transferred people were settled with soldiers for their defence, but also with the necessary manpower for the revival of their economic life. This is made clear by the statement of Evagrius in connexion with the transfer of i o,ooo Armenians to Cyprus in 578: 'Thus land which previously had not been tilled was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them and they fought resolutely and courageously against

other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics because of the easy rate at which slaves were provided.' 2

We need not enter here into details concerning the big political and military events of the seventh century. These are well known matters, at least in broad outline, and can be found in any general manual on Byzantine history. The immediate demographic consequences of these events are also obvious. The loss of Egypt, Syria and, by the end of the seventh century, Armenia deprived the empire of millions of inhabitants. In Egypt alone, as we have pointed out, the loss in population amounted to more than 6,ooo,ooo souls. Meanwhile the Balkan peninsula was flooded with Slavs to such an extent that Thrace south of the Balkan mountains, Thessalonica and its immediate surroundings, Attica, the eastern Peloponnesus, certain points on the Adriatic, and the Aegean islands were the only regions left under the direct and effective jurisdiction of the empire.3 Here, too, the immediate effect of the new developments was to reduce the population controlled by the empire.

Asia Minor was saved, but not without a protracted struggle in the course of which the countryside was ravaged and thousands of inhabitants were killed or carried off to slavery.4 After the Byzantine victory at Acroinon in 740, said to have been decisive in the saving of Asia Minor, the Arab invasions of Asia Minor took the form of raids, but not just along the frontier; they often went deep into the peninsula. These raids were in general conducted for booty, but this booty included people and often involved the killing of thousands of inhabitants of the regions affected. Reference has already been made to the thousands that were taken prisoners at the time of the capture of Amorium and to the many more thousands that were killed. But Amorium was not an isolated instance. In a homily probably delivered in 864 at the time of the inauguration by the emperor Michael III of the palatine church of Our Lady of the Pharos, the Byzantine patriarch Photius declared that the emperor 'reerected subject cities which have long lain low, and built others from the founda' On these transfers see P. Charanis, 'The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire', Comparative Studies in Society and History, iii. No. 2 (1961), p. 141.

s Evagrius, op. cit.; the translation is taken from the English version of Evagrius which appeared in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library: Theodoret and Evagrius, History of the Clnodl (London, 1854), P. 444. ' An old theory that Slavs did not settle south of the Danube until the reign of Phocas, now

generally rejected, has been revived by Ion Nestor: 'La penetration des Slaves dana Is

p6ninsule balkanique et is Grpce continentale. Considerations sur les recherches historiques et arch6ologiques I', Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Europdennes, i (1963), pp. 41-69. Nestor's arguments are not convincing. For the Slavs in Greece see Charanis, 'Ethnic Changes ...', PP. 40-41. I am pleased to see that Paul Lemerle has accepted my view, except for some minor reservations not really tenable, of the soundness of the Chronicle of Monemvasia as a historical source; 'La Chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie: Le contexte historique et legendaire', . Revue des Etudes Byzantines, xxi (5963), PP. 5-49On the Arab raids in Asia Minor from 641 to 743 see E. W. Brooks, 'The Arabs in Asia Minor (641-750) from Arabic Sources', Journal of Hellenic Studies, xviii (1898), pp. 182 209.

Also H. Arhweiler, 'L'Asie Mineure et les invasions arabes (VIIe-IXe siecles)', Revue Historique, ccxxvii (1962), pp. 1-32.

I I2

tions, and re-peopled others and made the boundaries secure for the towns'.1 This was a homily delivered before, and addressed to, the emperor and hence allowance should be made for rhetorical exaggerations. It is known from inscriptions, however,

that Michael III, probably about 858-9, reconstructed Ancyra and that he also restored Nicaea.' About Ancyra we know that it was devastated by the Arabs in 806,

restored by Nicephorus I, and devastated again in 838 during the reign of Theophilus.2 There is some evidence that other towns seem to have suffered considerably.

Pergamon, taken by the Arabs at the beginning of the eighth century, seems to have undergone a serious decline during the Isaurian period, while Nyssa in Cappadocia was in a state of ruin about the middle of the ninth century." And in 863 Amisos, the important seaport on the coast of the Black Sea, was taken and ravaged. Indeed the entire Armeniac theme was devastated.' Along the frontier both Lycandos and Tzamandos are said to have been abandoned, and a whole region,

whose location is not exactly known, but which is probably to be identified with Sobesos-Suve§, south-west of Caesereia, and was called Symposion, had been reduced to a desert. This region, re-peopled by Armenians under the leadership of Melias, who had reconstructed both Lycandos and Tzamandos, was included in the theme Lycandos, organized during the reign of Leo VI.' Meanwhile the western and north-western coastal region of Asia Minor must have also suffered. As is well known, the Arabs seized the peninsula of Cyzicus in 67o and made it the basis of operations for their attacks on Constantinople, which began in earnest in 674 and lasted until 678. During this period they lived on the country which they must have devastated terribly. That their incursions left wide open spaces in this part of Asia Minor can be easily inferred from the fact that numerous new peoples were settled there by action of the government. The settlement in 691 of the Cypriots in the region of Cyzicus by Justinian II,' the settlement of thousands of Slavs in Bithynia by the same emperor, and yet more thousands (208,000) settled by Constantine V in the eighth century about the Artanas River, a little stream which flows into the Black Sea west of the Sangarius and not far from

the Bosphorus, are facts too well known to need detailed elucidation.' The new settlements were no doubt effected in part for military purposes, but also in order to re-people and rehabilitate regions which had become sparsely inhabited. The conquest of Crete by the Arabs in 827 or 8z8, and the subsequent Arab raids in the ' C. Mango, tr., The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (Cambridge, Mass., 1958). P. 185.

' H. Gr6goire, 'Inscriptions historiques byzantines', Byzantion, iv (1927-28), pp. 437-49. For Nicaea, A. M. Schneider and W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer von Iznik (Nicaea) (Berlin, 1938), PP- 51-52. Also A. M. Schneider, 'The City Walls of Nicaea', Antiquity, xii (1938), Vasiliev-Gregoire, Byzanwe et les Arabes, i, pp. z4.4 et seq. On Ancyra, see also Cedrenus, ii, P. 34, where it is said that Ancyra was reconstructed by Nicephorus I, but then destroyed again by the Arabs shortly afterwards. Vasiliev-Gr6goire, Byzance et les Arabes, i, p. 152.

Ibid., p. 250. ' P. Charanis, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 1963), pp. 29-30. For the possible identification of Symposion with Sobesos-Suve3 see H. Gr6goire, 'Notes 6pigraphiques', Byzantion, viii (1933), pp. 86-87. Cf. R. J. H. Jenkins, ed., Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Admimstrando Imperio, ii. Commentary (London, 1962), p. 190.

r Charanis, 'Transfer of Population ...', 143. See Charanis, 'The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century', Byzamtion, xviii (1946-48), pp. 70-71. Cf. 'Ethnic Changes ...', p. 43, where I accept the correction made by Maricq and Ostrogorsky. In my 'Slavic Element ...' I downgraded the figure of 2o8,ooo Slavs, who, according to Nicephorus, were settled by Constantine V. It should perhaps be taken at its face value.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

13

Aegean which left some of the islands virtually uninhabited, must have also affected the coast of Asia Minor.' The last word has not yet been said on Byzantine Asia Minor, and least of all on the fluctuations of its population. It may be taken, however, as very probable that

from about the middle of the sixth century a decline set in in the number of its inhabitants and that the decline continued, now less, now more, throughout the seventh, the eighth, and at least the first half of the ninth centuries. The emperors were aware of this and tried to remedy the situation by the settlement of new peoples,

but whether these settlements fully made up for the losses is highly questionable. It is more than probable, therefore, that the population of Asia Minor at the end of the fifth century was much more numerous than it was in the middle of the ninth. There must have been some increase, however, beginning with the second half of the ninth century and in the course of the tenth; this increase may have continued until the appearance of the Turks and the consequent debacle of Byzantine power in Asia Minor in the second half of the eleventh century. Our information for this is meagre, but we know at least that Asia Minor was no longer subjected to the almost continuous Arab raids which in the centuries before contributed so much to the thinning of its population. There are a few references to the existence of some fairly large and prosperous cities. There was an increase in the number of episcopal sees.' And, as Ostrogorsky remarks, the insatiable drive of the landed aristocracy for more land presupposes a certain degree of abundance of agricultural labour.3 Then, too, the influx of the Armenians, which started about the middle of the tenth century and continued into the eleventh, however it may have disturbed the ethnic stability of Asia Minor, must have increased the number of its inhabitants .4 It is understood, of course, that the reference, territorially speaking, is still to the Asia Minor before the great Byzantine expansion. That expansion, which eventually came to include all of Armenia and northern Syria, gave to the empire in its Asiatic possessions a population much more numerous than it had possessed at any other time since the great losses to the Arabs in the seventh century. In Europe the occupation of the Balkan peninsula by the Slavs probably had the effect of increasing rather than decreasing the population as a whole. But for at least two centuries the empire profited very little, except indirectly, to the extent that it was able to seize Slavs and settle them in Asia Minor, Constantinople itself, which

had no doubt recovered from the destructive pestilence of the sixth century, suffered another blow, the pestilence of 746-7, which so reduced its population that the emperor Constantine V found it necessary to transfer a number of people from the Aegean islands and from elsewhere in the empire, including Greece, in order to re-people it.b Thrace, which had escaped Slavic occupation, was apparently

sparsely populated. This may be inferred from the fact that the thousands of Armenians and Monophysite Syrians who had been gathered by the Byzantine armies at the time of the reign of Constantine V (741-75) during their raids in the regions of Germanicea (Marash), Miletene, and Erzeroum, were settled in Thrace. 1 K. M. Setton, 'On the Raids of the Moslems in the Aegean in the Ninth and Tenth

Centuries and their Alleged Occupation of Athens', American Journal of Archaeology, lviii (1954), PP. 311-19; George C. Miles, 'Byzantium and the Arabs: Relations in Crete and the Aegean Area', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, aviii (1964), pp. 5-to. s Cf. Ahrweiler, op. cit., pp. zB et seq.

° G. Ostrogorsky, Vas Steuersystem im byzantinischen Altertum and Mittelalter', Byzantion, vi (1931), P. 233. Charanis, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire, pp. 29, 31-33. Charanis, 'Transfer of Population . . .', p. 144.

14

Some years later, during the reign of Leo IV, thousands more - 150,000, according to an oriental source - were seized by a raiding expedition into Cilicia and Syria and were also settled in Thrace. In making these settlements the emperors involved no doubt thought of the protection of Thrace, but if Thrace was reasonably densely populated, there would have been no need to bring settlers from the outside. The people seized could have very well been settled in Asia Minor, as indeed some of them were.'

Ostrogorsky, in an article published in 1952, formulated the theory that 'the gradual establishment of the Byzantine thematic system in the Balkan peninsula

reflects ... the process of the gradual establishment of Byzantine authority in certain Balkan regions from which it had been driven out by the Slavic migrations'." This theory is not entirely correct, for Thrace, central Greece (at least Attica), and

the eastern Peloponnesus were not occupied by the Slavs, and yet they were not erected into themes until some time after the Slavic migration; Thrace, some time between 68o and 687, probably as a measure against the Bulgars who had already established themselves south of the Danube; Hellas, after 687, but not later than 695, probably to resist the pressure of the Slavs; and the Peloponnesus, some time before 780, probably as the result of the reorganization of the command in the Aegean s But in general it may be conceded that where the theme organization did not exist, there, too, the jurisdiction of Byzantium was not effective. On this basis it was not until about the middle of the ninth century that the empire re-established its effective jurisdiction over the coastal regions of the Balkan peninsula, along the Aegean and the Adriatic to a point somewhat north of Dyrrhachium. Meanwhile, the theme of the Peloponnesus was extended to include the western part of that peninsula, long occupied by Slavs, and its population was strengthened by the settlement of new peoples, Greeks brought from Calabria, and a variety of other peoples, brought from other parts of the empire.

The question of how populous the Balkan regions now definitely under the effective jurisdiction of the empire were depends on two other questions: how numerous were the Slavs who had come to settle there and to what extent the older population had been eliminated. To both these questions there is really no answer. Most of the Slavs, it may be recalled, settled in the interior of the Balkan peninsula, but there are notable indications in the sources that significant numbers of Slavs settled at various times around the lower Strymon, in the region of Thessalonica, in Epirus, in Thessaly, in central Greece, and in the Peloponnesus. However, they could not have been overwhelmingly numerous compared to what was left of the

original population, which must have suffered terribly by their coming, for, if they had been so numerous, they would not have lost their identity as most of them did, though the process took a long time. Accordingly, if we assume, as we have

indeed assumed, that Thrace was sparsely populated, and take into account the destructiveness of the pestilence of 746-7, and consider the fact that urban life in some of the regions newly integrated had been reduced to a minimum, we shall not be far from the truth if we conclude that the Balkan regions of the empire, which

by the middle of the ninth century had come effectively under its jurisdiction, 1 Charanis, 'Transfer of Population...', p. 144. 1 Ostrogorsky, 'Postanak Terns Helada i Peloponez', Zbornik Radova Vizantolofkog Instituta SAN, i (1952), p. 64. This work was translated for me by Michael Petrovich. On the Peloponnesus see P. Charanis, 'Hellas in the Greek Sources of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Centuries', Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton, 1955), PP- 174 et seq.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

15

could not have been very populous. The efforts of the emperors to strengthen the population of some of these regions, as for instance the western Peloponnesus by Nicephorus 1,1 and Thrace by Constantine V and his successor,2 were offset at least to some degree by the depredations of the Bulgarians, particularly by those of Krum. It is only towards the end of the ninth century that we begin to notice some degree of greater activity, but this is a matter to which we shall come back.

The Seljuk assault, begun already during the first half of the eleventh century, culminated, as is well known, in the battle of Manzikert in 1071, an event which broke the power of the Byzantines in Asia Minor. There was a partial recovery under

Alexius Comnenus, but already by the middle of the twelfth century there are serious signs indicating that the part of Asia Minor under Byzantine control was internally in a state of decay. Dorylaion, which at one time had been a city of some size, was by the end of the reign of Manuel I in complete ruin;3 so were Sublaeum,4 Attalia,b Ephesus,4 Nicomedia,7 and perhaps Tralless and also Pergamon, which

earlier in the century seems to have been in a flourishing position. With the foundation of the empire of Nicaea a certain recovery no doubt took place, but the situation worsened in the course of the second half of the thirteenth century. It

is said that the Meander region became a desert, with no inhabitants, not even monks, left.° Nor was the situation in the Cayster, Hermus, and Caicus regions much better. Pergamon, early in the fourteenth century, was certainly completely in ruins, as was Smyrna.10 Conditions were no better farther north in the region of the Sangarius. It is well known that many Christians fled from these regions and sought refuge in the European possessions of the empire." The cause of all this, of course, was the push of the Turks towards the coast. This push caused desolation and drove out many of the inhabitants, but it would be a mistake to claim that it emptied all the country completely of its Christian population. In the fourteenth century we find many Greeks in the Osmanli realm12 and also in Attalia,18 which apparently, in its new location, prospered under Moslem rule. In the European possessions of the empire the demographic evolution was somewhat different. There, as in the orient, the destruction of the Bulgarian kingdom and ' Charanis, 'Nicephorus I, the Savior of Greece from the Slavs', Byzantine-Metabyzantina, i, pt 1 (1946), pp. 79 et seq. Nicephorus I is also said to have rebuilt Thebes: Cedrenus, 11, P. 34-

' In the Arab work known as Khitab at Uyun, composed sometime after the middle of the eleventh century, but based in part on Arab writers of the ninth century, we have the following

passage on Thrace, that part of Thrace, no doubt, nearest to Constantinople: 'And, when Maslama had encamped at Kustantiniyya, he blockaded the inhabitants and attacked them with

siege engines.... And the district of Marakiya [Thrace] was at that time waste...; but

at the present time is well-peopled'. E. W. Brooks, 'The Campaign of 716-718 from Arabic Sources', Journal of Hellenic Studies, xix (1899), p. 23. Brooks in note 6 of that page remarks: ' "At the present day" therefore means soon after Boo'. But this must have been before the devastation by Krum. Cinnamus, Historia, Bonn ed., p. 294. Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., p. 229. ° Edrisi, Gfographie, tr. by P. A. Jaubert, ii (Paris, 1840), p. 134. Ibid., p. 303. Ibid., p. 299.

s Charanis,'A Note on the Population ...', p. 145. ° Pachymeres, Historia, i, Bonn ed., p. 310. Voyage d'Ibn Batoutah, tr. by C. Defr@mery et B. R. Sanguinetti, ii (Paris, 1914), P. 315 for Pergamon, p. 31 0 for Smyrna. Pachymeres, ii, p. 389.

1s G. G. Arnakis, 'Captivity of Gregory Palamas by the Turks and Related Documents as

Historical Sources', Speculum, xxvi (1951), pp. 114-16. 1' Ibn Batoutah, 258-60.

I

i6 the consequent territorial extension of the empire added, of course, considerably to its population. But a revival had already set in by the beginning of the tenth century.

In Greece Corinth,' Patras, Lacedemon, Thebes,2 Athens, and farther north Demetrias,3 and Serres, to give a few examples, began to show considerable activity.

Thessalonica seems to have recovered fully from the disaster of goo, for an Arab traveller early in the tenth century refers to it as a 'huge and large' city.4 And there

is the reference in Cecaumenus to a populous city in Hellas which the Bulgar Symeon tried to take." Unfortunately he does not name the city. The Bulgar wars under Symeon and Samuel may have retarded somewhat the process of growth. Arethas of Caesarea, for instance, wondered if the Cadmeia of Thebes still stood after the incursions of Symeon.6 And a passage in the life of St Peter of Argos, no doubt referring to the campaign of the Bulgarians during the reign of Symeon, reads: 'barbarians for three years possessed the Peloponnesus; they massacred many people and thoroughly devastated the whole country, completely destroying the traces of former wealth and good order.'' Notice the expression 'former wealth and good order,' which shows that the Peloponnesus was clearly on the road to recovery after the dark period of the earlier centuries. The Bulgarian wars caused, of course, hardships, shifting of population and loss of life elsewhere as well, but once they were over a period of relative prosperity and growth in population seem to have set in. P. Tiv6ev in a recent articles mentions a number of cities, described by the sources of the twelfth century by one or more of the following terms: 'megalo-

polis', 'well-peopled', 'populous', 'prosperous', 'beautiful', 'wealthy', 'famous'. The cities he cites are Corinth, Athens, Thebes, Larissa, Kitros, Janina, Castoria, Thessalonica, Serres, Zichna, Philippi, Rodosto, Mossinopolis, Demotica, Adrianople, Serdica (Sofia), Philippopolis, Nig. To them I may add Lacedemon, Libadhia, Demetrias, Armyros, Carystos, Ochrida, Scopia, Christopolis, Drama, Selymbria, Heracleia, Gallipoli, Panados.9 Edrisi, from whose work most of the information referring to these cities is derived, adds further that the Peloponnesus was very prosperous, and that one could count in it about fifty cities among which sixteen were very important.1° One is tempted to say, especially when one recalls that it was about this time that Vlachs and Albanians appear in numbers, that the Balkan regions effectively controlled by the empire were more populous in the twelfth century than ever before in their history. But all this was shattered by the foundation of the second Bulgarian kingdom, the Fourth Crusade, and the disasters of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. This is a period into which we shall not enter, I On the evolution of Corinth see R. L. Scranton, Medieval Architecture in the Central Area of Corinth (Corinth XVI) (Princeton, 1957), PP- 33, 49, 67, 83 ' Patras, Lacedernon, Thebes, rebuilt and re-peopled by Nicephorus I ; see p. 15, n. 8 above. ' Cameniates, p. 506.

' A. Vasiliev, 'Harun-Ibn-Yahya and his Description of Constantinople', Seminarium Kondakovianum, v (1932), p. 16z. Cf. Gregoire's review in Byzantion, vii (1932), pp. 666-73. ' Cecaumeni Strategicon et incerti scriptoris De olciis regiis Libellus, ed. V. Vasilievsky et V. Jernstedt (St. Petersburg, 1896), pp. 32-33.

' N. Bees, 'The Incursions of the Bulgars under Tsar Symeon and the Related Scholia of

Arethas of Caesarea' [in Greek], Hellenica, i (lgz8), p. 337. ' A. A. Vasiliev, 'The "Life" of St. Peter of Argos and its Historical Significance', Traditio, v (1947), PP. 173 et seq.

' T. Tiveev, 'Sur les cites byzantines aux XIPXII° sitcles', Byzantino-Bulgarica, i (1962),

PP. 145-82-

' Edrisi, pp. 125, 512, 296, 296, 295, 288, 289, 298, 298, 297, 297. The page references

correspond to the order of the cities given in the text. 10 Ibid., p. 124.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

17

hoping that the remarks which we made at the beginning of this paper will suffice.

We may now summarize the fluctuations of the population of the empire as follows. At the beginning of the sixth century the combined population of the regions which constituted the eastern empire was more than the combined population of the same regions at the beginning of the fourth century. A decline set in in 541 and this decline

continued, or at the most there was no appreciable increase, down to about the middle of the ninth century. Meanwhile the empire suffered huge losses in population by the conquests of the Arabs and the occupation of virtually all the Balkan peninsula by the Slavs. A new era began towards the end of the ninth century and lasted till 1071. The huge territorial expansion of the empire during this period added, of course, greatly to its population, but there was also an increase in the old provinces. The loss of the eastern provinces following Manzikert decreased the population of the empire, but there was also a decline in the course of the twelfth century in that part of Asia Minor which had been recovered by Alexius Comnenus and his immediate successor. In the Balkan peninsula, beginning with the end of the ninth century, but especially after the Bulgarian wars, a definite increase set in and this increase continued almost down to the end of the twelfth century. No figures can be given for any one of these periods.

In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian (820-23) against the emperor Michael II, the Byzantine historian Genesius lists a variety of peoples from whom the armies of the rebels had been drawn: Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Vandals, Getae, Alans, Chaldoi, Armenians,

adherents of the heretical sects of the Paulicians and Athinganoi.' I have often quoted this statement because it reflects better than any other passage found in the sources the multi-national character of the Byzantine empire. It is a well-known fact that in its long history the Byzantine empire was never a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. The territorial losses of the seventh century, it is true, deprived the empire of huge groups of non-Greek speaking elements, but

these groups were replaced by others. In the Balkan peninsula, among the new peoples, the Slavs were the most numerous, though it took some time before they came under the effective jurisdiction of the empire. But, as we have already pointed out, there were others, settled there for military, demographic, and cultural reasons

by the central imperial authorities. These included Armenians in Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece; Monophysite Syrians in Thrace; Turks in Macedonia and Thrace; Mardaites in the Peloponnesus, in the island of Cephalonia, and in Epirus; and perhaps Persians also, though exactly where we do not know.' There were also some Jews.3 The ethnic situation became more complicated by the appearance (beginning in the eleventh century) of Albanians and Vlachs, descendants of the Latinized Illyrians and Daco-Thracians, whom the Slavs had pushed into the mountains when they occupied the Balkan peninsula in the late sixth and in the seventh centuries. The Vlachs were particularly numerous and aggressive. Towards the end of the twelfth century they were responsible for the foundation of the second Bulgarian kingdom at the expense of the empire. Only along the Aegean coast, in

Greece proper, the Aegean and Ionian islands, and the Thracian regions near Genesius, Historia, Bonn ed., p. 33 Charanis, 'The Transfer of Population . . .', pp. 140-54On the Jews in the Byzantine empire the fundamental book is still that of Joshua Starr, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire (Athens, 1939).

X8

Constantinople and on the Black Sea coast was the Greek-speaking element predominant as the empire reached the apogee of its territorial extent and power. Slavs, of course, had settled in Greece,' but we may consider unfortunate a recent serious attempt to revive the theory of Fallmerayer.2 The fact that these Slavs were absorbed and lost their identity and language - though in certain regions, such as the western Peloponnesus, they had remained undisturbed for over two hundred years - is in itself proof that they had not destroyed or driven out completely the native Greek element. Besides, the same sources which speak of the destructiveness of the Slavs state also that many of the native Greeks found refuge in other parts of the invaded regions. In the Hellenization of the Slavs in Greece the imperial government did indeed, as I have shown elsewhere, play a role,3 but it is unthinkable that its efforts alone, without a considerable native Greek element to back them up, would have succeeded as thoroughly as they did. Books, the church, and the administration could hardly have perpetuated so many elements of Greek folk-lore and so many Greek names of 'hills and rocks, streams and gullies, capes and bays, cultivated plants and woods'.4 The ethnic situation in Asia Minor was somewhat different, but not radically so. There the ancient native population finally lost its identity, and Greek became the language spoken by the people, however different the racial antecedents of these peoples may have been.6 But in Asia Minor, too, many new ethnic elements had been introduced. Goths who had been settled there are known to have existed down to the beginning of the eighth century, though by then they may have been partly Hellenized. The Vandals, mentioned by Genesius in the passage we have quoted, may have been the descendants of the Vandals settled in Asia Minor by Justinian. Towards the end of the seventh century and again about the middle of the eighth, thousands of Slavs, as we have already stated, were brought into Bithynia. How long these Slavs retained their identity cannot be determined, but elements of them are

known to have existed down to the tenth century. A Bulgarian settlement near Ephesus is claimed for the eleventh century. Farther down, in the south-western corner of Asia Minor there existed in the tenth century a colony inhabited by a people called Mauroi (Black), whose rough behaviour toward the natives betrays their alien character and perhaps also the recent origin of their settlement. Who these Mauroi were is not known, but they may have been, as Rudakov suggests, Arabs from Africa who were settled in this part of Asia Minor in order to serve in the navy. Mardaites and also thousands of Saracens from the East were settled in Asia Minor.6 In the twelfth century Serbs were brought to Asia Minor and in the I To the large literature on the invasion of Greece by the Slavs I may add two recent items: Homer A. Thompson, 'Athenian Twilight: A.D. 267-600', journal of Roman Studies, alit (1959), pp. 61-72; D. M. Metcalf, 'The Slavonic Threat to Greece circa 580: Some Evidence from Athens', Hesperia. journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, mi (1962), PP. 134-57.

s Romilly Jenkins, Byzantium and Byzantinirm (The University of Cincinnati, 1963), pp. 21-42. $ Charanis, 'Nicephorue I, the Savior of Greece from the Slavs'.

4 R. M. Dawkins, 'The Place-Names of Later Greece', Transactions of the Philological Society (London, 1931-32), pp. 1-46; S. P. Kyriakides, Ilaaoa Kai Aatcic IloasTaopos riuv Newr'pa'v'E..A,iswv (Athens, 1946), PP- 3--97-

5 Charanis, 'Ethnic Changes ...', pp. 25-27. Cf. Vryonis, op. cit., 115-16, who makes an

important observation on the persistence of Phrygian as a spoken language.

6 On all of these, see in general my 'The Transfer of Population ...'; 'The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor...'; on the Cumans, P. Charanis, 'On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor', llpooqtupa air E. 17. Kvpwe.'Snv (Thessaloniki, 1953), P 145.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

19

thirteenth, Cumans. But by far the most numerous non-Greek-speaking element in Asia Minor were the Armenians. To the Armenians in the Byzantine empire I have devoted a special study, so I need not enter into details here. Suffice to say that

beginning with the seventh century, but especially during the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, they dominated the political and military life of the empire and also played a role in its intellectual activities.'

The various peoples - non-Greek-speaking in origin - to which we have referred were not passive subjects of the empire but were active participants in its

life. Their role was particularly great in the army. The thematic armies of the empire, the core of its military organization, were largely made up of these peoples. This was, indeed, the principal reason why some of them were settled in the empire, though economic, demographic, and cultural considerations were sometimes taken

into account. Individuals from among these peoples occupied high posts - at times the throne itself. Known by name are Saracens, Bulgars, Turks, Slavs, Georgians, and others who at times occupied important posts in the military, administrative, and ecclesiastical life of the empire.2 This is a subject, however, which has not yet been fully studied. But here again, as we have already noted, the Armenians were most prominent. Byzantium knew no racial distinctions. Careers, one might say, were open to talent. In this multi-national state, which was the Byzantine empire, the Greek-speaking element was most probably more numerous than any other single group, but most probably also it did not constitute a majority. This was certainly true at the time of the widest territorial extent of the empire, about the middle of the eleventh century.

It should be pointed out, however, that the tendency was towards Hellenization, and as a consequence many non-Greek elements in time became Greek. This was particularly true of those who participated actively in the military and political life of the empire, especially those who came to occupy high posts. The latter, with few exceptions, integrated themselves thoroughly into the political and military life of the empire, identified themselves with its interests, and adopted the principal features of its culture, features which were essentially Greek, but Greek, of course, as they had evolved throughout the centuries. But the process of Hellenization involved masses of others, too. Thus many a Byzantine Greek was no doubt the product of a mixture, but whether the product of a mixture or not, he was a Greek nevertheless. I would like to leave it at that.

' Seep. 12,n.6. For the specific references, see P. Charanis, 'How Greek was the Byzantine Empire?', Bucknell Review, xi, no. 3 (1963), p. 115, n. 41. There is some evidence that Albanians, too, held high military posts already in the eleventh century, but on this see E. L. Vranouses, Ko uaKOprmc i if 'Ap5dw,r (Jannina, 1962), pp. 5-29. The author, I think, is right in equating KO uOKOprgc with KOpus (rids) ROprgs but is not convincing in denying the Albanian origin of the personage concerned.

II E HNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM THE Byzantine Empire was never in its long history a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. It is true that the conquests of the Arabs in the seventh century deprived the empire of great numbers of non-Greek-speaking elements and gave to it an aspect which appeared to be more Greek than had been the case before. Egypt and Syria, where a national consciousness and a literature in the native languages had begun to develop, were lost; so also was Africa with its Latin and Punic-speaking population. There remained Asia Minor, parts of the Balkan peninsula, the islands of the Aegean, including Crete, certain regions of Italy, and Sicily. Here the Greekspeaking elements were strong, but the ethnic homogeneity which they suggest was more apparent than real.

Let us first look at Asia Minor. No doubt, under Hellenistic and Roman domination, the native population of that very important peninsula had been deeply affected by Hellenism, but neither in language nor in culture, particularly in the isolated regions of the back country, was the victory of Hellenism complete.' The evidence for this is scattered and largely circumstantial, but it is unmistakable. The native languages survived long into the Christian era. We know that Phrygian, which in the first three centuries of our era witnessed a true renaissance,2 was still spoken in the sixth century.3 The same was true of Lycaonian.4 Celtic, which, according to Jerome,5 was heard in Galatia in the fourth century, survived until the end of the fifth and probably beyond. So we may infer from a hagiographical text concerning a posthumous miracle of St. Euthymius, who died in 487. According to this text a Galatian

monk who had lost his speech was cured by the saint, but at first he could 1 For example, in the sixth century the city of Tralles was thoroughly Greek-speaking, but the back country was hardly impregnated by Hellenism, as is shown by the fact that it still remained predominantly pagan. Agathias, Historiae (Bonn, 1838), roe; E. W. Brooks, lohannis Ephesini historiae ecclesiasticae pays tertia, CSCO (Louvain, 1936),81, 125 (English trans. R. Payne Smith [Oxford,186o], 159,230)-

W. M. Calder, "Corpus Inscriptionum Neo-Phrygiarum," Journal of Hellenic Studies, 31 (rg11), ' 161-215; 33 (1913), 97-104; 46 (1926), 22ff. On page 164 of volume 31 Calder writes: The existence of over sixty inscriptions of which no two are exactly alike, and all of which exhibit intelligent syntactical variation, is sufficient proof that Phrygian was not a moribund language surviving in a few fixed formulae, but was the everyday language of the uneducated classes at the period to which the texts belong."

For a map indicating the Phrygian-speaking zone in Asia Minor about A. D. 250 see W. M. Calder, ed., Monuments Asiae Minoris antique, VII: Monuments of Eastern Phyrgia (Manchester, 1956), xliv. For a corpus consisting of the Neo-Phrygian inscriptions published up to 1928 see J. Friedrich, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmaler (Berlin, 1932), 128-140. Cf. Calder's remarks, Monuments of Eastern Phrygia, p. xxvii. ' Journal of Hellenic Studies, 31, 165; Karl Holl, "Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in Kleinasien in nachchristlicher Zeit," Hermes, 43 (1go8), 248. We are told concerning an Arian bishop Selinas that his father was a Goth, his mother a Phrygian, and that for this reason he used both languages. He also preached in Greek. Socrates, Historia Ecclesiatica V. 23. Migne, PG, 67. 648; Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastics. VII.16. Migne, PG, 67.1468. Life of St. Martha, Acta Sanctorum, May, V, 413C. Cf. Holl, op. cit., 243-246. For the use of Lycao-

nian at the time of St. Paul, Acts of the Apostles, 14, I1. Jerome, Commentarium in Epistolam ad Galatas II, 3 (Migne, PL, 26. 357). Cf. F. Stahelin, Geschichte de r kleinasiatischenGalater, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1907), 104; W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Comment-

ary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (New York, 1900), 145-164; J. G. C. Anderson, "Exploration in Galatia cis Halym," Journal of Hellenic Studies, 19 (1899), 316-318.

II 26

speak only in his native tongue.6 The continuous use of Mysian is also attested.

We are told about St. Auxentius, who lived during the first half of the fifth

century, but whose biography was written at the beginning of the sixth century, that, as he had come from Mysia, he was barbarian in language., In Cappadocia the native language continued to prevail certainly throughout the fourth century, as we learn from Gregory of NyssaB and also from Basil, who says that the Cappadocians were saved from a certain heresy because "the grammatical structure of their native tongue did not permit the distinction between `with' and `and."'9 In Cappadocia, too, there lived a people known as the Magusaeana, who scandalized the Christians by the tenacity with which they adhered to their strange practices, including marriage between brother

and sister.1° In Isauria also the native tongue continued to be used. The evidence for this is a hagiographical text written after 596.11

I have found no evidence later than the sixth century attesting the persistence of native languages in Asia Minor. The chances are, however, that these languages, at least some of them, continued to be used long beyond the chronological limits of our evidence, for languages do not die out overnight. The Phrygians, for instance, as we may infer from what we know of the background of Michael II, seem to have been only semi-Hellenized as late as the beginning of the ninth century. Michael, who is described as coarse, ill-educated,

and contemptuous of Hellenic culture, was no doubt typical of the natives of Phrygia, many of whom may not have known any Greek at all.12 We may suppose, then, with some reason, that there was no complete linguistic homogeneity in Asia Minor in the seventh century. This supposition is strengthened

by the persistence of the native heresies, known from both ecclesiastical writers and epigraphy.13 Montanism was widespread in Phrygia, Lycaonia, and perhaps also in Cappadocia, Galatia, and Cilicia.14 Procopius states that A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937), 122. 7 Vita S. Auxentii, Migne, PG, 114. 1428; Holl, op. Cit., 241f. 6 Contra Eunomium, Migne, PG, 45. 1045 De Spiritu Sancto, Migne, PG, 32. 208. 10 Saint Basil, The Letters, ed. and tr. Roy J. Deferrari, 4 (Cambridge, Mass., 1939) (Loeb Classical Library), 44-46; Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, ed. E. H. Gifford (Oxford, 1903), 1:352 (book VI, chap. 10). 11 Holl, op. Cit., 243. In Cilicia, too, the native language was spoken at least until the fifth century. We are told by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, that an ascetic whom be knew personally spoke Greek though he was Cilician by race. We may infer from this that there were natives in Cilicia who did not speak Greek. Theodoret, Retigiosa Historia, Migne, PG, 82. 1488. 12 Theopbanes Constinuatus, (Bonn, 1838), 49. Cf. J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accesion of Basil I (London, 1912), 78. 1e W. M. Calder, "The Epigraphy of the Anatolian Heresies," Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester, 1923), 59-91. For evidence of the persistence of some of the ancient heresies of Asia Minor as late as the seventh decade of the ninth century see C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. English Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge,

Mass., 1958), 279-282; 288-289. Photius speaks further (289) of "the ungodly ideas of those halfbarbarous and bastard clans which had crept into the Roman government." The reference no doubt is to the iconoclasts whom apparently Photius did not consider completely Hellenized. Cf. Mango's note (289, note 16). 16 G. Bardy, "Montanisme," Dictionnaire de lhdologie catholique, 10 (1929), 2368, for the early period. For a Montanist inscription of the sixth century see H. Grigoire, "Du nouveau sur la hierarchic de la secte montaniste d'aprhs une inscription grecque prks de Philadelphie en Lydie," Byzantion, 2 (1925), 329-336.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 27 the Montanists in Phrygia destroyed themselves rather than abandon their heresy,15 but the evidence is that they continued to exist. They are mentioned in the Acts of the Council in Trullo (692), in which they are called Phryges. The same Acts refer to other heresies in Asia Minor, especially in Galatia, as being numerous, and mention some, all of long standing, by name.16 Montanists

are known to have existed during the reign of Leo III.17 We also know that early in the ninth century the Paulician Sergius Tychikos corresponded with a certain Leo the Montanist.'8 The reference to this correspondence is rather

significant, for it indicates that the Montanists, who henceforth cease to appear in history, may have merged with the Paulicians.19 This would explain

the apparent increase in the strength of the Paulicians in Phrygia and the consequent apprehensive attitude toward them of the ecclesiastical and imperial

authorities of Constantinople.20 Some of the Montanists may have merged with the Athinganoi, another strange sect of considerable importance both in Phrygia and Lycaonia.21 Michael II is said to have inherited from his parents the beliefs of the Athinganoi, and Nicephorus I was accused of being friendly to both them and the Paulicians.22 Early in the ninth century the Athinganoi were either exterminated or driven out of their homes, and some of them were settled on the island of Aegina where the natives referred to them as aliens.23 This attitude toward them does not prove that their language was

not Greek, since the term alien could very well have been applied to newly established settlers from another province. The fact, however, that the Gypsies,

descendants of the foreign Zatt who had been settled in the Empire in 855, came to be called Athinganoi may indicate that the latter were distinguished by their strange language.24

There is some basis for believing, therefore, that in the seventh century is Procopius, Anecdote, XI. 14; XI. 23. Is Mansi, XI:984 (Canon 95)17 Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, I (Leipzig, 1883), 401. For other texts, J. Starr, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire (Athens, 1939), 91-9211 H. Gr6goire, "Pr6cisions g6ographiques et chronologiques sur les Pauliciens," Academic royale de Belgique: Bulletin de la Classe des Leitres et des Sciences Morales et Politigues, 5e

33 (Brussels, 1947),

317.

11 Cf. F. C. Conybeare, The Key o/ Truth. A Manual o/ the Paulician Church in Armenia (Oxford, 1898), LXXIV; CLXXXV. Gr6goire, ibid., 301. There is some evidence to the effect that a community

of Cathari continued to exist in Philadelphia, Lydia, as late as the thirteenth century. "Cathares d'Asie Mineure, d'Italie et de France," Memorial Louis Petit (=Archives de l'Orient chretien, I) (Paris, 1948), 144-145 his" Ignatius, Vita Nicephori, ed. C. de Boor, Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opuscula (Leipzig, 188o), 158-159. P1 Theophanes, 1:495; Genesius, Historia (Bonn, 1834), 32; Theophanes Continuatus, 42. On the

Athinganoi one may further consult Joshua Starr, "An Eastern Christian Sect: the Athinganoi, "The Harvard Theological Review, XXIX, 2 (1936), 93-106. 11 Theophanes Continuatus, 42; Theophanes, 1:488. Jews also are known to have existed in Asia Minor, as in Constantinople, but they do not appear to have been very numerous. Starr, The Jews in

the Byzantine Empire, 88ff., 98f.; A. Sharf, "Byzantine Jewry in the Seventh Century," BZ, 48 (1955), 111.

s The Li/e of Saint Athanasia of Aegina, Acta Sanctorum, August, III, 170E. 2M. J. De Goeje, Memoires d'histoire et de geographic orientate, no. 3. Mimoire sur les migrations des Tsiganes d travers dAsie (Leiden, 1903), 75. On the ancestry of the gypsies one may consult, in addition to the work of De Goeje, A. A. Vasiliev-H. Gregoire, Byzance et les Arabes, I (Brussels, 1935), 223-224;

J. B. Bury, op. cit., 40, note r.

m 28

there still remained certain elements of the ancient native population of Asia Minor that had not been completely absorbed by Hellenism, either in language or in culture. But this point should not be too greatly stressed. The native elements were finally absorbed, though perhaps they retained some of their

own traits. The administration, the army, the schools, but above all the official Church, with its insistence upon orthodoxy and its use of Greek, were powerful agents of Hellenization. The events of the seventh century, too, may have strengthened Hellenism in Asia Minor. We know that many Christians, the majority of whom were doubtless Greek-speaking, fled from Syria and Egypt when these territories were conquered by the Arabs.26 We do not know exactly where they settled, though it is more than likely that many of them settled in Asia Minor. However, the settlement of new peoples, some of whom,

notably the Slavs, will be mentioned in the course of this paper, was to complicate the ethnic composition of Asia Minor.26

One of the most important developments in the Byzantine Empire toward the end of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh was the rise to prominence of the Armenians. They were to maintain this position throughout the seventh and eighth centuries, while in the ninth and tenth centuries they improved it even further. At the end of the sixth century the Byzantine Empire controlled the major part of Armenia,27 but the events of the seventh century, in particular the rise of the Arabs, deprived it of this control,28 though it still retained some Armenian-speaking lands. It was from these lands that the Empire drew its Armenian recruits, but many Armenians who entered its service also came from the Armenian regions under foreign control. Sometimes they came as u P. K. Hitti, Origins of the Islamic State (New York, 19x6), 18o: "In the year 49 the Greeks left for the seacoast"; 194: They (the Greeks of Tripoli) "wrote to the king of the Greeks asking for relief through reinforcement or ships on which they might escape and flee to him. Accordingly, the king

sent them many ships which they boarded in the night time and fled away." 195: "He [a certain Greek patrician] made his way together with his followers to the land of the Greeks"; 189: "The fact is that when Damascus was taken possession of, a great number of its inhabitants fled to Heraclius, who was then at Antioch, leaving many vacant dwellings behind that were later occupied by the Moslems"; 227: "At last they[the people and soldiers of Antioch] capitulated, agreeing to pay poll tax or evacuate

the place. Some of them did leave; but others remained, and to the latter Abu-Ubaidah guaranteed safety, assessing one dinar and one jarib [of wheat] on every adult"; 231 f: "When the Moslem armies reached these towns [the Greek towns of Syria], their inhabitants capitulated, agreeing to pay poll tax or evacuate the place. Most of them left for the Byzantine Empire"; 348: "Some of its [Alexandria's] Greek inhabitants left to join the Greeks somewhere else." Hitti's book is a translation of the Futuh al-Buldan of al-Buladhuri. ae We may mention, for instance, the Goths who, in the early centuries of the Empire, were settled in Bithynia, in the territory which later formed the theme of Optimati. They were still there in the eighth century, though they seem to have been Hellenized. Theophanes, 1:385; "Acta Graeca SS. Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii" Analecta Bollandiana, i8 (1899), 256. Alans seem to have settled in the Pontic regions of the Empire sometime between 662 and 666. P. Peeters, "A propos de la version armbnienne de l'historien Socrate," Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales, 2 (Brussels, 1934), 669, note 2. Vandals were settled in Asia Minor by Justinian. Procopius, De bello Vandalico, II 14, 17. 27 Under the Emperor Maurice the Byzantine frontier in Armenia followed a line extending from

Nisibis to lake Van, Maku, Dvin, Garni, and Tiflis. Nisibis, Maku, Dvin, Garth, and Tiflis did not belong to the Empire. P. Goubert, Byzance avant 1'I slam, i (Paris, 1951), ego-295; cf. Ernst Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 (Brussels, 1935), 27fl.

sB The Arab domination of Armenia was established in the second half of the seventh century. H. Manandean, "Les invasions arabes en Armenie," Byzantion, 18 (1946-1948), 190.

II ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 29 adventurers, but more often as refugees. Thus in 571, following an unsuccess-

ful revolt against the Persians, the Armenian Catholicos, a few bishops and numerous noblemen fled to Constantinople.29 The leading men among these refugees, were, besides the Catholicos, Vardan Mamiconian and his retinue. There

were also among them some Iberians (Georgians), headed by one Gorgonis, who had joined the Armenians in their unsuccessful revolt.30 Vardan joined the Byzantine army; the rest seem to have settled in Pergamum, where an Armenian colony is known to have existed in the seventh century. From this colony sprang Bardanes who, under the name of Philippicus, occupied the imperial throne from 711 to 713.31 More Armenians immigrated after Armenia had fallen into the hands of the Arabs. Thus, about 700 a number of Nakharars

with their retinues sought refuge in the Byzantine Empire, and were settled by the emperor on the Pontic frontier. Some of these later returned to Armenia but others remained.32 More Nakharars, completely abandoning their possessions in Armenia, fled to the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Constantine V Copronymus.33 Still more came about 790. It is said they numbered i2,ooo, and they came with their wives, their children, their retinues

and their cavalry. They were welcomed by the Emperor and were granted fertile lands on which to settle.34 We are not told the location of the lands given to them. This Armenian immigration to the Byzantine Empire was to continue in the centuries to come.-5 The Armenians, however, did not always come willingly. They were some-

times forcibly removed from their homes and settled in other regions of the

Empire. Justinian had already resorted to this measure, but the numbers involved were small, perhaps a few families.36 Transplantations on a large a John of Ephesus, trans. Smith, 125-126, Brooks, 61-62; Theophanes, I: 245 Ibid., Smith, 403, Brooks, 231-232; Theophanes of Byzantium, Fragments (Bonn, 1829), 485 H. Gelzer, "Pergamon unter Byzantinern and Osmanen," Abhandlungen der Xoniglich preussischen Akademie der Wissenscha/ten (Berlin, 1903), 42f. Another Armenian colony may have existed at Pidra

in the Anatolikon theme. It is known that Leo V, the Armenian, had immigrated there as a boy. Theophanes Continuatus, 6; Genesius, 10, z8. The exact location of Pidra is not known. " Ghevond, Hisloire des guerres et des conquetes des Arabes en Arminie, tr. from Armenian by G. V. Chahnazarian (Paris, 1856), 22, 33-34; cf. J. Laurent, L'Armenie entre Byzance et !'Islam depuis Is conquete arabe jusqu'en 886 (Paris, 1919), 184, note 4; J. Muyldermans, La domination arabe en Armenie... (Paris, 1927), 98-99. " Ghevond, 129. " Ibid., 162. In reporting this incident Asoghik deplores the fact that, whereas the nobility was able to flee, the poor had to stay and serve the Arabs. Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, Histoire universelle (1e partie), tr. from Armenian by E. Dulaurier (Paris, 1883) (Publications de l'Escole des Langues Orientales Vivantes, XVIII), 162. " Mention should also be made of the Armenian Paulicians who were driven out of their homes some time before 661 and some of whom settled in the Pontic regions of the Empire, more specifically in the area at the junction of the Iris and Lycus rivers. Their settlements extended almost as far as Nicopolis (Enderes) and Neocaesarea (Niksar). These were regions where the Armenian element was already considerable. Comana, for instance, is referred to by Strabo (12, 3, 36) as an emporium of the Armenians. Cf. "Pr6cisions gLographiques et chronologiques sur les Pauliciens," 294f., 298f.; S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (Cambridge, 1947), 34. Our source for the expulsion of the Paulicians from Armenia is a discourse of the Catholicus John of Odsun (717-728). This event is said to have taken place during the Catholicate of Nerses who is apparently Nerses III (641-661). op. cit., 3oo. The discourse of John of Odsun is also cited by Sirarpie der Nersessian, "Une apologie des images du septi6me si6cle," Byzantion, 17 (1944-45), 70-71" Proeopius, De hello Gothico, III 32, 7; cf. R. Grousset, Histoire de l'Armenie des origins d 1071 (Paris, 1947), 242, Grousset's statement concerning vast transfers of Armenians to Thrace by Justinian is not borne out by his references.

30

scale took place during the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice. In 578 Io,ooo Armenians were removed from their homes and settled on the island of Cyprus.87

"Thus," says Evagrius, "land, which previously had not been tilled, was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them, and they fought resolutely and courageously against the other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics, because of the easy rate at which slaves were procured."31 A transplantation on a vaster scale was planned by Maurice, and partially carried out. Maurice, who may have been of Armenian descent, though this is extremely doubtful 80 found the Armenians extremely troublesome in their own homeland. The plan which he conceived called for the cooperation of the Persian king in the removal from their homes of all Armenian chieftains and their followers. According to Sebeos, Maurice addressed the Persian king as follows: The Armenians are "a knavish and indocile nation. They are found between us and they are a source of trouble. I am going to collect mine and send them to Thrace; send yours to the East. If they die there, it will be so many enemies that will die; if, on the contrary, they kill, it will be so many enemies that they will kill. As for us we shall live in peace. But if they remain in their country, there will never be any qu}et for us." Sebeos further reports that the two rulers agreed to carry out this plan, but apparently the Persians failed to cooperate. For when the Byzantine Emperor gave the necessary orders and pressed hard for their execution, many Armenians fled to Persia 90 The Byzantines, however, did carry out the deportation, though only in part. In ordering this removal, Maurice's real motive was, no doubt, the fact that he needed the Armenians as soldiers in Thrace. Further deportations and settlement of Armenians in the Byzantine Empire, especially in Thrace, are attested for the eighth century. During the reign of Constantine V Copronymus thousands of Armenians and monophysite Syrians were gathered by the Byzantine armies during their raids in the regions of Germanicea (Marash), Melitene, and Erzeroum, and were settled in Thrace.41 Others, also from the environs of Erzeroum, were settled along the eastern frontier. These, however, were subsequently seized by the Arabs and were settled by them in Syria.42 During the reign of Leo IV, a Byzantine raiding 37 Theophylactus Simocatta, Historiae, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1887), 143; John of Ephesus, Smith, 412, 437, Brooks, 236, 252. Cf. Honigmann, op. cit., 23.

'^ Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London, 1898), 215. The translation is taken from the English version of Evagrius which appeared in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library: Theodoret and Evagrius, History of the Church (London, 1854), 44430 N. Adontz has tried to prove the Armenian origin of Maurice: "Les de Maurice et de Constantin V, empereurs de Byzance," Annuaire de I'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales, 2 (Brussels, 1934), 1-12. But see Goubert, op. cit., 36-41. 40 Sebeos, Histoire d'Heraclius, tr. from Armenian by F. Macler (Paris, 1904), 3o-31. Cf. F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurhunden des ostromischen Retches, I (Munich, 1924), p. 13, no. rob. 41 Nicephorus, Opuscula Historica, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 188o), 65, 66; Theophanes, 1:427, 429; Michael Syrus, Chronique, ed. and trans. J. B. Chabot, 2 (Paris, 1901), 518, 521, 523: Agapius of Menbidj, Histoire universelle, tr. A. A. Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis, 8 (1912), 544; Ghevond, op. cit., 126-127. 4' Agapius of Menbidj, 531, 538; Dionysius I of

Chronique, tr. J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1895), 56-57. Cf. A. Lombard, Etudes d'histoire byzantine. Constantin V, empereur des Romains (740-775) (Paris, 1902), 35. Among the people involved were some Alans also.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 31 expedition into Cilicia and Syria resulted in the seizure of thousands of natives,

150,000, according to one authority, who were settled in Thrace.43 These, however, were chiefly Syrian Jacobites, though some Armenians may have also been among them. Nicephorus I used Armenians, along with other nationalities, in his resettlement of Sparta at the beginning of the ninth century46 Moreover, many individual Armenians are known to have come from Armenia and to have entered the service of the Byzantine state in both the seventh and eighth centuries. Occasionally, however, Armenians were driven out of the Byzantine Empire. We are told that the Emperor Philippicus, himself of Armenian descent, drove the Armenians out of his realm and forced them to settle in the regions of Melitene.45 We do not know the reason for this; it may have been religious, but it had no consequence insofar as the role of the Armenians in the Byzantine Empire was concerned. That role was to grow in importance in the centuries to come. Thus, the Armenians were 'very much in evidence in the Byzantine Empire in the seventh and eighth centuries. They came of their own volition as refugees

or were forcibly removed from their homes, and they settled in various parts of the Empire, particularly in Thrace and on the eastern frontier. Also, despite the conquest of Armenia by the Arabs, a conquest which was virtually complete by the end of the seventh century, some Armenian-speaking lands still remained in the possession of the Empire. However, it was as soldiers and officers of the army that the Armenians exerted their greatest influence in Byzantium. It is well known that the Armenian element occupied a prominent place in the armies of Justinian. Armenian troops fought in Africa, Italy, and along the eastern front. They were also prominent in the palace guard46 Procopius mentions by name no less than seventeen Armenian commanders, including, of course, the great Narses.47 But the Armenians constituted only one among the different elements that made up the armies of Justinian. These elements included many barbarians: Erulians, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Lombards, Moors, Sabiri, Slavs and Antae, Vandals; a number of Persians, Iberians, and Tzani; and among the provincials, Illyrians, Thracians, Isaurians, and Lycaonians.48 " Theophanes, I:451-52; Ghevond, op. cit., 15o; Michael Syrus, 3:2. 44 P. Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 5 (195o), 154-155. In 792, following the suppression of a revolt among the Armenians, one thousand of them were removed from the Armeniac theme and were settled in Sicily and other islands: Theophanes, 1: 469. 1s Theophanes, I:382: Michael Syrus, 2:482; Agapius of Menbidj, 500. 6e Procopius, De belle Persico, II 21, 2; De bello Vandalico, II 24, 2; De hello Gothico, II 27, 16; III 6, so; III 26, 24; III 27, 3, 1o; Anecdote 24,16. 47 The names of these commanders are listed in the index of the Haury edition of Procopius under Armenians orPersarmenians. Some of these commanders, as for instance Gilacius, spoke only Armenian: De bello Gothico, III 27, 24. In the plot which led to the assassination of Gontharis, the bodyguard of Solomon, the conspirators communicated between themselves in Armenian: De hello Vandalico, II28, 16. eB For Erulians: Procopius, De hello Persico, I 13, 20; II 24, 13, 41; De hello Vandalico, II 4, 28;

II 14, 12; De hello Gothico, II 13, 18; III 33, 13; IV 26, 13; Agathias, Historia (Bonn, 1828), 57, 79, 149, 184. For Gepids: De bello Gothico, IV 26, 13. For Goths: De bello Gothico, I 16, 2; III 1, 6; De belto Persico, II 14, 10; II 18, 24; II 21, 4. For Huns, De hello Persico, I 13, 20; I 21, 11; 1 12, 6; De bello Vandalico, I 11, 11-12; II 1, 5-10; De bello Gothico, I 5, 4; 1 27, 2; IV z6, 13; Agathias,

60-67. For Lombards, De bello Gothico, III 39, 20; IV 26, 12; IV 33, 2, 3; Agathias, 184. For

II 32

Under the immediate successors of Justinian, the composition of the Byzantine

army remained very much the same. "It is said," writes Evagrius, "that Tiberius raised an army of 15o,ooo among the peoples that dwelt beyond the Alps around the Rhine and among those this side of the Alps, among the Massagetae and other Scythian nations, among those that dwelt in Paeonia and Mysia, and also among the Illyrians and Isaurians, and dispatched them against the Persians."4D The figure given by Evagrius may perhaps be question-

ed, but the rest of his statement cannot be doubted. It is confirmed by Theophanes, though the figure he gives is much smaller (15,ooo).60 John of Ephesus

reports that, following the breakdown of negotiations with Persia (575-577), a force of 60,000 Lombards was expected in the East.61 The same author states: "Necessity compelled Tiberius to enlist under his banners a barbarian people from the West called Goths. . who were followers of the doctrine of the wicked Arius. They departed for Persia, leaving their wives and children at Constantinople."fi2 In Constantinople the wives of these Goths requested that a church be allocated to them, so that they might worship according to their Arian faith. Thus, it seems quite certain that the ethnic composition of the Byzantine army under Tiberius remained substantially the same as it had been during the reign of Justinian. The situation changed in the course of the reign of Maurice, chiefly as a result of the Avaro-Slavic incursions of the Balkan peninsula. These incursions virtually eliminated Illyricum as a source of recruits and reduced the potential of Thrace. They also cut communication with the west and made recruitment there most difficult. The Empire had to turn elsewhere for its troops. It turned to the regions of the Caucasus and Armenia. In the armies of Maurice we still find some Huns63 and also some Lombards;54 Bulgars too,55 but the Armenian element dominates. In this respect Sebeos is once more a precious source. In connection with the war which Maurice undertook against the Avars after 591 Sebeos writes: Maurice "ordered to gather together all the Armenian cavalry and all the noble Nakharars skilled in war and adroit in wielding the lance in combat. He ordered also a numerous army to be raised in Armenia, an Moors, De hello Gotkico, I 5, 4; III 1, 6; De hello Persico, II 21, 4; Agathias, 184. For Sabiri: De hello Gothico, IV 11, 22-26; Agathias, 1177. For Slavs and Antae: De hello Gothico, I 27, 1-2; II 15, 18, 22; III 22, 3; Agathias, 186. For Vandals: De hello Vandalico, II 14, 17; De hello Persico, II 21, 4. For Persians: De belloGotkico, III 11, 37; IV 26, 13. For Iberians: De hello Persico, I 12, 11-13; 122, 16; II 28, 1; De hello Gotkico, I 5, 3; III 4, 10. For Tzani: De hello Gotkico, IV 13, 10; Agathias, log. For Illyrians: De hello Gotkico, III 11, 11, 15, 16, III 12, 4; 111 39, 9; IV 26, 10; De hello Persico, II 21, 4. For Thracians: De hello Persico, II 21, 4; De hello Gothico, II 5, 1; II 11, 5; III 6, 10; III 12, 4; III 39, 9; IV 26, 10. For Isaurians: De hello Persico, I ,8, 5, 38-40; De hello Gothico, I 5, 12; II 11, 5; 111 36, 7, 14; Agathias, 184. For Lycaonians, De hello Persico, I x8, 38-40-

Among the provincials, especially natives of Asia Minor, there was a strong dislike for military service; St. Basil wrote in one of his letters: " ... a large number of persons are presenting themselves for the ministry through fear of the conscription." Basil, Letters, ed. Deferrari, I:344 (Letter 54)0 Evagrius, 209 f. °' Theophanes, I:251. 61 John of Ephesus, Smith, 407, Brooks, 234 " Ibid., Smith, 207, Brooks, 113. " Theophylactus Simocatta, 67. O1 Ibid., 104. 00 Michael Syrus, 2:72.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 33 army composed of soldiers of good will and good stature, organized in regular

corps and armed. He ordered that this army should go to Thrace under the command of Musele (Moushegh) Mamiconian and there fight the enemy."66 This army was actually organized and fought in Thrace. Mamiconian was captured and killed,57 whereupon the raising of an Armenian force of 2,000 armed cavalry was ordered. This force, too, was sent to Thrace.66 Earlier, during the Persian wars, important Armenian contingents under the command of John Mystacon operated on the eastern front.59 In 602 Maurice issued the following edict: "I need 30,000 cavalrymen, as tribute, raised in Armenia. Thirty thousand families must be gathered and settled in Thrace."60 Priscus was sent to Armenia to carry out this edict, but before he had time to do so the revolution that overthrew Maurice broke out, and the edict apparently was not enforced. It is interesting to observe the correlation between the number of cavalry and the number of families that were to be transplanted to Thrace. Each family was ob-iously intended to furnish one cavalryman, and no doubt each family was going to be given some land. Here we have, perhaps,

an indication that Maurice sought to extend the system of military estates in Thrace.80a But, however that maybe, it is quite clear that under Maurice Armenia

became the principal source of recruits for the Byzantine army.61 The same was true under Heraclius, himself of Armenian descent,°2 though that Emperor also drew heavily on the people of the Caucasus -Lazi, Abasgians, Iberiansbe Sebeos, 35-

67 Cf. Goubert, op. cit., I:197. 68 Sebeos, 36-37 Cf. Goubert, op. cit., I:zoo; Dolger, op. Cit., 12, no. 94. 61 Theophylactus Simocatta, 205, 216. Se Sebeos, 54-55. Cf. Goubert, op. cit., I:zog; Dolger, op. cit., 16, no. 137, 10a The widely accepted view which associates the increase of military estates throughout the Empire

with the establishment of the theme system and places both of these developments in the seventh century has very recently been questioned: J. Karayannopoulos, "Contribution au probleme des 'themes' byzantins," L'ketlEnisme contemporain, ser. 2, 10 (1956), 492-501; Die Entstekung der byzantinischen Themenordnung (= Byzantinisches Archiv, Heft io) (Munich, 1959), 71-88. See also Paul Lemerle, "Esquisse pour une histoire agraire de Byzance: Les sources et les problemes," Revue kisto-

rique, 220 (1958), 43-70. Karayannopoulos contends that the spread of military estates and the establishment of the theme system were not related, that both developed gradually over a long period of time, and that no one emperor was responsible for either. However this may be, it is very probable, as this passage from Sebeos suggests, that the growth of military estates was connected with the shifting of population from one province to another and the resettlement of immigrant peoples for military purposes. As both of these practices were frequently resorted to in the seventh and eighth centuries, it is in those two centuries, but most probably in the seventh, that one should put the beginnings of the wide distribution of the military estates. This is not the place to discuss Lemerle's interpretation of the military estates. 11 Scholars have long recognized that the ascendency of the Armenian element in the Byzantine Empire dates from the reign of Maurice. M. K. Patkanian wrote in 1866: "A partir de cette 6poque [the reign of Maurice] les chefs des milices arm6niennes, en Thrace, commencerenta jouer on role important dans l'arm6e grecque, parvinrent aux plus hauts grades militaires, et plusieurs dent re eux monterent m@me sur le trbne des empereurs." M. K. Patkanian, "Essai d'une histoire de la dynastie des Sassanides, d'apres les renseignements fournis par les historiens armdniens, " tr. from Russian by Evariste Prud'homme, journal asiatique, 7 (1866), 194, note 3. Armenian troops under Armenian officers were also stationed in Byzantine Italy during this period. Cf. H. W. Haussig, "Anfinge der Themenordnung," in F. Altheim-R. Stiehl, Finanagesckichfe der Spatantike (Frankfurt a. M., 1957), 1o6, note 76.

11 The father of the Emperor Heraclius, also named Heraclius, who served as general during the reign of Maurice, is said to have been a native of a city located in Armenia. Theophylactus Simocatta, op. cit., log-11o. John of Nikiu calls the Emperor Heraclius a Cappadocian. Chronique, tr. H. Zotenberg (Paris, 1883), 431. 3

II

34 as well as on the Khazars.63 It should also be observed that among the defenders

of Constantinople against the Avars in 6z6 there were some Armenians." As we have said, by the end of the seventh century Armenia was lost to the Arabs, but throughout that century the Armenians continued to be one of the dominant elements in the Byzantine army. The Armeniacs, whose territory in the seventh century included Armenian-speaking lands, were primarily Armenians." The significance of the Armenian element in the Byzantine Empire is further illustrated by the number of persons of Armenian descent who came to occupy influential positions. They served as generals, as members of the imperial retinue, as governors of provinces. Under Heraclius the Armenian Manuel was named praelectus augustalis in Egypt.86 Armenian generals served the same Emperor in the field. One of these, Vahan, was actually proclaimed Emperor by his troops just before the battle of Yermuk.67 He later retired to Sinai and became a monk. Armenian princes in Constantinople were very influential.

They even plotted to overthrow Heraclius and to place on the throne his illegitimate son, Athalaric.68 In 641 it was the Armenian Valentinus, an Arsacid, who enabled Constans II to assume the throne following the death of his father.

Valentinus was put in command of the troops in the East, but shortly afterwards, having failed in a plot to seize the throne for himself, he was executed.69

Other Armenian generals are known to have served under Constans II. Two of these, Sabour, surnamed Aparasitgan,70 and Theodore were commanders of the Armeniacs.71 After the violent death of Constans II, the Armenian Mizizius (Mj ej Gnouni) was proclaimed Emperor, and though he was not able to maintain this position, he should be included among the emperors of Armenian descent

who occupied the Byzantine throne.72 Later his son John felt strong enough to rebel against Constantine IV, but he, too, failed and was destroyed .73 Many Armenians are known to have been prominent in the service of the Empire in the eighth century also. The Armenian Bardanes occupied the throne from 711 "An 0 Theophanes, I:304, 309, 316; Nicephorus, 15; Agapius of Menbidj 463. Cl. H. Armenian Dynasty on the Byzantine Throne," Armenian Quarterly, 1 (1946), 9u Chronicon Paschale, I (Bonn, 1832), 724. There was an Armenian colony in Constantinople during this time. F. C. Conybeare, "Ananias of Shirak (A.D. 600-650)," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 6 (1897), 572. Cf. P. Peeters, "A propos de la version armenienne de l'histoire de Socrate," Annuaire de 1'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales, 2 (Brussels, 1934), 673. es Theophanes, I: 469. ee Ibid., I:338; Michael Syrus, 2:425. 67 Theopbanes, I: 318; 338 J. B. Bury considers him a Persian: A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (London, 1889), 2:263f. But cf. Lebeau-St. Martin, Histoire du Bas-Empire, ri (Paris, 1830), 208, note 2; 214; also A. Pernice, L'Imperalore Erarlio (Florence, 1905), 280. w Sebeos, 93.

n Ibid., 103-4; 105. Cf. H. Manandean, op. cit., x82. For the account given by the Greek sources cf. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1889), 2:283ff. 70 Theophanes, I:348; Michael Syrus, 2:451 and note. 9. Cf. Laurent, op. cit., 194, note 3. 11 Sebeos, Io6. Cf. Manandean, op. cit., 19off. 11 Theophanes, I:352; Michael Syrus, 2:451. The Armenian version of Michael Syrus has Mejej in place of Mizizius. Langlois, who translated this version into French, remarks on this: "Mejej, en grec Mizizius, qui paralt, par son appellation, appartenir a la race ou famille des Gnouniens." V. Langlois, Chronique de MichelleGrand, patriarche des Syriens jacobites, traduite pour la premiere fois sup la version armenienne du prBtre IscA6h (Venice, 1868), 241 and note 6. Cf. Laurent, op. cit., 193, note 4; Lebeau-St. Martin, op. cit., 11:406, note ,. 78 Michael Syrus, 2:455.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 35 Artavasdos, son-in-law of Leo III and at one time general of the to M.

Armeniacs, also attempted to seize the crown, and for a time was actually master of Constantinople.74 He was ably assisted by other Armenians, his cousin Teridates, Vahtan the patrician, and another Artavasdos.75 During the brief period when he held Constantinople, he crowned his son Nicephorus, Co-Emperor and made his other son, Nicetas, general of the Armeniacs.76 The

Armeniacs, the vast majority of whom, as has been said, were Armenians, constituted Artavasdos' strongest supporters." Other eminent Armenians are known to have served the empire under Constantine V Copronymus. Tadjat Andzevatzik, who came to Byzantium about 750, proved to be a successful commander in the course of Constantine's Bulgarian campaigns. Under Leo IV we find him as general of the Bucellarii.78 He subsequently fled to the Arabs. Another Armenian, the prince Artavazd Mamiconian, who joined the Byzantine forces about 771, was general of the Anatolikon under Leo IV.79 More Armenians are mentioned during the teign of Constantine VI and Irene. Bardas, onetime general of the Armeniacs, was involved in a conspiracy to have Leo IV succeeded by his brother Nicephorus and not by his son Constantine.80 Another Vardas lost his life in the Bulgarian campaign which Constantine VI conducted in 792.81 Artasaras, or Artashir, was another Armenian general active during the reign of Constantine VI.82 Alexius Musele (Moushegh), drungarius of the watch and later general of the Armeniacs, seems even to have aspired to the throne. At least he was accused of entertaining this ambition and was blinded 83 His family, however, achieved great distinction in the ninth and tenth centuries.

Another great Byzantine family of Armenian descent, the Skleroi, made its 74 Theophanes, L 386, 395, 414; Nicephorus, 59. 76 Theophanes, 1:418, 419, 420. 7e Ibid., 417-

" Ibid., 41878 Ghevond, op. cit., 150, 153; Theophanes, I: 45.r. Cf. Laurent, op. cit., 193, note 3. Under Constantine V, a Constantine, son of the patrician Bardanes was put to death in 766 for conspiracy. Theophanes, I: 438. A Bardanes was general of the Armeniacs in 772. Theophanes, I:445. As the name Bardanes is Armenian, these persons may have been Armenians. 70 Ghevond, op. cit., 134, 750; cf. Laurent, op. cit., 193; Theophanes, I:45r. Two other Armenians, Varaz-Tirots, general of the Armeniacs, and Gregory, son of Mousoulak, general of the Opsikion, served the Empire under Leo IV. Cf. N. Adontz, "L'dge et l'origine de 1'empereur Basile I," Byzantion, 9 (1934), 242.

10 Theophanes, I:454. Bardas' Armenian origin is indicated by his name. 11 Ibid., I : 468. I do not know on what basis Adontz refers to this Bardas as the father of Leo V the Armenian. N. Adontz, "Role of the Armenians in Byzantine Science," The Armenian Review, 3, no. 3 (195o), 64. Under Constantine VI, Irene, and Nicephorus I, we encounter a number of persons who bore the Armenian name Bardanes and who were probably Armenians: Bardanes, patrician and domesticus scholarum; Bardanes, general of the Thracesians; Bardanes, called the Turk, general of the Anatolicon, who made an attempt to seize the throne; Bardanes, called Anemas, a spatharius. Theophanes, I:471, 474, 479-8o, 482. Another Armenian, the patrician Arsaber was Quaestor under Nicephorus I. In the unsuccessful plot of 8o8 to overthrow Nicephorus, Arsaber had been chosen as the new emperor. Theophanes, I :483. Cf. J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I (London, 1912), 14. This Arsaber was the father of the Empress Theodosia, wifeof Leo V the Armenian. Genesius, 21. AnotherArmenian named Bardas a relative (av)yau pos) of Leo V, was general of the Thracesians during the reign of this Emperor. S. Theodori Studitae Vita, PG, 99. 300. Cf. Bury, Eastern Roman Empire, 68, 72. See further N. Adontz, "Sur l'origine de Leon V, empereur de Byzance," Armeniaca, II (1927), 9-1011 Theophanes, I:468, 469. 88 Ibid., 1:466, 467,468; cf. Lebeau-St. Martin, Histoire du Bas-Empire, 12 (Paris, 7831), 355, note 3. 3'

II

36

appearance in Byzantium at this time or soon thereafter. Leo Skleros, governor of the Peloponnesus at the beginning of the ninth century, is the first member of this family known to us M It will be noted that most of these Armenians were associated at one time

or another with the Armeniac theme. The turbulent, but very energetic, thematic corps of the Armeniacs is very much in evidence throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. It is the clearest indication of the prominence of the Armenian element in the Byzantine Empire during this period. It should be pointed out, however, that in general the Armenians who entered the service of the Empire embraced orthodoxy and so identified themselves with the interests of the Empire. Yet there were always Armenians within its borders who sought to maintain their own traditions. The event which, as we have already observed, brought the Armenians into prominence was the collapse of Byzantine power in the Balkan peninsula and the consequent loss of the sources which in the earlier centuries had furnished the Empire with some of its best troops. No doubt the most important ethnic change in the Balkan peninsula since ancient times was brought about by the incursions and the settlement of the Slavs. The circumstances and exact chronology of the Slavic settlements in the Balkan peninsula are still, despite the meticulous work of many scholars, a historical puzzle. The reason for this is, of course, the brevity and chronological vagueness of our sources. This vagueness is best illustrated by the compilation known as the Miracula Sancti Demetri, the most important single text we possess on the settlement of the Slavs in the Balkan peninsula. No less than three serious studies of this text have been made in the last five years,86 but they serve only to emphasize the difficulty of the problem since they offer different solutions to the crucial questions of chronology. The problem has been further confused

by the nationalistic bias of certain scholars. The following facts, however, are sufficiently clear.

The first appearance of the Slavs in the Byzantine Empire can be dated no earlier than the sixth century.86 Throughout this century, beginning with the reign of Justinian, Slavs repeatedly invaded the Balkan possessions of the Byzantine Empire. Not until the reign of Maurice, however, did any Slavs settle in these territories. Between the years 579-587 there took place the irruption of several barbarian waves led by the Avars, but consisting mostly 81 Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia...," 145. 0 P. Lemerle, "Ia composition et la chronologie des deux premiers livres des Miracula S. Demetrii," BZ, 46 (1953), 349-361; A. Burmov, "Les sieges de Thessalonique par les Slaves dans Miracula Sancti Demetrii Martyris et leur chronologie," Annuaire de l'Universitd de Sofia. Facultd de Philosophic et Histoire. Livre I, histoire, 47 (1952) (in Bulgarian), 167-215; F. Barifii, Miracles de St. Ddmdtrius comme source historique (Academic Serbe de Sciences. Monographies CCXIX. Institut d'Etudes Byzantines, 2) (Belgrade, 1953). As I read neither Bulgarian nor Serbian, I have relied principally on the French resum6 which both Burmov and Bari§i6 give of their respective works. I have, however, with the help of my friend George Soulis, consulted certain sections of the Bulgarian and Serbian texts. Cf. also Ep. Chrysantbopoulos, "T&Biphlaeavw&rmvTOG'Ayiov ArlyrlTpfov," 6e0Aoyla, 24 (1953), 597-606; 25 (1954),

145-152; 26 (1955), 91-106, 293-309, 457-464; 593-619; 27 (1956), 82-94; 260-272, 481-496. This work has now appeared under the same title in book form: Athens, 1958. It is a serious study, but I find myself unable to agree with its main conclusions. " Cf. F. Dvornik, The Slavs. Their Early History and Civilization (Boston, 1956), 34 if.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 37 of Slavs. The latter came in great numbers, and, as the troops of the Empire were engaged in the war with Persia, they roamed the country at will. They

devastated Illyricum and Thrace, penetrated deep into Greece and the Peloponnesus, helped the Avars to take numerous cities, including Singidunum, Viminacium (Kostolac), Durostorum (Silistria), Marcianopolis, Anchialus, and

Corinth, and in 586 laid siege to the city of Thessalonica, the first of a series of great sieges which that city was destined to undergo at their hands.87 What is more, they came to stay. "The Slavonians," wrote John of Ephesus in 584, "still encamp and dwell in the Roman territories and live in peace there, free from anxiety and fear, and lead captives and slay and burn."88 The counteroffensive launched by Maurice after 591, following the successful termination of the Persian war, had the effect, on the whole, of checking the repeated incursions of the Avars, who then seem to have transferred their operations farther west beyond the limits of Byzantine territory. The treaty of peace

which the Empire concluded with them in 6oi (the date is not absolutely certain) fixed the Danube as the boundary line between the two powers, but left the way open for the Byzantines to cross that river and chastise any Slavs that might appear dangerous.89 There is no indication, however, that the Slavs who had penetrated into the Empire were forced to retire beyond the Danube, or that they did so of their own accord. The settlement of the Slavs in the Balkan peninsila occurred mainly in the

seventh century, more specifically during the disastrous reign of Phocas (6oz-6io) and the early years of Heraclius. For the reign of Phocas there are no specific references in the sources to any Avaro-Slav invasions of Byzantine

territory, but a general statement in Theophanes, apparently derived from Theophylact Simocatta 9° leaves no doubt, despite a recent attempt to minimize its significance,91 that the Avars came repeatedly. For the reign of Heraclius our information is more explicit, though it leaves much to be desired, especially with regard to chronology. The Slavs had by now not only reached the Aegean,

but also taken to the sea. "It happened...," we read in the Miracula Sancti 67 Cf. H. Gregoire, "L'origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes," B yzantion, 18 (1944-1945),98-118; P. Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans depuis la fin de 1'6poque romaine jusqu'au VIIIe siecle," Revue historique, 211 (1954), 281 ff; L. Hauptmann, "Les rapports des Byzantins avec les Slaves et les Avares pendant la seconde moiti6 du VI' si8cle," Byzantion, 4 (1927-28), 137-170. The siege of Thessalonica took place on Sunday, 22 September, in the reign of Maurice: Miracula Sancti Demetrii, Migne, PG, 116. 1288. This must have been either in 586 or 597, for these are the only two years during the reign of Maurice when 22 September fell on a Sunday. Considering the position of the Avars in the year 597, it seems unlikely that they could have besieged Thessalonica in that year. The year 586 is, therefore, to be preferred: Charanis, "On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs and its Recapture by the Byzantines," Speculum, 27 (1952), 347; Barisi6, op. cit., 6o-64. Some scholars, however, have shown preference for the year 597. For a list of the scholars who have taken a position on this issue one way or another, Barisi6, op. cit., 10. To the list given by Bari§i6 we may add Burmov (op. cit., 183-185) and Lemerle ("La composition et la chronologie des deux premiers livres des Miracula S. Demetrii," 354) both of whom adopt the year 597. w John of Ephesus, trans. Smith, 432. as Hauptmann, op. cit., ,6off. Theophanes, 1: 290; Theophylactus Simocatta, 308.

F. Bari§i6, "De Avaro-Slavis in Phocae imperatoris aetate," Recueil des travaux de l'Acad. Serbe des Sciences, XLIX: Institut d'Etudes Byzantines, 4 (Belgrade, 1956) (in Serbian with a Latin summary), 76-86. I have consulted the Serbian text with the help of Dr. Milo§ M. Velimirovi6.

H 38

Demetrii, that "during the bishopric of John of blessed memory, the nation of the Slavs, a countless multitude, was aroused. This multitude was drawn from

the Drogubites, Sagudates, Velegezetes, Vajunetes, Berzetes, and others. Having first invented ships hewn from single pieces of timber, they took to the sea with their arms and pillaged all Thessaly and the islands about it and those about Hellas. They also pillaged the Cyclades, all Achaea, Epirus, and the greater part of Illyricum, and parts of Asia."92 The precise date of this event is not known, although Barigic is probably right in placing it toward the end of 614.93 A year or so later the same Slavs, under the leadership of a certain Hatzon, laid siege to Thessalonica. The city, however, withstood their assault, and they had to turn for help to the Khagan of the Avars. He came two years later, but to no avail. Meanwhile cities of the interior such as Naissus and Sardica had fallen to the barbarians. The narrative of this series of events leaves one with the definite impression that the Slavs who were involved in them had not come from afar, but were already settled in the Balkan peninsula, including the region of Thessalonica. Indeed, if we except the passages that

deal with events of the sixth century, we find in the Miracula no distinct reference to invasions by Slavs coming from afar. The Slavs involved in the various attacks against Thessalonica were already settled in Macedonia. They had established themselves there in the period between the beginning of the reign of Maurice and the early years of the reign of Heraclius.

An episode described in the Miracula indicates that other invaders who were not Slavs settled in the region of Thessalonica later in the seventh century.

This is the episode involving Kouver,B4 a Bulgar whom the Khagan of the Avars had placed at the head of a mixed group under his domination. This group consisted of the descendants of Christian natives whom the Avars had carried away many years previously (about sixty years before, we are told) and the Avars, Bulgars, and other barbarians under the domination of the Khagan with whom these Christians had intermarried. These people dwelt in the region of Sirmium, maintained the traditions of their Christian ancestors, and were anxious to return to their old homes. Kouver, exploiting this desire, induced them to revolt and, after defeating the Avars who tried to check him, directed his followers toward Thessalonica, and then moved them in the direction of Monastir, where we lose sight of them. The date of this event is uncertain, but I am inclined to agree with those who place it toward the end of the reign of Heraclius.95 This seems to fit in with what we know of the history of

the Avars during this time. Their power in the Balkan peninsula was then in a state of decline, which had begun after their unsuccessful siege of Constantinople in 62698 An attempt has recently been made to identify the followers of Kouver n Miracula S. Demetrii, 1325 ff; A. Tougard, De 1'histoire Profane daps ies actes grecs des Bollandistes (Paris, 1874), x18-126. Tougard, op.cit., 187-18q. 0 Bari§i6, Miracles de St. Dlmetrius comme source historique, 149.

w For instance Gregoire, "L'origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes," iioff; Dvornik, op. cit., 63, note 2. The retirement of the Avars from the Balkan peninsula to regions farther north is associated by the Miracula S. Demetrii with the successful rebellion of Kouver: Tougard, op. cit., i89. 00 For the latest views on the Avar siege of Constantinople in 626 see Bari§i6, "Le siege de Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves en 6s6," Byzantion, 24 (1954, published in 1956), 371-395.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 39 with the Croats and Serbs, who also made their appearence at about this time and who contributed decisively to the disintegration of the Avar power in the Balkan peninsula.97 This suggestion is tempting, but in view of the obscurity of our sources, which may not have preserved the various names involved in their original form, the identification must be considered doubtful. The Croats and Serbs, representing the last Slavonic wave to reach the Balkans, came with the consent of Heraclius and settled in the upper territory of the peninsula, the Croats in Dalmatia as far as the Sava, the Serbs in the region of the Urbas and the Morava, the ancient Margus.98 The Bulgar9B and Avar invasions of the Balkan peninsula in the sixth and seventh centuries created a demographic crisis. The cities of the interior were plundered and destroyed, while vast stretches of the countryside were left desolate and empty of their inhabitants. Hundreds of thousands of natives, Illyrians, Thracians, and Greeks were deported; thousands of others were killed. Those deported were settled in the regions beyond the Danube, where,

as we learn from the text concerning Kouver, they intermarried with the barbarians. Doubtless the vast majority of them were absorbed and lost their identity. Some, however, tried to preserve their traditions and, like the followers of Kouver, made an effort to return to the homes of their fathers. Others no doubt stayed behind. This may provide a clue to the solution of the riddle concerning the origin of the modern Rumanians. South of the Danube the virtual elimination of the native population facilitated the establishment of the Slavs. Their settlements covered the heart of the peninsula and extended to the Adriatic, the Aegean, and the Balkan mountains. They were numerous in the region of Thessalonica, a fact known not only from literary sources, but also from many place-names of Slavic origin.100 Thrace, though often devastated by the Slavs, escaped their occupation, but even there they established some settlements, as, for instance, near Vizya.101 The native Illyrians and Thracians of the occupied regions retired into the mountains, where they remained unnoticed till the eleventh century, when they emerged as Albanians and Vlachs. The ethnic composition of the heart of the Balkan peninsula was thus transformed. The coming of the Bulgars into the region between the Danube and the Balkan mountains during the reign of Constantine IV,102 though of great political importance, had hardly any ethnic consequences, °' Grdgoire, "L'origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes," 116ff. But see above, p. Off. Constantine Prophyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), 122 ff. Cf. Gregoire, ibid., 88 ff.

n The depopulation of the Balkan peninsula began with the invasions of the Bulgars (Utigurs and Kotrigurs) during the reign of Justinian. Thousands of inhabitants were deported beyond the Danube. Some of them managed to return. It is said, for instance, that as a result of the war between the Utigurs and the Kotrigurs, incited by Justinian about 550, "many tens of thousands of Romans," who had been previously captured by the Kotrigurs and transferred to the regions west of the Don, succeeded in escaping and returning to their native land. Procopius, De belloGothico, IV 1g, 1-2. We are also told that Justinian settled two thousand Kotrigurs with their wives and children in Thrace. Procopius, De bello Gothico, IV 19, 7100 Max Vasmer, Die Slavers in Griechenland (Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissen-

schaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, nr. 12) (Berlin, 1941), 202ff. 101 Tougard, op. cit., 156. 101 Theophanes, 1:356-359.

II

40

except that perhaps the Bulgars left the imprint of their character upon the Slavs, by whom they were eventually absorbed. Slavs also settled in the Greek peninsula proper. This fact is quite evident; and no serious scholar has ever questioned it. What has been disputed is the precise date and the magnitude of the settlement. The sources, which are lacking in detail, give the impression that the country was flooded by the Slavs and that they overwhelmed every region.103 We know that the Velegezetes

who took part in the piratical expedition of 614, an expedition to which we have already referred, settled in Thessaly.104 It is quite possible that the Vajunetes, who took part in the same expedition, eventually moved to Epirus, a region which is known from other sources to have been invaded by the Slavs.

We also know by name two tribes which eventually settled in southern Peloponnesus. The Slavs likewise penetrated into Attica and into Locris and, we may assume, also into Boeotia, although we are given no specific indication of their settling there in the seventh century. Further, we are told that western Peloponnesus was completely occupied by the Slavs. If we now turn to the

place-names of Slavic origin, we find that, according to Vasmer, they are most numerous in Epirus and western Greece (558), western and central Peloponnesus (387), and in Thessaly, including Phthiotis (230). They are least numerous in Attica (18), Argolis (18), Boeotia (22), Corinth (24), ad okis (45).105 The Slavic origin of some of these names has been questioned,. and some reserve has been shown concerning the historical inferences that ay be drawn from them,107 but even if we make due allowance for these observations, they remain nevertheless very significant. Indeed, they confirm what we know

from the literary sources which, despite their fragmentary nature, clearly indicate that the regions of Greece most affected by the Slavic invasions were Thessaly, western Peloponnesus, and Epirus; those least affected were central Greece, including Attica, and eastern Peloponnesus. Slavs, then, not only settled in Greece, but did so in considerable numbers. Though the date of this settlement has been a subject of dispute, the evidence points to the period which extended from just before the beginning of the reign of Maurice to the early years of the reign of Heraclius. That more Slavs may have come later in no way alters this fundamental conclusion. The settlement 103 For a brief summary of the sources, Vasmer, op. cit., 11-1g. See also Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece," 141-166. The latest literature is discussed ibid., 164-166. The following works have appeared since: A. Bon, Le Pdlopondse byzantin jusqu'en X204 (Paris, 1951), 27-64; P. Charanis, "On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus," BZ, 46 (1953), 19-103; A. Maricq, "Note sur les Slaves dans le PElopon6se," Byzantion, 22 (1952), 337-348; Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans...," 305f. In connection with the Slavonic settlements in Greece there has been considerable discussion concerning the precise geographical meaning of the term "Hellas." On this problem see Charanis, "Hellas in the Greek Sources of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Centuries," Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton, 1955), 161-176. 1" Tougard, op. cit., 166, 176. 101 Vasmer, op. Cit., 20-76; 128-174; 85-110; 120-123; 126-127; 118-120; 123-125; 113-118.

106 D. Georgakas, "Beitrage zur Deutung als Slavisch erklgater Ortsnamen," BZ, 41 (1942), 351-381; DXaffixi tu18paorl o-r6 roalowulxb 'rls 'Hmlpw, EIS Mvllptly Xplorov EoL1\rl (1892-7956) (Athens, 1956), 149-161. 1m D. Zakythinos, 01 D,6por Ic'DQ681 (Athens, 1945), 72-82.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 41 of Slavs in Greece does not, however, mean that the Greek population was com-

pletely obliterated. Despite the Slavic flood, the Greeks held their own in eastern Peloponnesus, in central Greece, including Attica (a region which is known to have been a theme as early as 695), and, of course, in the islands. A number

of strongholds are known to have remained in the hands of the Byzantines. In the Peloponnesus there was Monemvasia in the south and Corinth in the north.1°8 In central Greece there was Athens, where, if we may believe a hagiographical text, a Cappadocian conversed with philosophers and rhetoricians in the eighth century;109 And farther north there was Thessalonica. These

strongholds, even Thessalonica, were not great urban establishments in the seventh century, nor for that matter in the eighth, but they were to serve as centers for the pacification, absorption, and eventual Hellenization of the Slavs in Greece. Thessalonica in particular may be called the savior of Greece from

the Slavs, for had she succumbed to their repeated attacks in the sixth and seventh centuries, the chances are that Greece would have been completely inundated by them. In the end, the Slavs in Greece proper were absorbed and disappeared from history. Fallmerayer's statement that there is no real Hellenic blood in the veins of the modern Greeks cannot, therefore, be accepted. The Slavic penetration of Greece affected also the ethnography of Sicily and southern Italy. Scholars have noted that whereas about A.D. 6oo Sicily "contained a considerable Latin element," by 65o it "had become completely Greek in language, rite, and culture. "110 The explanation for this, it was thought, lay in the influx of a considerable number of Greek-speaking elements from Syria and Egypt as a result first of the Persian and then of the Arab conquests. But for this, with the exception of one or two texts referring to a few individuals, there is no evidence. The evidence that exists is of a different nature.111 We 106 Monemvasia was founded by Lacedaemonian refugees at the time of the invasion of the Peloponnesus by the Slavs during the reign of Maurice. Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia...," 148. On Corinth and Athens during the seventh century see Charanis, "On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs and its Recapture by the Byzantines," 343-350; "The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History of Athens and Corinth in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries," Historia, 4 (1955), 163-172. 109 Life of St. Stephen of Surozh, ed. V. Vasil'evskij, Russho-vizaniijshija izsledovanija, II (St. Petersburg, 1893), 75: "-ev1TEV9els 6t Trarpl6Os sic Tds 'A9flvas trrt8pa av eTXs y&p t nOui,(av TOO TrpOauvvfjeni Kai Karaarrfaaoecn T6v va6v TMs esop{ITopos. Efprsv 6t halos tveayevels Tov T6Trov Kal Trarp(ovs ciAoodipovs is wal,t)TOpos. rrd:vras rrpoaopatjoas sat Sia)e)Oels oinc dalya, Iv KmvaravnvovTr6Mi 17rto-rpege.

110 L. White, Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Cambridge, Mass., 1938), 17. 111 See my paper "On the Question of the Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy during the Middle Ages," The American Historical Review, 52 (1946), 74-77. But see further 0. Parlangeli, Sui dialetti romanzi e romaici del Salento (Memorie dell'Inslitulo Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere. Classe di Lettere, Scienze Morali e Stvriche, ser.III, XXV-XXVI (Milan, 1953). 141f. For a contrary opinion see Stam. C. Caratzas, L'origine des dialectes neo-grecs de l'Italie mEridionale (Paris, 1958), 47-61. The arguments of Caratzas against the view expressed here, especially since he accepts the testimony of Arethas of Caesarea, leave me absolutely unconvinced. See also, S. G. Kapsomenos, 'H papntpla TOO aetlAoylou yldc r v hin kaoly Tov FJJigvlapoO oTily peoeppptvtl 'I-raala, TTenpayptva ToO e' A1s8v.

BuCavnvoA. zuvespfou, 3 (Athens, 1958), 299-324. Besides the lexical material, which constitutes the basis of his work, Kapsomenos examines also the historical evidence, but his examination is very superficial. The question of the survival of Greek in southern Italy is briefly touched upon by E. Pulgram, The Tongues of Italy. Prehistory and History (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), 50. He is inclined to agree with those who claim the continuity of ancient Greek, but refers also (50, note 7) to B. Migliorini who, in his as yet unpublished work, The Italian Language, suggests a compromise: "the two factions are not really so far apart since even Rohlfs admits that the hold of Greek had become very tenuous by the time it was in fact invigorated through fresh Byzantine immigration." Cf. my paper (75, 84) where I make this observation.

II

42

know that at the time of the great Avaro-Slav invasion of the Peloponnesus during the reign of Maurice many Peloponnesians fled and sought refuge elsewhere. We are specifically told that among these Peloponnesians, many Lacedaemonians settled in Sicily, while the people of Patras found. new homes in the territory of Rhegium in Calabria. And although documen i0 slacking, it is not improbable that other Greeks, too, from Epirus, central Grr ece, and west-

ern Peloponnesus went to Sicily or Italy at that time. As the Slavs occupied virtually all the western part of the Peloponnesus, the Peloponnesians who succeeded in fleeing could find no nearer haven than Sicily or Italy. That Greek-

speaking elements from Syria and Egypt may also have settled in Sicily and southern Italy cannot, of course, be ruled out, but such evidence as there is clearly indicates that the bulk of the settlers came from Greece, particularly from the Peloponnesus, during, and as a result of, the great Avar and Slav invasions of the late sixth century and perhaps later. It is interesting, too, to observe that as a result of the changes which took place in the Balkan peninsula and in Italy during this time, the effective jurisdiction of the papacy was reduced to lands where the Greek-speaking element was very considerable. This fact explains the predominance of Greek-speaking orientals among the popes of the seventh and eighth centuries. It is well known that of the thirteen popes who occupied the pontifical throne from 678 to 752 eleven were Greek-speaking. The ethnography of Asia Minor also was to some degree affected by the coming of the Slavs. In their various raids the Slavs touched upon Asia Minor,112

but there is no evidence that they settled there of their own volition. They were brought to Asia Minor by the Byzantine emperors for political and military reasons; political, because the emperors wanted to reduce the pressure that the Slavs were exerting in the Balkan peninsula, especially in the region around Thessalonica; military, because they wanted to enroll these Slavs in their armies. There are for the seventh century two references in our literary sources to the establishment of Slavic colonies in Asia Minor. The first tell us that in the course of an expedition which the Saracens made into "Romania" in 665, five thousand Slavs went over to them and were settled by them in Syria."3 "Romania" means Asia Minor in this context, and although we are not expli-

citly told that the Slavs in question were settled there, the chances are that they formed a military colony which had been established in those parts. The second reference is more explicit. We are told that in 688 Justinian II "made an expedition against Sclavinia and Bulgaria ... and sallying forth as far as Thessalonica, seized many multitudes of Slavs, some by war, others with their

consent... and settled them in the region of the Opsikion theme," i.e., in Bithynia.114 From among these Slavs Justinian raised an army of 30,000, which he led against the Arabs (A.D. 692). Twenty thousand of these Slavs-probably an 112 Tougard, op. cit., 1x8. lie Theophanes, I: 348.

114 Ibid., 364; Nicephorus, op. cit., 36. Justinian's expedition to Thessalonica is also attested by an inscription that has been edited by A. A. Vasiliev, "An Edict of the Emperor Justinian II, September 688," Speculum, 18 (1943), 1-13. But cf. Gregoire, "Un edit de l'empereur Justinien," Byrantion, i7 (1944-1945), 1r9-124a.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 43 exaggerated figure -deserted to the enemy, an act of betrayal which so angered

Justinian that he killed the remaining io,ooo together with their wives and children. Formerly I expressed the view that Justinian had destroyed the entire Slavic colony in Bithynia,115 but a more attentive reading of the text, as A. Maricq has pointed out,110 does not bear out this conclusion. The Slavic colony in Bithynia not only survived,117 but was, in the following century, augmented by another great settlementlle and perhaps by others besides.119 In the beginning of the ninth century a Slav of Asia Minor very nearly ascended the throne; the

view, however, that his uprising was an expression of Slav nationalism is a figment of the imagination.120 The Slavs of Bithynia still existed in the tenth century,121 though they were eventually absorbed and lost their identity. But let us return to the Balkan peninsula. The settlement of the Slavs in that area virtually eliminated the Latin-speaking element from the Byzantine Empire. The Latinized Illyrians and Thracians were killed or deported, or else retired into the mountains, where they lived unnoticed for centuries. It is true that the Empire still clung to Ravenna, Rome, and Naples, had a foothold in southern Italy, controlled all of Sicily, and did not lose Carthage until the very end of the seventh century. Here the Latin-speaking element was dominant, although in Sicily and southern Italy Greek had begun to gain the upper hand. But these were peripheral regions which did not play a significant role, in spite of the importance that the Byzantine emperors attached to retaining them. It had been otherwise with Illyricum and Thrace. Illyricum had been for a long time the best recruiting ground for the Byzantine army. Some of its ablest officers had come from there as well as from Thrace. The loss of Illyricum meant the elimination of the most important Latin-speaking element of the Empire. In the central regions of the Empire there was, thenceforth, no significant seg-

ment of the population that spoke Latin, and Latin had to surrender its position as the language of the administration and of the army. Under Heraclius Greek became the official language of the state. Latin ceased to be studied and was eventually forgotten.122 An emperor of the ninth century refered to it as a "barbarous Scythian language."123 In the meantime developments in the west gave to the papacy a western orientation, and so there evolved the conditions which were to bring about the separation of the Latin and the Greek worlds. 16 Charanis, "The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century," Byzantion, 18 (1946-1948), 74. According to Michael Syrus (2:470) the number of Slavs who deserted to the Arabs numbered only about seven thousand. Cf. Maricq, op. cit., 349. 110 Maricq, loc. cit.

I am now inclined to agree with Ostrogorsky that the seal which refers to the Slavs in Bithynia dates from 694195 and not from 65o as I had formerly thought. Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staales (Munich, 1952), 107, note i. r'" Nicephorus, 68f.; Theophanes, 1:432. ... Theophanes Continuatus, 50. But cf. Charanis, op. cit., 73. 'm Charanis, op. cit., 79-80. 121 Charanis, op. cit., 80-81.

lss On the status of Latin in the Eastern Roman Empire one may consult the important work of H. Zilliacus, Zum Kamp/ der Weltsprachen im ostromischen Reich (Helsinki, 1935). It was only gradually, however, that Latin was eliminated as the language of the army. It was still in use at the end of the seventh century. Cf. A. Pertusi, "La formation des thbmes byzantins," Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress (Munich, 1958), 25-26 and note x29. 1n Michael III in a letter to Pope Nicholas I : Nicolai Papae Epistolae et Decreta, Migne, PL, 119. 932.

II

44

Among the many scholars who have attempted to determine the causes of this estrangement only a few have given due weight to the occupation of the Balkan peninsula by the Slavs. In reality this was one of the most important causes.12a In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian, the historian Genesius, himself of Armenian descent,I25 lists a variety of peoples from whom the army of the rebel had been drawn; Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Vandals, Getae, Alans, Chaldoi, and Armenians, as well as adherents of the heretical sects of the Paulicians and Athinganoi.12e Even if the identity of all these nations is not entirely clear,127 the mere enumeration of them illustrates vividly the multi-racial character of the Byzantine Empire. I

speak here of the ninth century, but the same could be said of both the preceding and the following periods. Greeks, including the Hellenized natives of Asia Minor, Armenians, Slavs, peoples from the Caucasus, obscure tribes such as the Mardaites whom Justinian II removed from Lebanon and settled in the Empire (probably in the region of Attalia),I28 remnants of the Huns, Bulgars, and Turks-all these nationalities were represented in the population of the Empire. The Greeks no doubt predominated, but some of the others, as, for instance, the Armenians and the Slavs, were both important and numerous. But, despite the multi-racial nature of the Empire, two forces tended to give it unity. The first was orthodoxy; the other was a common language. Both were Greek, and to the extent that they were Greek the Empire also was Greek. But in another sense the Empire was neither Greek nor Roman. It was above all Christian, and in it, if we may use the words of St. Paul, there was "neither Jew nor Greek," but "all one in Christ Jesus."12e RUTGERS UNIVERSITY 1"l Prof. F. Dvornik has repeatedly emphasized the importance of this factor. See his recent work, The Slavs. Their Early History and Civilization, 44-45 Cf. also above, p. Io ff. 1"e C. de Boor, "Zu Genesios," BZ, io (Igo1), 62-65. lee Genesius, 33.

1" Vasiliev-Gregoire, Byzance of les Arabes, I:31, note 2. Cf. F. Hirsch, Byzantinische Sfudien (Leipzig, 1876), 1311-

228 Theophanes, I:363, 364; Agapius of Menbidj, 497; Michael Syrus, 2:469. Cf. Honigmann, op. cit., 41; J. Morelli, Bibliotheca manuscripts graeca et latina, I (Bassano, 1802), 217. In the ninth and tenth centuries we find Mardaites also in the Peloponnesus, at Nicopolis in Epirus, and Cephalonia: Theophanes Continuatus, 304, 311; Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De ceremontis, I (Bonn, 1829), 665-

M Gal. III27,28.

III THE TRANSFER OF POPULATION AS A POLICY IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE *

In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian (820) against the Emperor Michael II (820-829) the Byzantine historian Genesius lists a variety of peoples from whom the armies of the rebel had been drawn: Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Vandals,

Getae, Alans, Chaldoi, Armenians, adherents of the heretical sects of the Paulicians and the Athenganoi.1 Some of these peoples are well known; the identity of others, despite efforts made to determine it, is by no means certain.E But in any case, their listing by the Byzantine historian illustrates vividly the multi-racial character of the Byzantine Empire. This was in the ninth century, but the situation was no different for the period before, and it would not be different for the period after. The Byzantine Empire was never in its long history a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. If by virtue of its civilization it may be called Greek, it was never, except perhaps during the very last years of its existence, an empire of Greeks. There is nothing particularly new in this statement, for the Byzantine Empire, which, as is well known, was the continuation of the pagan Roman Empire, was made up of lands inhabited by peoples of different racial origins and cultural traditions. To be sure the conquests of the Arabs in the seventh

century deprived the Empire of great numbers of non-Greek speaking elements and gave to it an aspect which appeared to be more Greek than had been the case before Egypt and Syria, where a national consciousness and a literature in the native languages had begun to develop, were lost; so also was Africa with its Latin and Punic-speaking population. There remained Asia Minor, parts of the Balkan peninsula, the Islands of the Aegean, including Crete, certain regions of Italy, and Sicily. Here the Greek-speaking elements were strong, but the ethnic homogeneity which they suggest was more apparent than real.3 Other studies of population transfer will follow as sequels to this article. Ed. Genesius, Hi.storia (Bonn, 1834), p. 33. A. A. Vasiliev-H. Gregoire, Byzance et les Arabes, I (Brussels, 1935), pp. 31, note 2 Cf. Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien (Leipzig, 1876), p. 131. Cf. Peter Charanis, "Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Centu. ry", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959), pp. 25-44. " t

f

TRANSFER OF POPULATION

141

The native peoples of Asia Minor, for instance, were not, at least as late as the beginning of the ninth century, as thoroughly Hellenized as is generally believed. This is shown not only by the fact that some of the native languages

as, for instances, Phrygian, Isaurian, and perhaps also Celtic continued to be spoken past the sixth century, but also by the persistence well into the ninth century of certain strange heretical sects native to Asia Minor as the Athenganoi, the Sabbatians, the Tetraditai, and others.4 ' But more important were the ethnic changes brought about by the arrival of new peoples as, for example, the Slavs, and by certain practices of the imperial government, notably the recruitment of barbarians for the army and their settlement in the Empire, and the transfer of peoples from one region of the Empire to another. It is the latter practice that I would like to examine in this essay. Inherited from the pagan Roman Empire this practice was frequently resorted to throughout the duration of the Byzantine Empire. We need not here trace its origin or give examples of its use during the early centuries. Justinian certainly resorted to it. We know that he settled Vandals in Asia Minor and Kotrigurs, a Bulgar people, in Thrace.5 Meanwhile, a number of Goths had been settled in Bithynia, in the territory which later formed the Optimate theme. They were still there at the beginning of the eigth century, though by then they were at least partly Hellenized.e Justinian also removed Armenians from their homeland and settled them elsewhere in the Empire, but the numbers involved were small.7 Transfers on a larger scale were resorted to by the immediate successors of Justinian. In 578, when Tiberius was Emperor, 10,000 Armenians were removed from their homes and settled on the island of Cyprus .8 A transplantation on a still vaster scale was planned by Maurice, Tiberius' successor, and was partially carried out. Maurice, who may have been of Armenian descent, though this is extremely doubtful," aimed at nothing less than the Ibid., pp. 25-28. Procopius, De bello Vandalico, 11 14, 17 for Vandals; De bello Gothico, IV 9, 6 for Kotrigurs.

Theophanes, Chronographia, edited by C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), 1:385; Acta Graeca SS. Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii, in Analecta Bollandiana, 18 (1899), p. 256. ' Procopius, De bello Gothico, III 32, 7; Cf. R. Grousset, Histoire de l'Arminie des origines d 1071 (Paris, 1947), p. 242. Grousset's statement concerning vast transfers of Armenians to Thrace by Justinian is not borne out by his references. e Theophylactus Simocatta, Historia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1887), p. 143; John of Ephesus, iiistoria ecclesiasticae pars tertia, tr. into Latin by E. W. Brooks (Louvain, 1936), pp. 236, 252; English trans. by R. Payne-Smith (Oxford, 1860), pp. 412, 437; Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London, 1898), p. 215. Cf. E. Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 (Brussels, -1935), p. 23. Two years earlier, during the reign of Justin II, Sabiri and Albanians were moved on this side of the Cyrus river (in the region of the Caus

casus) in order to make certain that they would not be friendly with the Persians. Menander Protector, Excerpta ex historia (Bonn, 1829), p. 394. 9

N. Adontz has tried to prove the Armenian origin of Maurice: "Les lbgendes de

III

142

removal of virtually all the Armenians from their homeland. According to Sebeos, the Armenian historian who is one of our principal sources for this period, Maurice addressed the Persian king as follows: The Armenians are a knavish and indocile nation. They are located between us and they are a source of trouble. I am going to collect mine and send them to Thrace; send yours to the East. If they die there, it will be so many enemies that will die; if, on the contrary, they kill, it will be so many enemies that they will kill. As for us, we shall live in peace. But if they remain in their country, there will never by any quiet for us.

Sebeos further reports that the two rulers agreed to carry out this plan, but apparently the Persians, in the end, failed to cooperate. For when the Byzantine Emperor gave the necessary orders and pressed hard for their execution, many Armenians fled to Persia. The Byzantines, however, did carry out the deportation, though only in part." In 602 the same Emperor issued the following edict: "I need 30,000 cavalrymen, by way of tribute, raised in Armenia. Thirty thousand families must be gathered and settled in Thrace." Priscus, one of the generals of Maurice, was sent to Armenia to carry out this edict, but before he had time to do so, the revolution that overthrew Maurice broke out, and the edict apparently was not enforced. No doubt, the most important ethnic change in the Balkan peninsula since ancient times was brought about by the incursions and the settlement of the Slavs late in the sixth and early in the seventh century." The settlements of the Slavs covered the heart of the peninsula and extended to the Adriatic, the Aegean, and the Balkan mountains. They were numerous in the region of Thessalonica, a fact known not only from literary sources, but also from many place-names of Slavic origin. Thrace, though often devastated by the Slavs, escaped their occupation, at least for several centuries, but even there they established some settlements, as, for instance, near Vizya. The native Illyrians and Thracians of the occupied regions retired into the mountains, where they remained unnoticed until the eleventh century, when they emerged as Albanians and Vlachs. Slavs also settled in Greece proper, particularly in Thessaly, western Peloponnesus, and Epirus. Except for the Miracula Sancti Demetrii, a compilation of the seventh century which relates the successful resistance of Thessalonica against the

Maurice et de Constantin V, empereurs de Byzance", Annuaire de l'Institur de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales, 2 (Brussels, 1934), pp. 1-12. But see P. Goubert, Byzance avant P/slam, I (Paris, 1951), pp. 36-41. 1' Sebeos, Histoire tr. from Armenian by F. Macler (Paris, 1904), pp. 3031. Cf. F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen Reiches, I (Munich, 1924), p. 13, no. 108. 11

For what follows see Charanis, "Ethnic Changes ...", 36-43; also by the same

author, "The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century", Byzantion, 18 (1946-1948), pp. 69-83.

TRANSFER OF POPULATION

143

Slavs who tried several times to take it, we have virtually no information concerning the efforts, if any, made by Byzantium to bring the Slavs under its effective jurisdiction.. We do know, however, that in 657-658 Constans II, the Emperor of Byzantium, made an expedition into Sclavinia (by Sclavinia here the region of Thessalonica is probably meant) and "took away prisoners and subdued the land". We know also that in 665 five thousand Slavs deserted to the Saracens when the latter made an incursion into Asia Minor and were settled by them in Syria. As there is no evidence to the effect that Slavs settled in Asia Minor on their own volition, the Slavs of Asia Minor who deserted to the Arabs in 665 must have been settled there by the Byzantine authorities most probably following the expedition of Constans II into Sclavinia to which reference has just been made. A transfer of Slavs from the Balkan peninsula into Asia Minor on a larger scale was affected by Justinian II. We are told that in 688 Justinian II "made an expedition against Sclavinia and Bulgaria ... and rallying forth as far as Thessalonica, seized many multitudes of Slavs, some by war, others with their consent ... and settled them in the region of the Opsikion theme",

i.e., in Bithynia. From among these Slavs Justinian raised an army of 30,000, which he led against the Arabs (A.D. 692). Twenty thousand of these Slavs-this figure is doubtless an exaggeration-deserted to the enemy, an act of betrayal which so angered Justinian that he killed the remaining 10,000 together with their wives and children. Justinian II was responsible for other population transfers. In 688 he removed the Mardaites, a Christian people of unknown ethnic origin, from

the region of the Amanus mountains and settled them elsewhere in the Empire. We find them in the tenth century living in Attaleia in Pamphylia, in the Peloponnesus, in the island of Cephalonia and in Epirus, serving the Empire as sailors.12 In 691 Justinian II removed the Cypriots, together with their archbishop and other ecclesiastics, and settled them in the region of Cyzicus. The new settlement was called Justinianoupolis. Not long afterwards, however, the Cypriots returned to their homeland and as a consequence their settlement near Cyzicus was abandoned.'3 The same Emperor is said to have settled Scythians in the mountainous regions of the Strymon River in eastern Macedonia." The term Scythian was used by the Byzantines to designate the various Turkish peoples with whom they came in contact; '= Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 363, 364; Michael Syrus, Chronique, tr. from Syriac by J. B. Chabot, II (Paris, 1901), p. 469; Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn, 1938), pp. 304, 311; Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis, I (Bonn, 1829), p. 665; J. Morellii, Bibliotheca Manuscripts Graeca ei Latina, I (Bassani, 1802), pp. 217, 218. " Mansi 11: 961; Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 365; Michael Syrus, op. cit., 2: 470. Constantine-Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi (Rome, 1952), pp. 88 f. Cf. B. A. Panchenko, "Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii VII.v", Bulletin de l'Institut archeologique russe a Constantinople, 8 (Sofia, 1903), p. 53. Panchenko considers these Scythians Turks, and identifies them with the Vardariotae Turks.

III

144

it was also sometimes used to designate the Slavs. The Scythians referred

to in this instance, however, must have been a Turkish people, for the general policy of Justinian II was to weaken rather than strengthen the Slavs in Macedonia. More transfers were made in the course of the eighth century. During the

reign of Constantine V Copronymus (741-775), thousands of Armenians and monophysite Syrians were gathered by the Byzantine armies during their raids in the regions of Germanicea (Marash), Melitene, and Erzeroum, and were settled in Thrace.15 Others, also from the environs of Erzeroum, were settled along the eastern frontier. These, however, were subsequently seized by the Arabs and were settled by them in Syria.16 The same emperor removed a number of people from the islands and Greece (755) in order to repeople Constantinople which had suffered grievously by the plague of 746.17 But more important was his transfer of Slavs from the Balkan peninsula to Asia Minor. The Slavs involved numbered, according to one chronicle, 208,000.

They were settled in Asia Minor about the Artanas River, a little stream which flows into the Black Sea west of the Sangarius and not far from the Bosphorus.18 Another big transfer was made during the reign of Leo IV (775-780). The people involved were chiefly Syrian Jacobites, though some Armenians may have also have been among them. They had been seized by the Byzantines in a raiding expedition into Cilicia and Syria and settled in Thrace. According to an oriental source, they numbered 150,000.19 Some years later (792) about a thousand soldiers, probably Armenians, were removed from the Armeniac theme and were settled in Sicily and other islands following the suppression of a revolt which had broken out among the Armeniacs, an army corps which consisted chiefly of Armenians.E9

Theophanus the Confessor in his account of the reign of Nicephorus I (802-811) puts the emphasis on what he calls the ten oppressive measures of that Emperor. The first of these measures was an order to have Christians from every province of the empire transplanted to Sclavinias. Theophanes considers this forced emigration worse than imprisonment. Some of those Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 427, 429; Michael Syrus, 2: 518, 521, 523; Nicephorus, Opuscula Hisiorica, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 65, 66; Ghevond, Histoire des guerres et des conqu@tes des Arabes en Arminie, tr. from Armenian by G. V. Chahnazarian (Paris, 1856), pp. 126-127. 16 Agapius of Menbidj, Histoire universelle, tr. A. A. Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis, 8 (1912), pp. 531, 538; Dionysius I of Tell-Mahr6, Chronique, tr. J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1895), pp. 56-57. Cf. A. Lombard, Etudes d'histoire byzantine. Constantine V, empereur des Romains (740-775) (Paris, 1902), p. 35. Among the peoples involved were some Alans also. 17 Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 429. Is Nicephorus, op. cit., 68 f. Cf. Charanis, "The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia 15

Minor...", pp. 76 if. Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 451-52; Chevond, op. cit., p. 150; Michael Syrus, op. cit., 3: 2. Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 469.

III

TRANSFER OP POPULATION

145

involved, he says, wept over the graves of their fathers and considered the dead more blessed than the living. Others preferred to hang themselves rather than abandon the soil of their birth. The order, however, was carried out and its execution required about six months, from September to Easter, which in that year (810) fell in March. Despite the brevity of this statement, its meaning is quite clear. A considerable number of people were, by order of Nicephoius, removed from their homes and were settled in regions of the Empire which were inhabited predominately by Slavs. Theophanes does not locate these regions, but we learn from another source that one of them was western Peloponnesus. Nicephorus, we are told, rebuilt the city of Patras and settled it with Greeks brought there from Calabria for this purpose. He also rebuilt and resettled the city of Lacedaemon, using for this purpose various peoples brought from Asia Minor, including some Armenians. The peoples transferred to western Peloponnesus were Orthodox Christians and no doubt predominantly Greek speaking, for the object of Nicephorus was to Christianize the Slavs who since the reign of Maurice had dominated the western Peloponnesus st Quite different were the people involved in the transfer which was ordered by Michael I (811-813). Known as Athinganoi, they were adherents of a strange sect characterized by an exaggerated levitical purity, an indulgence in astrological, demonic, and magical pursuits, and the observance of the

seventh day as the Sabbath. At the beginning of the ninth century the Athinganoi were to be found chiefly in Phrygia and Lycaonia, where another

heresy, that of the Paulicians, had made considerable progress. Removed from their homes by order of Michael I, they were apparently settled in the European provinces of the Empire, for some years later we find some of them in the island of Aegina.22 The Athinganoi eventualy disappeared but not before they gave their name to a foreign people, the ancestors of the Gypsies, who are definitely known to have existed in Byzantium during the first half of the eleventh century and perhaps as early as the ninth.23 The imperial authorities turned also against the Paulicians in Asia Minor, but the ultimate effect of their measures was to drive them towards the mountainous regions of the eastern frontier where they fortified themselves in certain localities, the most famous of which was Tefrike.u There they On all this see Charanis, "Nicephorus 1, The Savior of Greece from the Slavs (810 A.D.)", Byzantina Metabyzantina, I (1946), pp. 75-92. -" Charanis, "Ethnic Changes in Seventh-Century Byzantium", p. 27. e9 P. Peeters, "Histoires monastiques georgienne", Analecta Bollandiana, 36-37 (191719), pp. 102-103. Cf. M. J. De Goeie, Memoires d'histoire et de geographie orientale, 3: Memoire sur les migrations des Tsiganes d travers I'Asie (Leiden, 1903), p. 75. Who 2'

one may ask, are the Tzingoi mentioned by the Arab astronomer Apomasar (Ab(I Ma'shar Ja'far ibn Muhammed ibn 'Umar al-Balkhl, d. 886) as translated into Greek probably in the tenth century?: Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, V, 3 (Brussels, 1910), p. 54. "' H. Gregoire, "Precision geographiques et chronologiques sur les Pauliciens", Aca-

leagued themselves with the Arabs and so became a menace to the Empire, at times even threatening its territorial integrity. The Paulicians were a religious sect and as such probably included elements of different ethnic origins, but the majority were no doubt Armenians. When finally during the reign of Basil I (867-886) their strongholds were taken and razed to the ground, their army defeated and their leader killed (872), they were forced to abandon their homes and were settled elsewhere in the Empire. We know that some of them were settled in southern Italy, in the regions under the jurisdiction of the Empire.25 But not all the Paulicians were removed from the eastern regions of the Empire, for we find that in the tenth century the Emperor John Tzimiskes transferred a considerable number of them from

Asia Minor to Thrace, settling them in the region around the city of Philippopolis.16 They were no doubt predominantly Armenians. Meanwhile,

other Armenians had been settled in Crete following the recovery of that island from the Saracens in 961.27 And some years later, perhaps in 988, Basil II removed a number of Armenians from the eastern provinces and settled them in Macedonia.2 The Armenians settled in Crete and in Macedonia were not Paulicians. The annexation of Armenia, completed by the middle of the eleventh century, led to further transfers of Armenians into the older as well as the newly acquired regions (non-Armenian) of the Empire. Armenians began to move in the direction of the Empire towards the beginning of the tenth century and were responsible for the integration into its administrative system

of certain deserted regions along the eastern front, as those, for instance, which came to constitute the theme of Lycandos.29 During the second half of the tenth century, Armenians were encouraged and perhaps forced to move from their homes in order to repeople the various towns captured from the Arabs as, for instance, Melitene, captured in 934, Tarsus, captured in 965, Antioch, captured in 969, and others, which had suffered considerable losses in population as the result of the departure of most of the Moslems. We know, for instance, that Armenian and Syrian Jacobites were used by ddmie royale de Belgique: Bulletin de la Classe des Lertres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 5e Ser., 33 (Brussels, 1947), pp. 294 f.; S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (Cambridge, 1947), pp. 26-46. :s H. "La carribre du premier Nicbphore Phocas", Prosphora eis Stilpona P. Kyriakiden (Thessalonica, 1953), p. 251. t° Cedrenus, Historiarum compendium (Bonn, 1839), 2: 382; Anna Commena, Alexiad, 2 (Bonn, 1878), pp. 298 f. Leo Diaconus, Historia (Bonn, 1828), p. 28. 21 29 Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, Histoire universelle (deuxibme partie), tr. from Armenian by F. Macler (Paris, 1917), p. 74. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik and tr. 15 R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), pp. 238-240 (Bonn, pp. 227-228); De rhematibus, ed. A. Pertusi (Rome, 1952), pp. 75-76, 143-146 (Bonn, 32-35); Honigmann, op. cit., 64; H. Grigoire, "Notes 6pigraphiques, VII", Byzantion, 8 (1933), pp. 79 ff.

III

TRANSFER OF POPULATION

147

Nicephorus Phocas to repeople Melitene which had become virtually deserted 3°

It was the annexation of Armenia which intensified this movement and gave to it the aspect of a mass migration. For as the Byzantines annexed the various Armenian territories, they transferred their princes elsewhere in the

Empire and these princes took along with them, besides their families, a numerous retinue, consisting primarily of their nobility and the latter's following. So numerous indeed was the nobility that followed their princes that their going is said to have emptied Armenia of the most valiant elements

of its population. The Greeks, wrote Matthew of Edessa, "dispersed the most courageous children of Armenia.... Their most constant care was to scatter from the orient all that there was of courageous men and valiant generals of Armenian origin." 31 Of the actual number involved in this dis-

placement no figure can be given.

The national Armenian historian, Tchamtchian, puts those who followed Senacherim, one of the displaced Armenian princes, at 400,000, and this figure has been repeated by others,12 but there is nothing in the existing sources which bears this figure out. All

that we have is the figure given by a medieval Armenian historian, who says that Senacherim was followed by 16,000 of his compatriots, not counting the women and children.33 But whatever the final figure, there can be little doubt that the number of Armenians who left their homes and settled elsewhere in the Empire was a large one. The repeated raids of the Seljuk Turks

which began in earnest about this time increased this number still more. The chroniclers who report this migration no doubt exaggerate in their descriptions, but their accounts, after allowance has been made for this exaggeration, remain nevertheless impressive. Armenians by the thousands were forced to leave their homeland and went to settle in Cappadocia, in Cilicia, and in northern Syria. Meanwhile other peoples were transferred or were settled in different regions of the Empire. In 834, for instance, several thousand Persians (seven thousand according to one account, fourteen thousand according to another, " On the westward expansion of the Armenians, Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, op. cit., p. 141; German translation of this work, H. Gelzer and A. Burckhardt (Scriptores sacri et profani, 4) (Leipzig, 1907), p. 196; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, tr. from Syriac E. A. W. Budge (Oxford, 1932), 1:169; Honigmann, "Malatya", The Encyclopaedia of Islam, III (London, 1936), p. 194. Cf. M. Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des H'amdanides de Jazira et de Syrie (Paris, 1935), p. 736. " Matthew of Edessa, Chronique, tr. from Armenian by E. Dulaurier (Paris, 1858), pp. 113, 114. ax M. Tchamtchian, History of Armenia (in Armenian), II (Venice, 1785), p. 903. I consulted Tchamtchian's work with the help of Professor Sirarpie Der Nersessian. M. Brosset in LebeauSaint-Martin, Histoire du Bas-empire, 14 (Paris, 1838), p. 211; Fr. Tournebize, Histoire politique et religieuse de l'Arminie (Paris, 1900), p. 124. J0 Continuator of Thomas Ardzrouni, Histoire des Ardzrouni, tr. from Armenian, M. Brosset, Collection d'historiens ArmEniens, I (St. Petersburg, 1874), p. 248.

thirty thousand according to still another) under the leadership of Babek and Nasr, who was subsequently christened Theophobos, fled to the Byzantine Empire, joined the Byzantine army, and became Christian. In 838 these Persians revolted; thereupon, the Emperor Theophilus dispersed them, settling them in the different themes of the Empire." Towards the beginning of the tenth century, the exact date is not known, Turks, subsequently known as Vardariotae, were settled near the Vardar River, apparently not far from Thessalonica sa Other Turks are known to have dwelled near Ochrido in

the region of the Rhodope mountains, though the circumstances and the date of their establishment are not known se A Turkish colony established before 1025 was also located in Thrace, for it already existed during the reign of

In 941 the entire Arab tribe of the Banii H'abid, discontented apparently with the Hamdanides, emigrated from the region of Nisibis in Mesopotamia and came to settle in the Byzantine Empire. The new arrivals numbered 12,000 horsemen and brought with them, besides their families, their slaves, flocks, and all their transportable goods. They were followed in addition by many of their neighbors. Once in Byzantine territory, they embraced Christianity, enrolled in the Byzantine army, and in return were Basil 11.37

given lands, animals, clothes, and even some precious objects.se Bulgarians too were transferred from one region of the Empire to another,

especially after the destruction of the first Bulgarian kingdom by Basil II. We know, for instance, that Bulgarians settled in the various Thessalian fortresses were removed and were settled in the district of Voleron, located apparently in what is now western Thrace in the neighborhood of Alexandropolis.90 Others, originally from western Macedonia, were settled in the H. Grbgoire, "Manuel et Theophobe ou ]a concurrence de deux monasti res", Byzantion, 9 (1934), pp. 183-222.

3

H. Gelder, "Ungedachte and wenig bekannte Bistii.merverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche", Byz. Zeitschrift, 2 (1893), p. 46. Concerning the origin of these Turks: G. L. Fr. Tafel, De Thessalonica eiusque agro ' (Berlin, 1839), pp. 70-74 (Persians); R. Janin, "Les Turcs Vardariotes", Echos dOrient, 29 (1930), p. 444 (Persians); Panchenko, op. cit., p. 53 (Turks, the Scythians whom Justinian II settled); P. Kyriakides; Byzantinae Meletae, II-V (Thessalonica, 1937, cover 1939), pp. 251 ff. (Magyars); V. Laurent, "0 Bardari8ton etoe Tourkon. Perses, Turcs asiatiques ou turcs hongrois?", in Recueil dedii a la memoire du Professeur Peter Nikou (Sofia, 1939). pp. 275 ff. (A mixture of Persians, Hungarians, and Turks from Asia Minor.) s" Anna Comnena, op. cit., 1: 199. Ochrido is to be distinguished from Ochrida, the ancient Lychnidus. On the location of Ochrido, Kyriakides, op. cit., pp. 251-52; C. J. JireZek, Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinople and die Balkanpasse (Prague, 1877), p. 97. 37 Life of Athanasius of Mount Athos, ed. by I. Pomi5lovskii (St. Petersburg, 1895), p. 92; Cf. "Vie de S. Athanase l'Athonite", ed. by L. Petit, Analecta Bollandiana, 25 (1906), P. 72. 39 Ibe H'auqal, tr. M. Canard, in H. Gregoire-A. A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, 11, 2 (Brussels, 1950), p. 420; Cf. Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des Haamdanides.. as

pp. 737-738. Cedrenus, op. cit., 2: 453, 461. On the location of Voleron, Kyriakides, op. cit., p. 30. 31

TRANSFER OF POPULATION

149

regions of the lower Danube, whose population by the end of the eleventh

century came to be made up of a mixture of peoples, including some Pechenegs.40 Bulgarians may have also been settled in Asia Minor in the eleventh century, for a biography of a saint who thrived during that century mentions a Bulgarian town located in the region of Ephesus.41 Bulgarians had been settled in different parts of the empire by Michael 1 (811-813),42 but whether or not the Bulgarian town near Ephesus was a survival of these settlements is a matter which cannot now be determined. Farther down, in the southwestern corner of Asia Minor there existed in the tenth century a colony inhabited by a people called Mauroe (Blacks) whose rough behavior towards the natives betrayed their alien character and the recent origin of their settlement.43 Who these Mauroe were is not known, but they may have been, as Rudakov suggests, Arabs from Africa who were settled there in order to serve in the navy.44

Transfers of population are attested for the later centuries, though the Empire declined politically and lost its important territories. In the twelfth century Pechenegs were settled in Macedonia'45 Serbs in Bithynia,46 near Nicomedia, and perhaps also Armenians brought there from Cilicia" In the thirteenth century the emperors of Nicaea settled Cumans both in their European as well as in their Asiatic provinces.4B Michael VIII Palaeologus brought Tzacones-ancient remnants of the Lacedaemonians-from the Morea in order to repeople Constantinople following its recovery from the Latins in Michael Ataliates, Historia (Bonn, 1853), p. 204. De Sancto Lazaro, monacho in monte Galesio, Acta Sanctorum, Novembris 3 (Brussels, 1910), p. 537. 42 Cedrenus, op. cit., 2: 52. 49 Vita S. Pauli lunioris in Monte Latro, ed. Jacobus Sirmondus, Analecta Bollandiana, 11 (1892), pp. 138-140. 40 41

44

A. P. Rudakov, Sketches of Byzantine Culture based on Evidence drawn from

Greek Hagiography (in Russian) (Moscow, 1917), p. 56. I consulted this book with the help of Cyril Mango. John Zonaras, Epitomae hisroriarum, III (Bonn, 1897), pp. 740 f.

Nicetas Choniates, Historia (Bonn, 1835), p. 23. These Serbs were doubtless the inhabitants of the servochoria which are mentioned in the Parritio regni graeci at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Cf. G. L. Fra. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, Urkunden 4B

zur d1teren Handels- and Staatsgesclrichte der Reprtblik Venedig, I (Vienna, 1856), p. 475.

" A large colony of Armenians is known to have existed in the Troad at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Although nothing is known of the circumstances of its establishment, it may have been 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. Cf. Gregory the Priest, Chronique, In Dulaurier, Recueil des des Croisades: Document Armdnien, I (Paris, 1869), p. 619. "1Jistoriens Gregoras, Historia, I (Bonn, 1829), p. 37. See further, Charanis, "On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century", Prosphora eis Stilpona P. Kyriakiden (Thessalonica. 1953), pp. 140-141. For a Cuman settlement before 1195, G. Rouillard et P. Collomp, Acres de Lavra (Paris, 1937), p. 125. For the date of the document containing this information, F. DSlger, "Zur Textgestaltung der LavraUrkunden and zu ihrer geschichtlichen Auswertung", Byz. Zeitschrift, 39 (1939), pp. 34 f. `D Pachymeres, Historia, I (Bonn, 1835), p. 188.

III 150

126190 The same Emperor settled a number of Turks, followers of the Seljuk Sultan Izzedin Kaikaus II in the Dobrogea. These, according to some authorities, still survive in the present day Gagauses who live in the neighborhood of Varna and far to the north. Descendants of the followers of Izzedin were settled

in Verroia in Macedonia where we still find them during the later part of the fourteenth century. Others, including descendants of Izzedin himself, found their way into Morea, established themselves there, and intermarried with the Byzantines. The famous family of the Melikitae, whom we find in the fifteenth century, were apparently an offshoot of these Turks.-10 At the same time other peoples, as for instance Albanians, were settled in the Morea.51 Meanwhile, numerous Latins, a subject which I shall not elaborate here, had come to Byzantium, beginning with the eleventh century, either as mercenaries or merchants or conquerors. Thus, throughout its duration, the Byzantine Empire made it a matter of policy, for reasons of state, to transfer peoples from one region to another within its borders and also to accept for settlement barbarians who came to

it or were invited or seized by it for that purpose. Foremost among these reasons of state was the military. There is little doubt that the transfers affected by Tiberius, by Maurice, by Justinian II, by Basil II, and by others were resorted to because the elements involved were needed for the army in some particular spot. It was indeed these transfers and settlements of new peoples which enabled the Empire to reorganize its armies and so survive the crisis of the seventh and eighth centuries and then take the offensive. Besides the military there were also economic reasons for these transfers. Indeed, the military and economic reasons were often related. The historian Evagrius writes concerning the transfer of the 10,000 Armenians to Cyprus in 578: "Thus land which previously had not been tilled was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them 5° The literature on the Gagauses is considerable. I cite here some of the more important works: G. D. Balaschev, The Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus and the Establishment with his aid of the stare of the Gagauses on the Western Coast of the Black Sea (in Greek) (Sofia, 1930); A. Manof, "Who are the Gagauses?" (in Greek), Epeteris Hetaereias Byzantindn Spouddn, 10 (1933), pp. 381-400; P. Mutafciev, Die angebliche Einwanderung von Seldschuk-Tiirken in die Dobrudscha im XIII. Jahrhundert (Sofia, 1943). But see V. Laurent, "La domination byzantine aux bouches du Danube sous

Michel VIII Palaelogue", Revue Historique du Sud-Est Europien, 22 (1945), pp. 194 ff.; also G. I. Bratianu, "Les Roumains aux bouches du Danube", ibid., pp. 199 ff.; P. Wittek, "La descendance chretienne de la dynastic Seldjouk en Macedoine'", Echos d'Orient, 33 (1934), pp. 409, 412; Wittek, "Yazijioghlu 'Ali on the Christian Turks of the Dobruja",

Bulletin of the Society of Oriental and African Studies, 14 (1952), pp. 639-668; V. Laurent, "Une famille turque au service de Byzance: les Mblikbs", Byz. Zeitschrift, 49 (1956), pp. 349-368. 1 have not seen the work by E. M. Hoppe, "Die tiirkischen Gagauzen-Christen", Oriens Christ., 41 (1957), pp. 125-137. On the settlement of Albanians and other peoples in the Peloponnesus (the Morea) see now D. A. Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Moree, II: Vie et Institutions (Athens, 1953), 20-45.

bI

III

TRANSFER OF POPULATION

151

and they fought resolutely and courageously against the other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics, because of the easy rate at which slaves were procured." 52 The Armenians settled in Macedonia by Basil II about 988 were brought there, we are told by the Armenian historian who reports the incident, in order to serve as a bulwark against the Bulgarians and also to help increase the prosperity of the country. Justinian II no doubt removed the Cypriots to Cyzicus in order to rehabilitate the country which had been terribly devastated by the Arabs. The repeopling and economic rehabilitation of the country were no doubt the reasons for the numerous transfers made in the eighth century. The same factors were operative in the movement of peoples, particularly the Armenians, in the tenth century. There were other purposes served by the transfers of population. They helped in the recovery and Byzantinization of certain regions which had been occupied by the barbarians. The transfers made by Nicephorus I, for instance, laid the basis for the eventual absoption of the Slavs in Greece. They served or were intended to serve for the elimination of certain troublesome heresies as the Athenganoi and also the Paulicians, though in the latter case military objectives were also involved. They served finally to remove recalcitrant elements which, if left in their homeland, might have become serious sources of trouble. This was no doubt the principal reason for the removal of the Paulicians in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries and of the Armenian princes and their retinues in the eleventh. It was also a factor in the transfer of Slavs from the Balkan peninsula to Asia Minor in the seventh and eighth centuries.

There is no doubt that transfers of population and the settlement of new peoples were major factors in the military and demographic revival and economic prosperity of the empire. Transfers of population contributed also to the elimination of heretical groups as the Athenganoi and the absorption of barbarians as the Slavs in Greece. But in at least two instances the policy of transfer had disastrous consequences and contributed to the decline of the Empire. I am referring to the removal of the Paulicians and the Armenian princes and their retinues.

I1 will be recalled that Paulicians were settled in Thrace in the eighth century and again in the tenth. In transplanting the Paulicians to Thrace the aim of the Byzantine authorities was "firstly to drive them out of their strong cities and forts which they held as despotic rulers, and secondly to put them as trustworthy guards against the inroads of the Scythians by which

u

Evagrius Scholasticus, op. cit., p. 215. The translation is taken from the English version of Evagrius which appeared in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library: Theodoret and Evagrius, History of th,.? Church (London, 1854), p. 444.

the country of Thrace was often oppressed".55 It was doubtless hoped also that they would be absorbed by the indigenous inhabitants and so disintegrate

as a heretical sect. But the outcome was quite different. Not only did they hold tenaciously to their beliefs, but converted also many of the indigenous inhabitants who for various reasons were dissatisfied with the Byzantine administration. By the end of the eleventh century Philippopolis and the surrounding country was almost entirely inhabited by them. "All the inhabitants of Philippopolis", writes Anna Comnena, "were Manicheans, except

a few ... They increased in number until all the inhabitants around Philippopolis were heretics. Then another brackish stream of Armenians joined them and yet another." 54 Inimical to Byzantium from the beginning, the Paulicians became so still more as the result of measures taken by the imperial authorities to suppress them. They showed this enmity in the most dangerous way, by cooperating

with its enemies whenever the opportunity offered itself. Thus in 1086 it was the Bogomiles, an offshoot of the Paulicians of Philippopolis, who urged the Pechenegs and Cumans to invade the Empire, an invasion which repeated

several times devastated Thrace and came close to overwhelming the Byzantine capital. The energy and diplomacy of Alexius I Comnenus saved

the situation 55 A century later when Frederick Barbarossa passed by Philippopolis on his way to the Holy Lands during the Third Crusade, the Paulicians there welcomed him as liberator, and while the Greek inhabitants fled, they sought to give him provisions, guards, and information.50 And again in 1205 the Paulicians of Philippopolis conspired with John Asan of Bulgaria to turn the city over to him.57 Thus the enmity of the Paulicians no doubt contributed to the breakdown of the political authority of Byzantium

in the Balkans, though in this there were other and more important factors involved.

In displacing the Armenian princes and their retinues in the eleventh century the object of the Byzantine authorities was to assure the peaceful control of the newly acquired Armenian lands by remc:ing the elements that might be a source of trouble. This was, as I have already observed, traditional Byzantine policy which had often worked. This time, however, it

proved to be one of the major factors in the breakdown of Byzantine Anna Comnena, 2: 298: I have used the translation of E. A. S. Dawes. The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena (London, 1928), p. 385. Ibid., 2: 299 f.; Dawes, 385. 54 55 P. Charanis, "The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century", A History of the Crusades, I, ed. M. W. Baldwin (Philadelphia, 1955), pp. 214 f. 54 Nicetas Choniates, op. cit., pp. 527, 534. 51 Geoffroi de Ville-Hardouin, La conquete de Constantinople, ed. and tr. into modern French by M. Natalis de Wailly (Paris, 1872), p. 239. For a general account in English on the Paulicians and Bogomiles: S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualistic Heresy (Cambridge, 1947); D. Obolensky, The Bogomiles: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism (Cambridge, 1948). 55

III TRANSFER OF POPULATION

153

authority in Asia Minor. For the displacement of the Armenians coming as it did at a time when their homeland was being subjected to the repeated raids of the Seljuks had removed the element which, fighting for its native land, might have checked these raids and so prevented the occupation of Asia Minor by the Seljuks. But more important, the displacement of the Armenians weakened the position of the Empire in the regions to which they were removed. For in some of these regions, as for instance in Cappadocia, their settlements disturbed the social and ethnic complexion and so created serious tension, while

in others, as for instance Cilicia and northern Syria, the new settlers were ready to start separatist movements the moment the opportunity presented itself. What particularly contributed to the development of tension between the Armenian element and the rest of the population were the ecclesiastical problems which the annexation of the Armenian lands and the consequent dispersion of the Armenians had created. There had always been heretical groups in the Empire, but Orthodoxy, as it finally crystalized, had come to prevail as one of the unifying forces of the Empire-the Greek language and the imperial tradition were the other two-but now for the first time since the loss of Egypt and Syria in the seventh century there was a powerful religious minority, dominant in certain regions of the Empire, very strong in others. Both Church and state were very much concerned about this situation and, as a consequence, brought pressure to bear upon the Armenians to accept the orthodox point of view. But the Armenians, whose cultural and national development was strongly associated with their religious

beliefs and practices resisted stubbornly, and the efforts of the Byzantine

church to bring them in line only served to increase the tempo of this resistance.58 Greeks and Armenians came to dislike each other intensely This dislike at times turned into bitter hostility and found expression in attrocious deeds as, for instance, that of Kagik, the dispossessed king of Ani, who had the Greek bishop of Caesarea seized and put into a sack together

with his large dog and then had his men beat bishop and dog until the enraged animal tore his master to pieces.59 But more serious than these outbursts was the effect that this hostility had upon the army. The battle of Mentzikert which determined the fate of Asia Minor and in the long run the fate of the Near East for centuries was lost by the Byzantines at least in part because the Armenian contingents deserted.60 Still less perhaps was the loyalty of the Armenian civil population. In any case, just before the battle On the attempts of the Byzantines to have the Armenians accept the orthodox point of view and the Armenian resistance to these attempts see the brief but excellent account of Speros Vryonis, Jr., "Byzantium: The Social Basis of Decline in the Eleventh Century", Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 2 (1959), pp. 169 ff. 59 °tl

Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., pp. 152-154.

60

Michael Syrus, op cit., 3: 169; Attaliates, op. cit., p. 113.

III

154

of Mentzikert the Byzantine Emperor had to take special measures in order to protect his army from the hostile acts of the Armenian civil population.B' As later generations of Armenians acknowledged, the hostility between Greek and Armenian was one of the most important factors in the breakdown of Byzantine authority in Asia Minor.e2 The Byzantine Empire, as it has been observed at the beginning of this essay, remained throughout its long history a multi-national state. One of the factors which made it so was the transfer of peoples from one region of the Empire to another and the settlement of new ones, a practice which was traditional with the Byzantines. It may be said, however, that despite its multi-national character, three forces tended to give it unity. One was Orthodoxy, the other a common language, and the third the imperial tradition. The first and the second were Greek and to the extent that they were Greek the Empire was Greek also. The third was Roman, and to that extent the Empire was also Roman. But in another sense the Empire was neither

Greek nor Roman. It was above all Christian, and in it, if I may use the words of St. Paul, there was "neither Jew nor Greek", but "all one in Christ Jesus". The official definition given to this oneness "in Christ Jesus", however, was not accepted by all, and the efforts made by the imperial authorities to have it accepted created tensions, tensions which in the end contributed to the political disintegration of the Empire, its decline and final fall. In this disintegration two important steps may be noted. The first was in the seventh century when the monophysitic natives of Egypt and Syria offered little resistance to the conquest of these regions by the Arabs. The second was in the eleventh century when the tension between Greeks and Armenians facilitated the establishment of the Turks in Asia Minor. In both

instances the source of the trouble lay in the failure of these peoples to accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the efforts of the imperial government to impose these decisions upon them.

Atlaliates, op. cit., p. 135. F. Macler, "Erzeroum ou topographic de la haute Armbnie", Journal Asiatique, 11th series, 13 (1919), p. 223. Macler quotes an Armenian writer of the seventeenth

01

42

century who says in effect: The Armenians hated the Greeks, the Greeks hated the Armenians and so God sent the Turks to punish both.

IV

SOME REMARKS ON THE CHANGES IN BYZANTIUM IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY

In an essay published in 1959, George Ostrogorsky wrote : .. . during the seventh century the Byzantine empire underwent far-reaching changes and emerged from these bearing substantially different traits. In the provinces new agrarian conditions came into being, and with these new social relationships. The old aristocracy of great landowners was, to a considerable extent, replaced by a growing class of small proprietors.

It was a time which saw the formation of a new economic and social order, a new administrative system and a new military organization; in a word, a time in which, after the collapse of the old system, the renovation of the Byzantine state was accomplished"1. Exactly when during the seventh century did these changes and the consequent renovation of the Byzantine state take place? Ostrogorsky does not say here; but he has expressed himself in no uncertain terms elsewhere. He wrote in 1941 and in substance repeated quite often thereafter: ,,It was the great Emperor Heraclius who breathed fresh life into the aging Roman empire and restored it by his decisive reforms"2. The decisive reforms attributed

to Heraclius by Ostrogorsky relate, of course, to the creaticn of the

theme system, the diffusion of the military estates and the emergence of a considerable body of free peasants. These were developments which were closely interlated. The creation of the theme system entailed the diffusion of the military estates which in turn promoted the growth of the free peasantry. And so in time the agrarian society of Byzantium was reinvigorated, and the state found the necessary military force and financial resources to restore itself as a world power. According to another scholar Heraclius may have also been responsible for important changes in the urban economy of Byzantium. In the opinion of Robert S. Lopez

it was Heraclius who brought the reorganization of the trade guilds, '. George Ostrogorsky, ,Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages," Dumbarton

Oaks Papers, 13 (1959), 47.

2. ,Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages," The Cam-

bridge Economic History, I (Cambridge, 1941), 196; cf. History of the Byzantine State,

English Translations by Joan Hussey (New Brunswick, N. J. 1957), 86 ff.

IV 72

classifying some private, others public, and preserving the principle of heredity in their recruitment only for the latter. This in turn must have affected the structure and economy of urban li.fe3. This general picture as drawn so clearly by Ostrogorsky and in its origins attributed to Heraclius was, until quite recently, generally accepted. Some recent studies, however, seriously question its historical accuracy,

at lest in so far as it relates to Heraclius and more than suggest that it should be abandoned. What I have in mind in particular are publi-

cations of P. Lemerle, A. Pertusi and J. Karayannopulos. Early in 1958 Lemerle published the first section of a long and penetrating memoire devoted to a critical examination of the sources relating to the agrarian conditions of Byzantium and the various problems associated with them'. That the Byzantine empire went through profound changes in the course of the seventh century Lemerle does not doubt. He does not doubt either that these changes affected its agrarian life. The landscape which he draws of the countryside of the Byzantine empire as of the end of the seventh century end the beginning of the eighth is one dominated by a considerable number of free peasants, free in person, movement, and property. Large landowners there still were and also dependent peasants and slaves too but the free peasant was very much in evidence. This in contrast to the earlier period when various classes of dependent peasants dominated the scene and the large estate was the principle feature of the agricultural picture of the empire. Lemerle uses as his principle source the Farmer's Law. which he places, as is now generally the c:se, towards the end of the seventh century or the beginning of the eighth and which he analyzes in detail. But while expressing the view that a radical change did indeed take place in the agrarian society of the empire in the seventh century, Lemerle finds no evidence to attribute this change to any measure issued

by an emperor, a measure thought out in advance for the purpose of producing this effect. In his opinion no specific measure of social reform

is here involved. The change was brought about by an evolutionary process induced by the pressure of event, not by a revolutionary step. For Lemerle the important factor in bringing about this change was an increase in the man power of the empire brought about by the arrival and the settlement of masses of Slavs in the Balkans, in the Greek peninsula and even in the islands." As for the military estates he is willing 3. Robert S. Lopez, ,The Role of Trade in the Economic Readjustment of Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century, ,Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959), 77-78 and note 21 for additional references. I shall not discuss further the view of Lopez. What can be said in favor of it, has been said by Lopez, and what may be said against it, has been said by his critics as, for instance, F. Dolger: Cf. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 43 (1950), 244 and 46 (1953), 235, 472. It is true, however, that the principle of heredity as far as the private guilds were concerned did break down, and this may have happened during the reign of Heraclius.

Cf. Peter Charanis, ,,On the Social Structure of the Later Roman Empire," Byzantion, 17 (1944-45) 49. °. P. Lemerle, ,Esquise pour une histoire agraire de Byzance: Les sources et les problbmes, ,Revue Historique, 219 (1958), 49-74

IV 73

to admit that there must have existed in the seventh century something which continued in a sense the estates of the limitanei of the earlier period, but fails to see how one can attribute to them the role which one usually does, i. e. as an important factor in the military organization of the empire -,nd as a stimulant to the growth of the free peasantry. Certainly the texts which refer to the seventh century nowhere make any mention of them. Lemerle, of course, as is characteristic of him in all his works, subjected the sources to a most searching and critical analysis and proceeded on the sound principle of pas de documents, pas d'histoire. But the

truth of the matter

is

that these sources are so meagre that if one

adhered strictly to this principle there would be no more that one could say than this that the agrarian structure of the Byzantine empire at the end of the seventh century was rather different from that which obtained

in the sixth century. Search cs hard as one might one would find no

factual indications anywhere in the sources of how and under what circumstances the change took place. Lemerle's explanation that the change

is to be attributed to the abundance of labor brought about by the

influx of the Slavs is in reality a conjecture, for nowhere in the sources is it said that the Slavs increased the supply of labor of the empire and so transformed the structure of its agrarian society. Masses of Slavs did settle in the Balkans and in the Greek peninsula, that is a fact, but it is also a fact that the vast bulk of these Slavs long remained outside the actual jurisdiction of the empire and as a consequence they could not have affected in any profound way the agrarian structure of the empire, at least not by the end of the seventh century or by the beginning of the eighth, dates which are generally accepted for the compilation of the Farmer's Law, the only document that attests to the change in question.

A more plausible explanation for this change as pointed out at Ochrida,5 is to be sought in the transfer of peoples, only a few whom, at least in the seventh century, were Slavs, brought about by the emperors, particularly Maurice, in the last quarter of the sixth century and reinforced by others, carried out in the seventh and eighth centuries.6 These transfers were specific acts aimed at specific objectives, viz. the increase of the military potential and economic and, in consequence, fiscal resources of

the empire. The peoples involved were no doubt settled as freemen as the transfer of the 30,000 Armenian cavalrymen projected bu Mau ice would indicate. This particular transfer was to be a military colony' - the establishment of military estates was apparently envisaged - but its general

effect no doubt would have been to increase the ranks of the free peasentry. In general, military settlements could not but affect the agrarian '. XIIe Congres International des Etudes Byzantines. Ochride, 1961 Rapports Complenlentaires. Resumes (Belgrade-Ochride 1961), 12-15 8. On these transfers see P. Charanis, ,The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire, ,Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3(1961), 140-154. '. S@b@os, Histoire d'Heraclius, tr. from Armenian by F. Macler (Paris, 1904)

54-55. Cf. P. Charanis, ,Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century, ,Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13(1959), p. 33 and n. 60 a.

IV 74

society of the empire as a whole, for, as Ostrogorsky long ago pointed out, while some members of the family might serve in the army, the rest of the family ,swelled the free peasant forces which could be occupied in the clearing of untilled ground"." If the transfers of peoples constituted, as I believe, the underlying cause for the transformation of the agrarian society of Byzantine then we must, with Ostrogorsky, place the beginning of this transformation early in the seventh century and include among its features not only the increase in the free peasantry of the empire, but also the diffusion of the military estates. We cannot, however, attribute this beginning to Heraclius. Maurice is perhrps a better candidate.

But the changes in the agrarian society of the empire were not the only changes which took place in the seventh century. There were also important administrative changes affecting especially the provinces. The reference is, of course, to the new provincial administrative arrangement known as the theme system, the essential element of which consisted of an army corps permanently stationed in each province and headed by a general who served at the same time as governor of the province, exercising both military and civil authority. The consensus is general that the new administrative system was

in its essentials well formed by the end of the seventh century. No agreement exists, however, rs to the period of its origin. Ostrogorsky

and some others put its beginning in the reign of Heraclius, Ostrogorsky as early as 6209. The question, frequently reviewed in recent years, has been most comprehensively examined by A. Pertusi who has published no less than three studies remarkable for their thoroughness and penetration10. Pertusi passes in review the views of other scholars, subjects the texts to a most searching analysis and comes to the conclusion that the theme system as a provincial organization made its appearance in the second half of the seventh century. It assumed its essential character toward the end of that century or the beginning of the next. Meanwhile John Karayannopulos also addressed himself to this problem and made his results known by two publications". Karayannopulos too reviewed the literature, and carefully examined the sources, but in addition delved deeply into the provincial administrative conditions of 8. ,Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine Empire..., 197. 1. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, N. J.) 86 f; ,Korreferat zu A. Pertusi, La Formation des Th6mes Byzantine," Berichte ZumXI Internationalen ByzantinistenKongress Milnchen 1958 (Munich, 1958), 8. 10. Constantino Porfirogenito De Thematibus. Introduzione. Testo Critico. Commento by A. Pertusi (Citta del Vaticano, 1952); ,Nuova Ipotesi sull'Origine dei ,Temi" Bizantini,"

Aevum, 28(1954), 126-150; ,,La formation des thCmes byzantins," Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress Miinchen 1958 (Munich, 1958), 1-40. ". ,Contribution au problCme des ,th&mes" byzantins,", L'hellenisme contemporain, ser. 2, 10 (1956), 453-504; Die Entstehung der byzantinischen Themenordnung(=Byzanti-

nischen Archiv, Heft 10) (Munich, 1959).

IV 75

the empire rs of before the seventh century. He came out with the conclusion that the roots of the theme system are to be found in the earlier period, that the institution developed gradually and that in its

origins cannot be assigned to a specific period or attributed to any particular emperor. It had assumed definite form, however, by the middle of the eighth century. Finally there are the remarks on Heraclius which Lemerle has published very recently12. Devastatingly critical of the gener::lly accepted, on the whole encomiastic, view on Heraclius, these remarks

deprive that emperor of virtually all glory not only as a reformer, but :lso as a statesman and, to some extent, even as military commander. Heraclius had nothing to do either with the origin of the theme system or the diffusion of the military estates. The criticisms of these scholars against the view which places the origin of the theme system e--rly in the seventh century seem overwhelming. I have long reflected over them, but in theend I have not been convinced. And this for the following re. sons:" The references in the De 7'hematibus of Constantine Porphyrogeni us

are no doubt vague, but they lend themselves better to an inte_-pretation

in favor of an earlier rather than a latter origin of the new provincial administrative system. The text where the Byzantine emperor speaks of the origin of the name of the Armeniacs, attributing it to the reign of Heraclius, expresses, to be sure, the opinion of the author. However, it is the opinion of a man who, if on the whole uncritical, nevertheless had delved into the problem and in all probability had at his disposal materials no longer extant. It is an opinion, as a consequence, not without some significance. In the passages where it is said that, as a result of the cont action of the empire caused by the incursions of the Sarcens, the emperors who followed Heraclius parcelled their authority, the emphasis is on the parcelling and, as a cnosequence, Constantine is speaking he- .-e of a process, the process of how the themes of his day came to be delete what they were. What Constantine seems to say when all his references are taken together is this that at least one of the themes, that of the Armeniacs, goes .back to Heraclius while others came into existence as

time went on by a process of parcelling. Then there is the much discussed text in the chronicle of Theophanes. In 622 Heraclius, we are

told in this passage, in preparation for his campaign against the Persians, crossed over into Asia Minor and proceeded to the regions of the themes,

gathered his troops together and added to them new recruits. I have carefully studied the various interpretations given to this passage and I

have come to the conclusion that Ostrogorsky is right. Themes here are regions and as a consequence provinces. Thus provinces organized as 'Z. P. Lemerle, ,Quelques remarques sur le regge d'Heraclius," Studi medievali, 3a serie, 1 (Centro Italiano di Studi Sull'alto medioevo, Spoleto, 1960) 347-361. ". What follows can only be in the present state of information, a matter of opinion. The texts referred to are thoroughly discussed, with exact citations by Pertusi, Karayannopulos, Ostrogorsky and to some extent by Lemerle.

IV 76

themes were already in existence in 622. They were most probably created by Heraclius.

Now to summarize: The changes which the Byzantium empire underwent in the course of the seventh century consisted primarily of the growth of the free peasantry, the diffusion of the military estates and the development of the theme system. The first two were brought about by the transfer of peoples carried out by the emperors of the last quarter of the sixth century, especially Maurice; the third was, in its beginning, the work of Heraclius. Dumbarton Oaks

V THE ARMENIANS IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian (820-823) against the Emperor Michael II (828-829), the Byzantine historian Genesius lists a variety of peoples from whom the armies of the rebel had been drawn: Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Vandals, Getae, Alans, Chaldoi, Armenians, adherants of the heretical sects of the Paulicians and the Athinganoi.1 Some of these peoples are well known; the identity of others, despite efforts made to determine It, is by no means certain.2 But in any case, their listing by the Byzantine historian illustrates vividly the multiracial character of the Byzantine empire. This was in the ninth century, but the situation was not different for the period before and it would not be different for the period after. The Byzantine empiic was never in its long history, a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. Among the various ethnic groups in the Byzantine empire, the Armenians constituted one of the strongest. At the end of the sixth century the Byzantine empire controlled the major part of Armenia. The events of the

seventh century, the rise of the Arabs in particular, deprived it of this control, but it still retained some Armenian-speaking lands. The expansion of the empire which began late in the ninth century greatly increased the extent of these lands. By the middle of the eleventh century, all Armenia was in Byzantine hands, though shortly afterwards it was permanently lost to the Seljuk Turks.

The great source of the Armenian element in the Byzantine empire consisted, of course, of the Armenian-speaking lands under its control. Thus in the eighth century, when all Armenia was in Arab hands, the native Armenian population under the control of the empire was not very large; whereas, in the eleventh century when virtually all Armenia was annexed to the empire It was very considerable. But the Armenian element In the Byzantine empire was not restricted to the Armenian lands proper. It found its way into other regions of the empire. Many Armenians came into the Byzantine empire even when Armenia was under foreign control. They came sometimes as adventurers, but more often as refugees. Thus in 571, following an unsuccessful revolt against the Persians, numerous Armenian noblemen, headed by Vardan Mamico1 Geneslus, Historia. Bonn, 1834, 33.

2 A. A. Vasillev-H. Gregotre, Byzance et les Arabes, I. Brussels, 1935, 31, Note 2. Cf. F. Hirsch, Byzantinlsche Studlen. Leipzig, 1878, 131. 196

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

197

nian and accompanied by the Armenian Catholicus and some bishops, fled to Constantinople.3 Vardan and his retinue entered the Byzantine army; the rest seem to have settled In Pergamon where an Armenian colony is known to have existed in the seventh century. It was from this colony that Bardanes came who, as Phillipicus, occupied the Imperial throne from 711 to 713.4

The religious ferment in Armenia which in the seventh century gave rise to the Paulician sect had the effect of bringing more Armenians into

the Byzantine empire. Armenian Paulicians, driven from their homes sometime before 662, settled in the empire, especially in the region of the junction of the Iris and the Lycus rivers in the territories of the Pontus.

Their settlements extended almost as far as Nicopolis (Enderes) and Neocaesarea (Niksar).5 These were regions where the Armenian element was already considerable. Comana, for instance, is referred to by Strabo as the market of the Armenians .6

The discontent which the conquest of Armenia by the Arabs caused forced other Armenians to seek refuge in the territories of the empire. Thus, about 700 a number of Nakharars with their retinue fled to the Byzantine empire and were settled by the Emperer on the Pontic frontier. Some of these later returned to Armenia, but others remained .7 More Nakharars, completely abandoning their possessions in Armenia, fled to the Byzantine empire during the reign of Constantine V Copronymus.8 Still more came about 790. It is said they numbered 12,000 and they came with their wives, their children, their retinue and their cavalry. They were welcomed by the Emperor and were granted fertile lands upon which to settle.9 We are not told the location of the lands given to them. As their title implies these refugees belonged to the Armenian nobility, who were sometimes criticised for fleeing the country and thus abandoning the poor 3 E. W. Brooks, Iohannis Ephesint htstoriae ecclesiasticae pars tertia, CSCO. Louvain,

1936, 61-62 (English Trans. R. Payne Smith. Oxford, 1860, 125-126); Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, I. Leipzig, 1883, 245. 4 H. Gelzer, Pergamon unter Byzantinern and Osmanen. (Abhandlungen der KBniglict preuBischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) Berlin, 1903, 42 f. 5 H. Grdgoire, Precisions geographiques et chronologtques sur les Pauliciens, Acaddmie royale de Belgique: Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 5 Ser., 33 (Brussels, 1947) 294 f., 298 f.; S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee, Cambridge, 1947, 34.

6 Strabo, 12. 3. 36.

t Ghevond, tiistoire des guerres et des conquetes des Arabes en Armdnie, tr. from Armenian by G. V. Chahnazarian. Paris, 1856, 22, 33-34; cf. 1. Laurent, L'Arm2nte entre Byzance et l'Islam depuls la conqu8te arabe iusqu'en 886. Paris, 1919, 184, note 4; I. Muyldermans, La domination Arabe en Armt nie ... Paris, 1927, 99-?'). 6 Ghevond, 129. Ibid., 162.

V 198

to the mercy of the Arabs.lo Mass migrations such as took place in the course of the seventh and eighth centuries seem to have subsided in the ninth, but individual Armenians continued to come into the Byzantine empire to seek their fortunes. The Armenians, however, did not always come willingly. They were sometimes forcibly removed from their homes and settled in other regions of the empire. Justinian had already resorted to this practice, but the numbers involved were small, perhaps a few families." Transplantations

on a large scale took place during the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice. In 578, 10,000 Armenians were removed from their homes and settled in

the island of Cyprus. "Thus," says Evagrius, "land, which had been previously untilled, was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them that fought resolutely and courageously against the other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics, on account of the easy rate at which slaves were procured."12

A transplantation on a vaster plan was conceived by Maurice and it was partially carried out. Maurice, who may have been of Armenian descent, though this is extremely doubtful,13 found the Armenians exi remely troublesome in their own homeland. The plan which he conceived i. alled for the cooperation of the Persian king in the removal from their homes of all Armenian chieftains and their followers. According to

Sebeos, Maurice addressed the Persian king as follows: The Armenians are "a knavish and indocile nation. They are found between us and are a source of trouble. I am going to gather mine and send them to Thrace; send yours to the East. If they die there, it will be so many enemies that will die; if, on the contrary, they kill, it will be so many enemies that they will kill. As for us, we shall live in peace. But if they remain in their country, there will never be any quiet for us." Sebeos further reports that the two rulers agreed to carry out this plan, but apparently the Persians failed to cooperate, for when the Byzantine emperor gave the necessary orders and pressed hard for their execution, many Armenians fled to 10 Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, Histoire universelle (le partie), tr. from Armenian by E. Dulaurier. Paris, 1883 (Publications de I'Ecole des Langues Orientales Vivantes, XVIII), 162.

11 Procopius, De bello Gothico, III, 32, 7; cf. R. Grousset, Histoire de L'Armenie des ortgtnes d 1071. Paris, 1947, 242. Grousset's statement concerning vast transfers of Armenians to Thrace by Justinian is not borne out by his references. 12 Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier. London, 1898, 215. The translation is taken from the English version of Evagrius which appeared in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library: Theodoret and Evagrius, History of the Church. London, 1854, 444.

13 N. Adontz has tried to prove the Armenian origin of Maurice: Les l@gendes de Maurice et de Constantin V, empereurs de Byzance, Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie

at d'Histotre Orientales, 2. Brussels, 1934, 1-12: but see P. Goubert, Byzance avant l'Islam, I. Paris, 1951, 34-41.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

199

Persia.14 The Byzantines, however, did carry out the deportation, though

only in part. In ordering this removal, Maurice's real motive was, no doubt, the fact that he needed the Armenians as soldiers in Thrace. Further deportations and settlement of Armenians in the Byzantine empire, especially in Thrace, are attested for the eighth century. During the reign of Constantine V Copronymus, thousands of Armenians and monophysitic Syrians were gathered by the Byzantine armies during their raids in the regions of Germanicea (Marash), Melitene and Erzeroum and were settled in Thrace.15 Others, also from the environs of Erzeroum, were settled along the eastern frontiers. These, however, were subsequently seized by the Arabs and were settled by them in Syria.16 During the reign of Leo IV, a Byzantine raiding expedition into Cilicia and Syria resulted in the seizure of thousands of natives, 150,000 according to one authority, who were settled in Thrace.17 These, however, were chiefly Syrian Jacobites, though some Armenians may have also been included. Many of the Armenians settled in Thrace were seized by the Bulgar Krum

(803-814) and carried away, but most of them eventually returned.

According to tradition, the parents of the future Emperor Basil I and Basil himself were included among these prisoners, but there is reason to doubt the historical accuracy of this tradition.18

The diverse ethnic groups established in Thrace were reinforced by later arrivals. In the tenth century, during the reign of John Tzimiskes, a considerable number of Paulicians were removed from the frontier regions of the east and were settler in Thrace, more exactly in the country around Phillippopolis.19 These Paulicians were most probably predominantly Armenians. A little later, perhaps in 988, Armenians were settled also in Macedonia. They were brought there from the eastern provinces of the empire by Basil II in order to serve as a bulwark against the Bulgarians and also to help increase the prosperity of the country.20 14 Sebecs, Hlstolre d'Hi raclius, tr. from Armenian by F. Macler. Paris, 1904, 30-31. Cf. F. D61ger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostrbmischen Reiches, 1. Munich, 1924, p. 13, Ns 108. is Nicephorus, Opuscula Historica, ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig, 1880, 65, 66; Theophanes, I, 427, 429; Michael Syrus, Chronique, ed. and trans. 1. B. Chabot, 2. Paris, 1901, 51B, 521,

523; Agapius of Menbidj, Histoire uniuerselle, tr. A. A. Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis, 8 (1912), 544; Ghevond, op. cit., 126-127. 16 Agapius of Menbidj, 531, 538; Dionysius I of Tell-Mahrd, Chronique, tr. J. B. Chabot. Paris, 1895, 56-57. Cf. A. Lombard, Etudes d'histoire byzantine. Constantin V, empereur des Romains (740-775). Paris, 1902, 35. 17 Theophanes, I, 451-452; Ghevond, op. cit., 150; Michael Syrus, 3, 2.

18 For a careful examination of this tradition see N. Adontz, L'Age et l'origine de l'empereur Basil 1, Byzantion 8 (1933) 475-500; 9 (1934) 257 ff. 19 Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium. Bonn, 1839, 2, 382; Anna Comnena, Alexlad, 2. Bonn, 1878, 298 f.

20 Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, Histoire universelle (deuxidme partie), tr. from Armenian by F. Macler. Paris, 1917, 74.

V 200

Meanwhile, other Armenians had been settled elsewhere in the empire. Nicephorus I used Armenians, among others, in his resettlement of Sparta at the beginning of the ninth century.21 Some time earlier, about 792, an unsuccessful revolt among the Armenlacs, a corps which was no doubt predominantly Armenian, led to the settlement of a thousand of them In Sicily and other islands.22 In 885 Nicephorus Phocas, grandfather of the tenth century Emperor by the same name, settled a multitude of Armenians in Calabria. These, as Gregoire suggests, may have been of the Paulician faith as Tephrike, the stronghold of that sect, had fallen to the imperial forces only a few years before and the Paulicians had been dispersed 23 Armenians, among others, were also settled in Crete following the recovery of that island in 961 by Nicephorus Phocas, the future Emperor 24 Two Armenian military settlements are known to have existed in western Asia Minor in the tenth century. These were the settlements at Prine and Platanion, which, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, furnished a number of Armenian troops in the expedition against Crete during the reign of Leo VI. Armenians, settled in the Thracesian theme, also participated in the expedition against Crete in 949.

It was through the army that the Armenian element in the Byzantine empire exerted its greatest influence. It is well known that the Armenian element occupied a prominent place in the armies of Justinian. Armenian troops fought in Africa, in Italy and along the eastern front. They were also prominent in the palace guard. Procopius mentions by name no less than seventeen Armenian commanders, including, of course, the great Narses.26 But the Armenians were only one among the different ethnic elements which constituted the armies of Justinian. These elements include many barbarians: Erulians, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Lombards, Moors, Sabiri, Slavs and Antae, Vandals; some Persians, Iberians and Tzanis and among the provincials, Illyrians, Thracians, Isaurians and Lycaonians.27 Under the immediate successors of Justinian, the ethnic composition of the Byzantine army remained very much the same. "It Is said," writes Evagrius, "that Tiberius raised an army of 150,000 among the peoples that dwelt beyond the Alps around the Rhine and among those this side of the Alps, among the Massagetae and other Scythian nations, among those that 21 P. Charanis, The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950) 154-155. n Theophanes, 1, 469. 23 H. Gregoire, La carripre du premier Nic6phore Phocas, HQoogopri eis Etiaawva if KvplaxCSBv. Thessalonica, 1953, 251.

u Leo Diaconus, Historia. Bonn, 1828, 28. 25 P. Charanis, On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century, l7Qoacpopd Eig Y Q.nwva H. Kvplaxibgv, 142 ff. 26 P.

Charanis, Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century,

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959) 31. 27 [bid., 31.

V The Armenians In the Byzantine Empire

201

dwelt in Paeonia and Mysia, and also Illyrians and Isaurians and despatched them against the Persians."28 The figure given by Evagrius may perhaps be questioned, but the rest of his statement in its essentials cannot be doubted. It is confirmed by Theophanes, though the figure he gives is much smaller (15.000).29 And John of Ephesus reports that following the breakdown of negotiations with Persia (575-577), a force of 60,000 Lombards was expected in Byzantium.30 The same author states: "Necessity compelled Tiberius to enlist under his banners a barbarian people from the West called Goths-who were followers of the doctrine of the wicked Arius. They departed for Persia, leaving their wives and children at Constantinople."31 In Constantinople, the wives of these Goths requested that a church be allocated to them, so that they might worship according to their Arian faith. Thus, it seems quite certain that the ethnic composition of the Byzantine army under Tiberius remained substantially the same as it had been during the reign of Justinian. The situation changed in the course of the reign of Maurice, chiefly as a result of the Avaro-Slavic incursions into the Balkan peninsula. These incursions virtually eliminated Illyricum as a source of recruits and reduced the possibilities of Thrace. They cut communications with the West and made recruitments there most difficult. The empire, as a consequence, had to turn elsewhere for its troops. It turned to the regions of Caucasus and Armenia. In the armies of Maurice, we still find some Huns32 and also some Lombards.33 We find Bulgars too 34 But the Armenian is the element which dominates. In this respect Sebeos is once more a precious source. He writes in connection with the war which Maurice undertook against the Avars after 591: Maurice "ordered to gather together all the Armenian cavalry and all the noble Nakharars skilled in war and adroit in wielding

the lance in combat. He ordered also a numerous army to be raised in Armenia, an army composed of soldiers of good will and good stature, organized in regular corps and armed. He ordered that this army should go to Thrace under the command of Musele (Moushegh) Mamiconian and there fight the enemy."35 This army was actually organized and fought in Thrace. Mamiconian was captured and killed,36 whereupon, the raising of an Armenian force of 2,000 armed cavalry was ordered. This force, too, was sent to Thrace.37 Earlier, during the Persian wars, important Armenian 28 Evagrius, 209 f. 29 Theophanes, 1, 251. 30 John of Ephesus, Smith, 407, Brooks, 234. 31 Ibid.; Smith, 207, Brooks, 113. 32 Theophylactus Simocatta, Historia, ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig, 1887, 67. 33 Ibid., 104. 34 Michael Syrus, 2, 72. 35 Sebeos, 35. 36 Cf. Goubert, op. cit., 1, 197. 37 Sebeos, 36-37. Cf. Goubert, op. cit., 1, 200; DIJIger, op. cit. 12, N_ 94.

V 202

contingents under the command of John Mystacon operated on the eastern front.38 In 602 Maurice issued the following edict: "I need 30,000 cavalrymen by way of tribute raised in Armenia. Thirty thousand families must be gathered and settled in Thrace."39 Priscus was sent to Armenia to carry out this edict, but before he had time to do so the revolution which overthrew Maurice broke out and the edict apparently was not enforced. It is interesting to observe the correlation of the number of cavalry with the number of families which were to be transplanted to Thrace. Each family was obviously intended to furnish one cavalryman and no doubt each family was going to be given some land. Here we have perhaps an

indication that Maurice sought to extend the system of military estates in Thrace.90 But, however that may be, it is quite clear that under Maurice, Armenia became the principal source of recruits for the Byzantine army. The same was true under Heraclius, himself of Armenian descent91 though that Emperor drew heavily also from among the people of the Caucasus Lazes, Abasgians, Iberians - as well as on the Khazars.92 All throughout the seventh century indeed the Armenians were one of the most prominent elements in the Byzantine army. And if by the end of the seventh century the conquest of Armenia by the Arabs made it difficult to draw upon that country for new recruits, Armenians continued nevertheless to occupy an important position in the army of the empire. This was not only because

some Armenian-speaking lands remained within the boundaries of the empire, but also because a considerable number of Armenians had been integrated into its new military organization. The dominant feature of the new military organization of the empire was the theme system, a new provincial organization, the essential element of which consisted of the army corps permanently stationed in each province and commended by an officer who served at the same time as governor of the province, exercising both military and civil authority. The troops constituting these provincial or thematic corps were often drawn

from different ethnic groups and as a consequence their permanent assignment to any one province contributed in altering the ethnic composition of that province. The provinces brought into existence by the new organizations were called themes and differed from the old ones not only 38 Theophylactus Simocatta, 205, 216. 39 Sebeos, 54-55. Cf. Goubert, op. cit., 1: 209; D61ger, op. cit. 16, N9 137.

40 On some recent theories concerning the spread of military estates, see: Charanis, Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century, 33, note 60a. Al The father of the Emperor Heraclius, also named Heraclius, who served as general during the reign of Maurice is said to have been a native of a city looted in Armenia. Theophylactus Simocatta, 109-110. John of Nikiu calls the Emperor Heraclius a Cappadocian: Chronique, tr. H. Zotenberg. Paris, 1883, 431. 42 Theophanes, 1, 304, 309, 316; Nicephorus, 15; Agapius of Menbidj, 463. Cf. H. Gr4goire, An Armenian Dynasty on the Byzantine Throne, Armenian Quarterly 1 (1946) 9.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

203

in the form of their administration but also in extent and configuration. The theme system, whatever its origin, took definite form in the seventh century.43

Among the themes of Asia Minor the Armeniakon was one of the most important, in rank second only to the Anatolikon. It was a large territory, comprising in whole or in part six former provinces as these provinces are known to have existed in the sixth century. Cappadocia 1 and part of Cappadoncia II; Armenia I and what was still in the hands of the empire of Armenia II; Elenopontos and Pontos Polemoniakos. It was roughly in the form of a triangle whose two angles were located on the Black Sea, the one

at Sinope, the other at a point not far to the east of Trebizond, and the third a little to the south of Tyana.44 The theme had been organized perhaps as early as before 62245 and remained a unit throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. In the course of the ninth century it was parcelled out into a number of smaller themes. By 863 there were four themes in the

place of the previous one: the Armeniakon, a new and much smaller circumscription, the Charsianon, Chaldia and Koloneia. The new theme of Sebasteia, created about 912, was also formed out of territory which had formerly belonged to the Armeniakon.

According to an important source of the tenth century, the original Armeniakon theme was so called because of the neighboring Armenians and the Armenians who dwelled in it.46 This is not to be interpreted to mean of course that the population of the theme was everywhere predominately Armenian. Along the Black Sea, especially in the region of Trebizond,

the Greek-speaking element was certainly the most numerous. In the interior, in the region between the Iris and the Halys and in the loop which

the latter river forms; 1. e., the core of the lands which later came to constitute the small Armeniakon and the Charsianon themes, the old Cappadocian native population, by now deeply hellenized, most probably predominated. There were some Armenians, of course, but they were not in any considerable number. Quite different, however, was the situation in the eastern regions of the theme, the regions which were eventually detached from it to form the themes of Chaldia, Coloneia and Sebasteia. Here the Armenians were very numerous. In Chaldia, along the coastal 43 For a detailed study of the theme system with references to the older literature see A. Pertusi, Constantino Porfirogenito De Thematibus, Studi e Testi, Vatican, 1952, 160. 44 Ibid., 117-120. 45 This is the opinion of George Ostrogorsky which, though it has been recently con-

tested, appears to me plausible. For a rejection of this view: 1. Karayannopulos, Die Entstehung der byzantinischen Themenordnung, Munich, 1959; A. Pertusi, La formation des themes byzantins, Berichte zum XI. internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongret. Miinchen 1958 (Munich, 1958) I, 1-40. But see G. Ostrogorsky, Korreferat zu A. Pertusi, r La formation des theme byzantine ', Ibid., I, 1-8. 46 Constantin Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, ed. Pertusi (Note 45 above), p. 63.

V 204

areas there were many Greeks, of course, but in the interior, in districts such as Keltzine, the Armenian element was very strong. It was strong also in the lands which later formed the themes of Coloneia and Sebasteia. These lands lay in the most part in Little Armenia where the Armenian language, despite the progress made by Hellenism, never ceased to be spoken.47 Important Armenian elements were also to be found in the region of the Iris-Lycus rivers where Neocaesarea, Comana, Gaziura, Amaseia and Eupatoria were located.48 This region was retained in the smaller Armeniakon theme. The comparatively strong Armenian element in the population of these eastern themes reflected, and was reflected by, the ethnic composition of their military organization. The military corps of the original Armeniakon theme consisted primarily of Armenians.49 Of the various themes into which it was broken predominately Armenian were the armies of Coloneia and Sebasteia,50 and no doubt also of the smaller Armeniakon. The Arme-

nian element must also have been considerable in the army of Chaldia. It has been said that the Armenian element must have predominated in the Byzantine army from the ninth century to the Crusades.51 The statist-

ical information necessary for an exact evaluation of this statement does not exist. There are, however, some figures. They go back to about the middle of the ninth century and are given by Arabic sources. They cannot be regarded therefore, as official. These Arabic sources list thirteen themes altogether, two in Europe and eleven in Asia Minor and give figures of the military strength of each. According to one set of figures the

total military strength of the thirteen themes mentioned numbered

90,000;52 according to another set, it numbered 80,000.53 The combined strength of the Armeniakon, which at this time still included Coloneia 47 F. Cumont, L'Annexion du pont poldmonlaque et de la Petite Armdnle. Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsey. Manchester, 1923, 115.

48 Bury, citing Adontz, says that in "the period after Justinian, and indirectly as a consequence of his policy" the Armenians expanded "westward towards Caesarea and northward towards the Black Sea": History of the Later Roman Empire. London, 1923, 2, 346, note 1. Cf. N. Adontz, Armenia in the Epoch of Justinian. St. Petersburg, 1908 (in Russian), 203. Adontz uses as his source the De Thematibus of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. As I know no Russian, I consulted Adontz's book with the aid of Cyril Mango. 49 Theophanes, 1, 469. 50 For Sebasteia at the beginning of the tenth century: Constantine Porphyrogenitus,

De Ceremonies. Bonn, 1829, 652.

51 G. Gregoire, Les Armenians entre Byzance at 1'Islam. Byzantion 10 (1935) 665. 52 E. W. Brooks, Arabic Lists of the Byzantine Themes, The Journal of Hellenic Studies

21 (1901) 72-76 and note 5 on p. 75. 57 Kodiima in M. J. de Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, 6. LugduniBatavorum, 1889, 196-199. For an important amendation relating to the strength of the Armeniacs, H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung. Leipzig, 1899, 97-98. Cf. Pertusi, Constantino Porfirogenito de thematibus, p. 118, who is inclined to accept the amendation. Koddma does not give the strength of Macedonia, but according to the source made available by Brooks, it numbered 5,000.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

205

and Sebasteia, Charsianon and Chaldia is given in the first case as 23,000 or over twenty-five percent of the total; in the second case as 18,000 or over twenty-two percent of the total. As these armies, particularly those

of the Armeniakon and Chaldia, were predominantly Armenian or of Armenian origin and as there were also Armenians in other thematic corps,59 we have perhaps in one or the other of these percentages, a rough

indication of the strength of the Armenian element in the army of the empire about the middle of the ninth century. This strength did not, of course, make the Byzantine armies Armenian, but it did give to the Arme-

nians a considerable influence in the military structure of the empire. The significance of the Armenian element in the political and military life of the empire may be further seen by the number of persons of Armenian descent who came to occupy influential positions. They served as

generals, as members of the imperial retinue, and as governors of provinces.55 Under Heraclius the Armenian Manuel was named p r a e f e ct u s a u g u s t a 11 s in Egypt. Armenian generals served the same emperor in the field. One of these, Vahan, was actually proclaimed emperor by his troops just before the battle of Yermuk. He later retired to Sinai and became a monk. Armenian princes in Constantinople were very influential. They even plotted to overthrow Heraclius and to place on the throne his Illegitimate son, Athalaric. In 641 it was the Armenian Valentinus Arsacidus who enabled Constans II to assume the throne following the death of his father. Valentinus was put in command of the troops in the East,

but shortly afterwards, having failed in a plot to seize the throne for himself, he was executed. Other Armenian generals are known to have

served under Constans II. Two of these, Sabour, surnamed Aparasitgan, and Theodore were commanders of the Armeniacs, as the troops stationed in the Armeniakon theme were called. After the violent death of Constans II, the Armenian Mizizius (Mjej Gnouni) was proclaimed Emperor. and though he was not able to maintain himself, he should be included among the emperors of Armenian descent who occupied the Byzantine

throne. Later his son John felt strong enough to rebel against Constantine IV, but he too failed and was destroyed. Many Armenians are known to have been prominent in the service of the Empire in the eighth century also. The Armenian Bardanes occupied the throne from 711 to 713. Artavasdos, son-in-law of Leo III and at one time general of the Armeniacs, also tried for the throne, and for a time was actually master of Constantinople. He was ably assisted by other Armenians: his cousin Teridates, Vahtan the patrician, and another Artavasdos. During the brief period sa As for instance the Anatolikon and the Thracesian: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremontts, 652, 657, 667. ss For the documentation of what follows see Charanis, Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine

Empire In the Seventh Century, 34-36.

V 206

when he held Constantinople, he crowned his son Nicephorus co-emperor and made his other son, Nicetas, general of the Armeniacs. The Armeniacs, the vast majority of whom, as has been said, were Armenians, were Artavasdos' strongest suporters. Other eminent Armenians are known to have served the empire under Constantine V Copronymus. Tadjat Andzevatzik, who came to Byzantium about 750, proved to be a successful commander in the course of Constantine's Bulgarian campaigns. Under Leo IV we find him as general of the Bucellarii. He subsequently fled to the Arabs. Another Armenian, the prince Artavazd Mamiconian, who joined the forces of Byzantium about 771, was general of the Anatolikon under Leo IV. More Armenians are mentioned in connection with the reigns of Constantine VI and Irene. Vardas, one time general of the Armeniacs, was involved in a conspiracy to have Leo IV succeeded by his brother Nicephorus and not by his son Constantine. Another Vardas lost his life in the Bulgarian campaign which Constantine VI conducted in 792. Artaseras or Artashir was

another Armenian general active during the reign of Constantine VI. Alexius Musele (Moushegh), Drungarius of the Watch and later general of the Armeniacs, seems even to have aspired to the throne. At least he was accused of entertaining this ambition, and was blinded. His family, as we shall see, achieved great distinction in the ninth and tenth centuries. Another great Byzantine family of Armenian descent, the Skleroi, made its appearance in Byzantium at this time or soon thereafter. Leo Skleros, governor of the Peloponnesus at the beginning of the ninth century, is the first member of this family known to us, but the family was already famous. A number of other persons who occupied important positions during the reigns of Constantine VI, Irene and Nicephorus I may also have been Armenians if one may judge from the Armenian name of Vardanes which they bore. These included: Vardanes, patrician and domesticus scholarum; Vardanes, general of the Thracesians; Vardanes, called the Turk, general of the Anatolikon, who made an attempt to overthrow Nicephorus I; Vardanes, called Anemas, a spatharius. Armenian also was the patrician Arsaber who was quaestor under Nicephorus I and who in the unsuccessful plot of 808 to overthow Nicephorus had been designated the new Emperor.

Illustrious personages of Armenian descent appear frequently also in the annals of the empire in the ninth century. They dominated the imperial throne. Leo V, known as the Armenian, occupied the throne from 813 to 820. He is referred to in one of the sources as digenes, `twyborn', i. e., born of two races, and these two races are given as Assyrian and Armenian.56 The thourough and careful investigation of all the sources, however, has shown that there is no truth in the tradition.57 Leo was, an ss Symeon Magister. Bonn, 1838, 603. 57 Adontz, Sur Vorigin de Leon V, empereur de Byzance, Armeniaca, 2 (1927), 1-10.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

207

Armenian 'who, while still young, hat settled in Pidra, an unknown place in the Anatolikon theme, and, like many others of his position, turned to

the army for a career and this eventually brought him to the imperial His wife Theodosia, was the daughter of Arsaber (Arschovir), patrician and quaestor, no doubt the Armenian Arsaber who, in the unthrone.

successful plot of 808 to overthrow Nicephorus, had been designated the new Emperor. Thus Leo V sprang from, and headed, an Armenian family, the Armenian nature of which is further illustrated by the Armenian names which its various members bore.58 Michael II, the man who in 820 overthrew Leo V, was a semi-hellenized native of the region of Amorion, probably of Phrygian descent,59 but the dynasty which he founded eventually became in part Armenian in blood and fell under the domination of the Armenians. Theodora, the wife of Theophilus, son and successor of Michael II, was a native of Ebissa in Paphlagonia, but she was of Armenian. descent at least from her father's side.60 Thus Michael III who succeeded his father Theophilus was partly Armenian. His mother's family dominated his reign. During the early years of his reign, while he was still a minor, the imperial office was provisionally in the hands of his mother Theodora who was assisted by a regency composed of members of her family and Theoctistes, the Logothete of the Course. To be sure the members of Theodora's family were soon shoved into the background and for nearly fourteen years Theoctistes, of whose racial origins we have no definite Information, was Theodora's most powerful minister. But his overthrow and murder in 856 brought to the fore Theodora's brother Bardas, who, until his violent death in 866,

was the real ruler of the state. At the same time Petronas, Theodora's other brother, was entrusted with important commands in which he showed considerable ability. His son Marianus was later made prefect of the city by Basil 1.61 Important positions were also given to the two sons of Bardas, the younger of whom, Antigonos, was only ten years old, and also his son-in-law, whose name, Symbatius, betrays his Armenian origin.62

Meanwhile, other members of Theodora's family had been placed in Positions of some importance. Her father Marinus had served as drunga56 Ibid., 9.

59 According to one tradition Michael's grandfather was a Jew who had been converted to Christianity: Michael Syrus, 3: 72. 60 The Armenian origin of Theodora is well known. Cf, G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Cyzanttne State. New Brunswick, N. J., 1957, 195. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia. Bonn, 1838, 148, where Manuel, uncle of Theodora, is referred to as Armenian. Though there is some confusion about the career of this Manuel, this confusion does not affect the Armenian origin of Theodora's family. Cf. H. Gregoire, Etudes sur le neuuiPme siecle, Byzantion 8 (1933) 524. fit Symeon Magister, 687; Georgius Monachus. Bonn, 1838, 839. 62 Theoph. Continuatus, 205; Georgius Monachus, 834.

V 208

rius and also as tumarch.63 Her brother-in-law Constantine Babutzikos, married to the sister Sophia, bore the title of magister and was at one time Drungarius of the Watch. He was one of the forty-two Byzantine officers who were put to death by the Arabs following their capture of Amorion in 838.64 Her other brother-in-law Arsavir, married to another of her sisters, Calomaria or Maria, was patrician and magister, titles which put him very high in the society of Byzantium.65 Both Babutzikos and Ar§avir were Armenians. Argavir's two sons, Stephen and Bardas, both became magisters. Bardas married the daughter of Constantine Kontomytes who was governor of Sicily during the reign of Michael III, while Stephen served in the regency at the time of the minority of Constantine VII.66 Thus, the Armenian family of Theodora at various times occupied important positions and with the elimination of Theoctistos, it came to control the state. And when the overthrow of Bardas and the destruction of Michael III himself, a year later, brought this control to an end, it was another Armenian family that came to the throne. Basil, the man responsible for the elimination of the now partly Armenian Amorian dynasty was, as is well known, of Armenian descent. His progeny, if we discredit the gossip concerning the paternity of his successor, Leo VI, was to rule the Byzantine state for about 190 years. About this dynasty, more will be said below. Other Armenians, both related and unrelated to the ruling houses, are known to have played important roles in the political and military life of the empire in the ninth century. Leo V, the Armenian, had a nephew, Gregory Pterotos, who served him as ii general. When Leo was overthrown, Pterotos was exiled by Leo's successor, Michael II, to the Island of Scyrus, but he managed to escape and join Thomas in his revolt against Michael II.

In the course of the revolt, however, he tried to shift his allegiance to Michael, but before he could act decisively he was attacked, defeated and killed by Thomas.67 More famous was the Armenian Manuel, known as

Amalicites. Protostrator, general of the Armeniacs, Domestic of the Schools, patrician and magister, Manuel served, and served well it would seem, four different emperors, Michael I, Leo V, Michael II and Theophi-

lus, though at one time, during the reign of Michael II, he fled to the Arabs.68 It is this Manuel who Is said to have been the uncle of the Empress 03 Theoph. Continuatus, 89.

61 Theoph. Continuatus, 175; Cedrenus, 2, 161. Cf. Vasiliev-Gregoire, Byzance et les Arabes, 1, 147, Note 1. On his Armenian descent, cf. P. Peeters, Acta Sanctorum, Nouembris, Tomus Quartus. Brussels, 1925, 546; J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 429. 65 Theoph. Contlnuatus, 175; Cedrenus, 2, 161; Peeters, op. cit., 546, Note 3; VasilievGr6goire, op. cit., 1, 221, Note 2. 60 Theoph. Contlnuatus, 175, 354, 398. 61 ibld., 57 f, 62 f. 86 ibid., 18, 24, 110, 120-121, 127, 148; Genesius, 52, 68

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

209

Theodora, but, as there is some confusion in the sources concerning his career, it may be that Theodora's uncle was another Manuel or even some other person, perhaps the Sergius of Niketia who led an expedition against Crete towards the end of the reign of Michael 111.69 Another Armenian, Constantine, surnamed Maniakes, was Drungarius of the Watch, and later, during the reign of Michael III, Logothete. He was a man apparently conscious of his Armenian descent for he is said to have befriended Basil, the future Emperor, very early in his career because like himself, Basil was an Armenian. Constantine was the father of Thomas the Patrician who served as Logothete of the Course under the regency during the reign of Constantine VII early in the tenth century. As this Thomas was the father of Genesius the historian, Constantine was thus the grandfather of the latter.70 Armenian also in origin was Alexius Musele to whom the Emperor Theo-

philus gave his daughter Maria in marriage. Alexius, whose family was also known as the Krenitae, was most probably the son of the Alexius Musele who, as has already been pointed out, had held important administrative posts under Constantine VI and Irene. Alexius bore the high rank-

ing titles of patrician, anthypatus, magister and Caesar. As Caesar, he became the heir presumptive to the throne, but the death of his wife and the birth of Michael, who later became Michael III, brought about a certain coolness between him and the Emperor and he retired to a monastery 71 Alexius had a brother Theodosios who, judging from the title of patrician which he bore, must also have been an important personage.72 As the brother of Alexius, Theodosios was of course, also Armenian. Armenian also was Theophiletzes, the rich courtier and important functionary who is said

to have given employment to Basil, the future Emperor, when the latter first arrived in Constantinople and later introduced him to the imperial court. Theophiletzes' Armenian descent may be inferred from the fact that he was a relative of Michael III and also of Bardas, the brother of the empress Theodora.73

The two crimes, the assassination of Caesar Bardas in 866 and that of Michael III in 867, which brought Basil I on the throne, illustrate still further the influential position which the Armenian element had come to have in the imperial court. The instigator of both crimes was, of course,

Basil himself, but it was only with the assistance of a number of other 69 Gregoire, Etudes sur le neuviPme siecle. Byzantion 8 (1933) 524; F. Dvornfk, The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953) 69 f. 70 Theoph. Continuatus, 150, 194, 196, 229, 238; Georglus Monachus, 835; Cedrenus 2, 280; C. de Boor, Zu Genesios, Byz. Zeitschr. 10 (1901) 62-65. 71 Theoph. Continuatus, 107 f.; Symeon Magister, 630; Cedrenus, 2, 118. Cf. Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 126, Note 3. 72 Cedrenus, 2, 119.

73 Theoph. Continuatus, 224 f., 226, 229. 14 - Byzan[in.,sla,ica

V 210

important persons that he was able to bring them about. It has been said that all these personages, like Basil himself, were of Armenian descent 74 But if for this view there is no absolute proof, it can be shown readily that the majority of Basil's accomplices were indeed Armenians. Among those involved in the assassination of Caesar Bardas three are definitely known to have been Armenians: Marianos, the brother of Basil; Symbatios, the Logothete of the Course, and son-in-law of the Caesar; and Bardas, the brother of Symbatios. One, John Chaldos, known also as Tziphinarites, may also have been Armenian. The racial antecedents of two, Peter Bulgarus and Constantine Toxaras, cannot be determined with any certainty. Another of the conspirators is called Leo the Assyrian by one source, Asylaeon, cousin of Basil, by another. The same person, a cousin of Basil, and as such a 'Armenian, is probably meant.75 Marianos, John Chaldos, Constantine Toxaras and Asylaeon were also involved in the assassination of Michael III. As for the rest who took part in that conspiracy, there is some confusion in the sources. One of them, Symbatios, to be distinguished

from the son-in-law of Caesar Bardas who had been mutilated not

long after the death of the Caesar, was, like Marianos, the brother of Basil. Another, Bardas, identified further as the father of Basil the Rector, a personage about whom nothing else is known, may also have been the brother of Basil; or he may have been the brother of Caesar Bardas' son-in-law, who like the latter had participated in the murder of the Caesar. In either

case, he was an Armenian.76 Two others, Jacobitzes and Eulogios, are referred to as Persians. The latter is said to have addressed another of the conspirators, Artavasdos, captain of the Hetaireia, the foreign guard, in Persian. It has been suggested that all three, Jacobitzes, Eulogios and Artavasdos, were really Armenians, natives of those Armenian regions which had once been under the control of Persia, hence, the reference to them as Persians.77 The suggestion is tempting, but, as thousands of Persians had deserted to the empire during the reign of Theophilus78 it is not

improbable that these persons, at least Jacobitzes and Eulogios, were indeed Persians. As for Artavasdos, the probability Is that he was an Armenian who also knew Persian. Artavasdos is a name which we find borne by a number of persons who served the empire and who are known to have been Armenians. Marianos, the son of Petronas, may have also been invol74 Adontz, L'Age et l'origine de l'empereur Basil I, Byzantion 9 (1934) 229. 75 Symeon Magister, 678; Georgius Monachus, 830; Genesius, 106; Theodosius Melitenus, Chronographia, ed. T. L. F. Tafel. Munich, 1859, 170. 76 Symeon Magister, 688; Georgius Monachus, 837, edition by E. de Muralt. St. Petersburg, 1801, 750; Theodosius Melitenus, 176. Cf. J. B. Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 458-479; Adontz, L'Age et l'origine de l'empereur Basil 1, Byzantion, 9 (1934) 299 ff. 77 Adontz, ibid., 231. 711 Gregoire, Manuel et Theophobe ou la concurrence de deux monasteres, Byzantion 9 (1934) 185 ff.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

211

ved in the conspiracy against Michael. He is not mentioned among those who actually committed the crime, but his involvement in it is suggested by the fact that Basil made him prefect of the city soon after the elimination of Michael. Marianos was at least partly Armenian. Thus, while not everyone involved in the crimes against Caesar Bardas and Michael III was Armenian, it was a predominantly Armenian group which put an end to the Amorian dynasty and placed on the throne the Armenian Basil. So influential had the Armenian element become in the imperial courtl The Armenian element was prominent also in the intellectual life of the empire in the ninth century. Intellectual activity in the Byzantine empire had never ceased to exist, but it had subsided considerably in the course of the seventh and eighth centuries and certain educational institutions, such as, for instance, the university which Theodosius II had established in the fifth century, had been allowed to decline. But there was a revival in the ninth century, giving a new impetus to learning which would continue

now more or less until the final fall of Constantinople. In this revival a number of persons played an important role. Foremost among these was Photios, the future patriarch and no doubt the most ancyclopaedis erudite the Byzantine empire produced. John the Grammarian, patriarch from 837 to 843, was another of these persons. John, who had laid the theological foundations for the renewal of iconoclasm in 815, was reputed among his contemporaries to be well versed in the science of the ancients. He had also taught the emperor Theophilus who came to look upon the promotion of learning as an important aspect of his reign. The revival of learning culminated in the reestablishment of the University of Constantinople,

housed in the palace of Magnaura and is for that reason known as the School of Magnaura. CaesarBardas founded and Leo the Philosopher, whose iame as mathematician and master of the science of antiquity extend as far as Bagdad, headed the school. A number of others, for instance, Constantine the Philosopher, the apostle of the Slavs, are known to have contributed to

the intellectual activity of the period, but John the Grammarian, Photios, Caesar Bardas and Leo the Philosopher seem to have been the prime movers. All four were, at least in part, of Armenian descent. Bardas's Armenian origin has already been pointed out; that of Leo can be inferred from the fact that he was a cousin of John the Grammarian of whose Armenian origins there can be little doubt, 79 and as for Photlos, the fact is that his

mother, Irene, was the sister of Arsavir, the Arsavir who had married 79 Theoph. Continuatus, 154. Cf. Lebeau. Histoire du Bas-Empire 13. Paris, 1832, 14,

Note 3. Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 60, Note 3. His Armenian origin

is further indicated by his father's name, Pancratius, and by that of his brother's, Arfavir. See further: Cyril Mango, The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, English Translation, Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge, Mass., 1958, 240-243. Leo as relative or cousin of John: Theoph. Continuatus, 185; Cedrenus, 2, 166. For biographical references concerning the career of Leo see Mango, op. cit., 161-162. 14

V 212

Calomaria, the sister of Bardas and the empress Theodora80 These people appear, of course, thoroughly hellenized. Indeed it will be preposterous to call Photios anything but a Greek. Yet it may be asked whether their hellenization was not unaffected by their original background, whether in being absorbed they did not modify the culture which absorbed them. The number of Armenians subject to the Byzantine empire increased considerably in the period following the accession of Basil I to the throne. This was the result of two developments: the territorial expansion of the empire eastward and a movement westward by Armenians. The liquidation of the military resistance of the Paulicians effected finally in 872 by the destructions of Tephrike and the annihilation of the forces of Chrysochier, the Paulician chieftain, brought about the first important annexation. The Pauliclans were a religious sect which must have included elements of divers ethnic origins, but the Paulician strongholds which were now incorporated in the empire, were no doubt predominantly Armenian. To be sure, the surviving Paulicians were dispersed or entered the military ;organization of the empire to serve elsewhere, but the lands which they had been forced to abandon were soon to be occupied, under the aegis of the empire, by other Armenians. Besides, not all of the original inhabitants were removed. The inhabitants of the stronghold of Taranta, the modern Derende, which came to terms with the empire, certainly stayed and probably also some of those of Locana.81 Taranta is referred to as an Islamic city, but given its location in Paulician territory it must have also included Armenians among its inhabitants. As for Locana, it was no doubt inhabi-

ted predominantly by Armenians, for its chieftain was the Armenian Kourtikios (Kourterios) who now, together with his followers, entered the

services of the empire. 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 Cimizgezek-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. His former possessions, augmented by the addition of two districts, Kelzene and Kamacha, the one taken from the theme of Chaldia, the other eo Theoph. Continuatus, 175. Cf. Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 156, Note 1.

Artavir, Photius' uncle, must not be confused with Argavir, the brother of John the Grammarian. See Adontz, Role of the Armenians in Byzantine Science, Armenian Review, vol. 3, Ne 3 (1950) 66. at Theoph. Continuatus, 268; Cedrenus, 2, 207; J. G. C. Anderson, The Campaign of Basil 1. Against the Paulicians in 872 A. D. The Classical Review 10 (1896) 136 f.; E. Honlgmann, Die Ostgrenze des Byzantinischen Reiches. Brussels, 1935, 74.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

213

from that of Coloneia, and both Armenian speaking, were organized, sometime between 899 and 912, into the theme of Mesopotamia.83 The new theme was 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-su) where at a high point near the river, not far from Azizie,

the Ariaratheia of the Greek, on the road which went from Caesareia to Gurun and thence to Melitene, the fortress of Tzamandos was built.84 The initiative in this settlement was taken by several Armenian chieftains, 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 favor-

able 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 Lycanaz Theoph. Continuatus, 268; Cedrenus, 2, 207. 83 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ed. by Gy. Moravcsik and tr. into English by R. J. H. Jenkins. Budapest, 1949, 226-227; De Thematibus, ed. Pertusi, 73, and 139 f. for commentary by editor. Honigmann, op. cit., 69.

84 In the location of these regions I have followed Honigmann, op. cit. 55, 64-66, and Map lI at end of book. For the road system of Asia Minor see J. G. C. Anderson, The Road System of Eastern Asia Minor with the Evidence of Byzantine Campaigns, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 17 (1897) 22-44 and plate I at the end of the volume. Honigmann does not agree with Anderson In the location of certain places.

V 214

dos, 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 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, Simsat), located on the southern banks of the Arsanas further east, and its surroundings; and the country north of the Arsanas and east of the CimiAgezek-su. The Khanzit with Romanopolis was added to the theme of Mesopotamia,87 but Arsamosata and the region east of the Cimiggezek-su were organized into new themes known respectively as the Asmosaton88 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, Qaltgala) which was made the center of a new theme consisting of the country about 85 Const. Porphy., De Administrando Imperio, Moravcsik and Jenkins, 238-240. Bonn, 227-228; De Themattbus, Pertusi, 75-76, 143-146 (Bonn, 32-35) ; Honigmann, op. cit., 64. On Mellas: P. Kyriakides, To µokup(566oi,Xov roil arparriyou Mr? or, in 'eaiorgµovixA 'EnElML)IS riq $Lkoaopexi]c Exokti7S Too i1avETrLor7lpiov ©cooaXovLxrlc. Thessalonica, 1932,

320-326; Gregoire, Notes Opigraphiques, VII, Byzantion 8 (1933) 79 ff. Cf. John Mavrogordato, Digenes Akrites, III. Oxford, 1956.

as M. Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des H'amdanides de jariza et de Syrie. Paris, 1953, 736.

87 Const. Porphy., De Administrando Imperio, Moravcsik and Jenkins, 238 (Bonn, 226-227); De Thematibus, ed. Pertusi, 140. Honigmann, 70 and 90-92 for the location of Romanopolis. sa Const. Porhpy., De Administrando Imperio, ed. Moravcsik and Jenkins, 238 (Bonn, 226) ; Honigmann, op. cit., 77; Canard, op. cit., 737. 89 On Charpezikion: Const. Porphy., De Ceremontis, 662, 666, 667, 669; Honigmann, op. cit., 75-77. On Chozanon, Const. Porphy., De Administrando Imperio, Moravcsik and

Jenkins, 238 (Bonn. 226); Honigmann, op. cit., 77-78; Canard, op. cit., 782, Note 99.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

215

the source waters of the Euphrates and the Araxes 9° 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 Nlmrud to the west of Lake Van. Its capital was the city of Mug- 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 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 An-

tioch 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 went through the Cicilian Gates.93 It was anexed 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. Qne 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, 90 Yahy8 Ibn Said, tr. into French by M. Canard in Extraits des Sources Arabes. Brussels,

1950 (= Vastliev-Gregoire, Byzance et les Arabes, II, 2), 95; Honigmann, op. cit., 79, note 2, 230. 91 Cedrenus, 2, 375; Adontz, Notes Armeno-Byzantines, Byzantion 9 (1934) 374 f.; La Taronfes en Armenie et d Byzance, Byzantion 10 (1935) 541 f.; Honigmann, op. cit., 48 f.; Grousset, op. cit., 493 f.

92 Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, tr. Macler, 141; German translation, H. Gelzer and A. Burckhardt (Scriptores sacra et profani, 4). Leipzig, 1907, 196. 93 H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte and ungentlgend verbffentlichte Texte der Notitiae episcopatum, K. Akademle der Wissenschaften, Miinchen, Phil.-hist. Abteilung, Abhandlungen 51, Munich, 1901, 563, Note 2. Cf. Honigmann, op. cit., 68. 94 Fr. Tournebize, Histoire poiitique et religleuse de 1'Armdnle. Paris, 1900, 154. 95 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, tr. by E. A. W. Budge, Oxford, 1932, 1, 169.

V 216

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 Sebastela 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 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.99 To these we may add Georgians, 100 converted Saracens'°' and other peoples, who fiught on other occasions and whose numbers were by no means insignificant. Nevertheless, as one examines the various campaigns of the Byzan-

tine 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 96 Honigmann, Malatya, The Encyclopaedia of Islam 3. London, 1936, 194. Cf. Canard,

Histoire de la dynastle des H'amdanides..., 736. 97 Grbgoire, Notes epigraphlques, 82 f. 99 Bar Hebraeus, op. cit., 169. 99 Ibn ZSfir, tr. Canard, Extracts des Sources Arabes, 125; Dahabi, Ibid., 243 f.; Canard,

Histoire de la dynastie des H'amdanides..., 779. For Turks, Khorasanians and Khazars in Constantinople at the beginning of the tenth century: A. A. Vasiliev, Harum-Ibn Yahya and his Description of Constantinople, Seminarium Kondakovianum 5 (1932) 158. 100 Cedrenus, 2, 361.

101 Mas`udi, tr. Canard, Extraits des sources arabes, 34, 36, Tabari, Ibid., 12, Ibn Ilaugal, Ibid., 419-421. 102 Const. Porphy., De Ceremonlis, 1, 652 ff., 666 ff.; Leo Diaconus, op. cit., 14; G. Schlumberger, Un empereur byzantin au dtxiPme siecle: Nicdphore Phocas. Paris, 1890, 46.

103 Grbgoire, La carriPre du premier Nicephore_Phocas, 235 f., 251; Const. Porphy., De Ceremonlis, 1, 661.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

217

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 Syrian

campaigns of Nicephorus Phocas,107 and they constituted the principal backers of Bardas Skleros when in 976 he rebelled against Basil 11.108 While it will 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.108a 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 104 Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, op. cit., 45. Cf. Adontz, Samuel 1'Arrnenien, rot des Bulgares, Memoires de I'Academie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 38 (1938) 49. 105 Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des H'amdanides ..., 731 If. 106 Mutanabbi, tr. Canard, Extracts des Sources Arabes, 323. 107 Cedrenus, 2, 361; Bar Hebraeus, op. cit., 168; Canard, Histoire de la dynastte des H'amdanides..., 807, 822. 108 Cedrenus, 2, 419; Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, tr. Macler, 56; Adontz, Notes Armeno-Byzantines, 380; Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des H'amdanides..., 844-845. 1081 Nicephorus Phocas, De velitattone bellica. Bonn, 1828, with Leo Diaconus, 88; von Lingenthal-Zepos, lus Graecoromanum. Athens, 1931, 1, 247; Canard, Histoire de la dynastic des H'amdanldes ..., 822; 1. Laurent, Byzance et les Tures Seldjoucides daps 1'Asie occidentale jusqu'en 1081. Nancy, 1913, 52, Note 1.

V 218

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 a Slav because his mother was a Slav.109 Some modern scholars have taken

these references seriously and as a consequence have given to Basil a Slavic or Armeno-Slavic origin.110 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.111 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,112 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. 109 Tabari, tr. Canard, Extraits des Sources Arabes, 6; Eutychlus, Ibid., 25; Mas'Ildi, Ibid., 38, 395; Hamza al-Isfahdni, Ibid., 47; Ibn al-Atir, Ibid., 139; Sibt Ibn al-Gauzi, Ibid., 165.

110 See for instance, A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, 2nd ed. Madison, Wisconsin, 1952, 301.

111 For a thorough study of the origin and early career of Basil I; Adontz, L'Age et i'origine de 1'empereur Basile I, Byzantion 8 (1933) 475-550; 9 (1934) 223-260. 112 Adontz, La portee historique de l'oraison funebre de Basile 1 par son fils Leon VI le sage, Byzantion 8 (1933) 508 If.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

219

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. Romanus Lecapenus is said by the chroniclers to have been born in the Armeniac theme,113 but a modern scholar places his birth at Lakape (Laqabin), a place south of Melitene; hence his name Lecapenus.114 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.115 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 Constanti-

nople 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 113 Theophanes Continuatus, 419; Georgius Monachus, 91. 114 Gregoire, Notules, Byzantion, 8 (1933) 572 If. 115 Georgius Monachus, 841; Symeon Magister, 690; Theodosius Melitenus, 178. Con-

stantine Porphyrogenitus calls Romanus "a common, illiterate fellow" and not one among those who "have followed the Roman national customs from the beginning", De Administrando Imperio, ed. Moravcsik and Jenkins, 72 (Bonn, 88). See further Lindprand of Cremona, Works, tr. by E. A. Wright. New York, 1930, 119 ff.; 127.

V 220

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 aad gave to the empire its next Emperor, the man who sired the great Basil 11.116

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, Com9kacagh.1i7 John Curcuas, the commander (Domestic) of the Hikanatot who served under and plotted against Basil 1,118 was Tzimiskes' direct ancestor. The name of Tzimiskes' father is not known, but his 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 (Domes-

tic 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.119 Through

his mother he was related to the Phocades, one of the most powerful Byzantine families in the tenth century.120 His second wife was Theodora, the daughter of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Armenian Helen.121 It was his marriage to Theodora that gave to his occupation of the impe-

rial 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 118 On the reign of Romanus Lecapenus and the Lecapeni in general: S. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign. Cambridge, 1929. 117 Matthew of Edessa, Chronique, tr. from Armenian by E. Dulaurier (Bibliotheque historique Armenienne). Paris, 1858, 16, 374. Cf. Armenian version of Michael Syrus translated by V. Langlois, Chronique de Michel le Grand. Venice, 1868, 281; Leo Diaconus, op. cit., 92. 116 Theophanes Continuatus, 277; Cedrenus, 2, 213. Cf. A. Vogt, Basile le empereur de Byzance (867-886) et la civilisation byzantine d la fin du IX6 sidcle. Paris, 1908, 153. 119 Leo Diaconus, 117; Cedrenus 2, 384. 120 Leo Diaconus, 38, 99. 121 Ibid., 127.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

221

Phocas (963-969), another of the truly great soldier-emperors 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.122 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.123 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. 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 rippointed tumarch.124 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 carreer 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.125 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,126 but Bardas continued to serve the empire for many years. He was the father of the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas.127

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,128 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 Gregoire, 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 122 Georgina Buckler, A Sixth Century Botaniates, Byzantion 6 (1931) 409 f. 123 Attaliates, Historla. Bonn, 1853, 217 If. 124 Gregoire, La carrigre du premier Nicdphore Phocas, 250. 125 For details, Ibid., 232-250. 126 Cedrenus, 2, 285 1. 117 Ibid., 2, 285, 316, 327. 128 Cf. Adontz et Gregoire, Nicephore au col roide, Byzantion 8 (1933) 208.

V 222

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 which 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 futute Emperor, the other Leo. The Emperor Nicephorus had a son who died before his father became Emperor, whose name was Bardas 129 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.130 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.131

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 tumarch 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 tumarch 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 129 Cedrenus, 2: 351.

130 On all this see Adontz et Grdgoire, Nicdphore au col roide, 205 ft. 131 Cedrenus, 2: 726; Attaliates, 229. Cf. Buckler, op. cit., 407 if.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

223

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.132 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 others among

the military and political leaders of Byzantine 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, although 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, Christopher by name, who is said

to have directed his early education. His grandfather, named also John, was the Curcuas who, as commander (Domestic) of the Hikanatoi served under, and plotted against, Basil 1.133 The younger John Curcuas came into prominence with the rise to power 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 continously engaged against the Arabs and almost always with striking success.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 132 Attaliates, 220 ff. 133 Theophanes Continuatus, 426. 134 Ibid., 426 f. On the career of John Curcuas: Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, 135-150.

V 224

replaced by the patrician Pantherios, who, as a relative of Romanus Lecapenus, was probably also of Armenian origin.135 Descendants of John Cur-

cuas were prominent in the political and military life of the empire throughout the rest of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century.136

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 Musele 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.137 Meanwhile Romanus had married one of his daughters to a member of the Musele family, perhaps to Alexius himself, thus strengthening the Armenian element in the family. Born of this union was the magister Romanus Musele who served 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.138 Basil's act apparently impoverished the family. To the Musele family belonged also perhaps the Armenian Alexius who served as governor of Cyprus during the reign of Basil 1.139 Alexius was the favorite name in this family. The Musele family is also referred to as that of the Krinitae. The name Krinites is used for the first time in connection with the Alexius Musele 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 Krinitae were identical with the main Musele 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 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 135 Theophanes Continuatus, 429, Georgius Monachus, 917. 136 Theophanes Continuatus, 428; Cedrenus, 2, 347-348, 405, 483. 137 Theophanes Continuatus, 401; Georgius Monachus, 893-894. 138 Cedrenus 2, 343; Theophanes Continuatus, 443. Cf. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus. Lecapenus, 84. On the confiscation of the properties of Romanus Musele: von LingenthalZepos, 1, 266, Note 48. 139 Const. Porphy., De Thematibus, ed. Pertusl, 81.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

225

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.l4o

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 successfuly carried out.141 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,142 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.143 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;144 and his own grandson Basil, to a member of the Argyri, Pulcheria, the sister of Romanus, who later became emperor.195 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; 146 another took part in the conspiracy of the Anemas family against Alexius Comnenus.147 190 For a study of the Krlnitae; Adontz, Les Taronttes en Armdnte et d Byzance, Byzantion 10 (1935) 535-540. 141 Theophanes Continuatus, 358; Cedrenus, 2, 255. 142 Cedrenus 2, 417.

193 For details of the revolt of Bardas Skleros: G. Schlumberger, L'epopde byzantine, 1. Paris, 1896, 354 if.; 726 if. 144 Cedrenus, 2, 392. 145 Ibid. 2.: 483, 501; Michael Psellos, Chronographie, ed., E. Renauld. Paris, 1928-1928,

125, 142 = Constantine IX, ch. 15, ch. 50. Basil's daughter was married to Constantine IX before he had become emperor. Basil's granddaughter was the beautiful Sklerina who served Constantine IX as his mistress. Psellos, Idem. 146 Cedrenus, 2, 622.

147 Anna Comnena, 2, 155 (Bonn Edition); 3, 70 (Ed., B. Leib, Paris 1945). 15

Bw_antinoxlavica

V 226

Reference has already been made to the magister Stephen, the son of Calomaria and the Armenian Arsavir, who served as a member of the regency appointed to guide the state during the minority of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.148 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 paracoemomenus. Zaoutzes was an Armenian born in 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, ecclesiastical and political". 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.150 His death early in 896 was followed not long afterwards by that of his daughter. His family, threatened now with loss of power, plotted against the government but their plot was discovered and they were destroyed.151 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 152 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.153

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.154 Another, this one certainly an Armenian, was 148 See Note 66.

149 Vita Euthymit, ed. C. de Boor. Berlin, 1888, 2; edited with an English translation, P. Karlin-Hayter, Byzantlon 25-27 (1955-1957) 10. 150 Ibid. 3, 24 (de Boor); 12, 52 (Karlin-Hayter). 151 Cedrenus, 2, 258; Symeon Magister, 703. 152 Leo Diaconus, 48 f.; 94. -

153 See the sketch drawn of Basil by Psellos, ed. Renauld, 1, 3, 12. 154 Theophanes Continuatus, 305, 308, 307, 308.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

227

Adrian the patrician. Adrian must have been a person of some importance, for Romanus Lecapenus married his son Constantine to his daughter.155 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.156 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 involved in the plot to overthrow Romanus II in 691. 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.157 Kourtikes, known definitely to have been an Armenian and about whom more will be said below, was also a partisan of Ducas.158 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.159 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 family 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.ltO 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 Melemenjil.161

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 155 Ibid., 423; Georgius Monachus, 914. 156 Theophanes Continuatus, 382-383; Symeon Magister, 718-719; Georglus Monachus, 874-875. Cf. Adontz, Les Taronites en Armdnie et d Byzance, Byzantion 9 (1934) 737.

157 Adontz, Les Taronites en Armenie et d Byzance. Byzantlon 10 (1935) 532-534. 1,56 Cedrenus, 2: 280; Theophanes Continuatus, 383. 159 Cf. Adontz, Les fonds historiques de I'6popee byzantine Digenis Akritas. Byz. Zeitschr. 29 (1929-1930) 205 f. 160 See Note 85 for the pertinent references. 161 Mavrogordato, op. cit., LIII. 15.

V 228

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.162 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 attempt so seize power in 913.163 A Manuel Kourtikes helped to dethrone Romanus Lecapenus in 944 and was later made patrician and Drungartus of the Watch by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.164 Some years later a Michael Kourtikes was a naval commander and sided with Bardas Skleros in his revolt against Basil 11.165 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.166 Bourtzes was an Armenian. In 976 he was named Duke of Antioch, but soon after joined the rebellous 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.167 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 known member of the family, probably the grandson of the patrician Theodorokanos, was Constantine who died shortly after 1077. He had 162 Theoph. Continuatus, 358; Cedrenus, 2, 254. On this encounter with Symeon, Cf. S. Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire. London, 1930, 144 ff. 163 Cedrenus, 2, 260; Theoph. Continuatus, 383. 164 Theoph. Continuatus, 435, 436; Cedrenus, 2, 327. 165 Cedrenus, 2, 424, 427; Nicephorus Bryennius Commentarii, ed. A. Meineke, Bonn, 1836, 154, where a Basil Kourtikes is mentioned. 166 Ibid., 365-367. Cf. Adontz, Notes Armeno-byzantines. Byzantion 10 (1935) 184; W. H. Buckler, Two Gateway Inscriptions, Byz. Zeitschr. 30 (1929-30) 647-648. 167 Nicephorus Bryennius, 117; Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, ed. B. Leib, 1. Paris, 1937, 131; 3. Paris, 1945, 200 ff. The Bourtzes family used the Armenian name of Bardas: Anna Comnena, op. cit., 3, 200.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

229

opposed Nicephorus Bryennios in his attempt to become emperor, was captured by him and was sent into exile where 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.169 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 Damlanos whom we find Duke of Antioch in 995. He was killed in 998 fighting the Saracens. His four sons 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.

Adontz has written the history of another Byzantine family, this one certainly of Armenian origin.170 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.171 They are known to have held important positions down to the middle of the twelfth century.

A branch of the Toronites, the Tornikios family, survived still longer, ' On this family, see Adontz, Notes Armeno-byzantines, Byzantion 10 (1935) 161-170. Iss Ibid., 171-185. 170 Adontz, Les Taronites en Armdnte et d Byzance, Byzantion Q (1934) 715-73B.10 (1935) 531-551; 11 (1936) 21-42. Also, his Observations sur la genealogte des Taronites, Byzantion 14 (1939) 407-413. 171 Nicephorus, Melissenos, according to the French translation of Bryennius by H.

Gregoire, is said to have been related to the Bourtzes family on his father's side. This would indicate, that the Melissenol were also of Armenian origin: H. Gragoire, Ntcilphore Bryennios: Les quatre livres des histoires. Byzantion 23 (1953-1954) 480. It should be pointed out, however, that the Bonn edition of Bryennius (p. 24) has Moetiov5 not Bourtzes.

V 230

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).172 The John Tornikios who aided the imperial forces at the time of the rebellion of Bardas Skleros belonged to the Georgian branch of the family, in its origins also Armenian.173 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.174

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,175 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 172 Adontz, Les Taronites d Byzance. Byzantion 11 (1936) 30-42. 173 Paul Peeters, Un Colophone georgien de Thornik le moine. Anal. Boll. 50 (1932) 370-371; A. Adontz, Tornik le molne. Byzantion 13 (1938) 143-164. But cf. M. Tarchni4vili, Die Anjange der schriftstellerischen Tatigkeit des hl. Euthymius and der Aujstand von Bardas Skleros. Oriens Christianus 38 (1954) 117. See also R. P. Blake, Some Byzantine Accounting Practices. Harvard Studies iti Classical Philology 51 (1940) 14-16. 174 Adontz, Notes Armeno-byzantines. Byzantion 9 (1934) 377-382. 175 Ibid., 367-371.

The Armenians In the Byzantine Empire

V 231

literature of Byzantium.176 One might mention also the Georgian-Armenian families of Apocapes and Pacurianus, members of both of which are known

to have held important positions in the eleventh century.177 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. In their relations with Armenian chieftains the Byzantines developed the practice of having them yield their possessions to the empire in return for lands located elsewhere in the empire and also for titles and offices. It was an effective way, at least in some instances, of extending the frontier eastward and at the same time integrating recalcitrant elements into the military and political life of the empire. The practice may already be noted under Basil I when, it will be recalled, the Armenian Kourtikios, who turned Locana over to the empire, was given a place in the military organization of the empire. It may be noted under Leo VI when another Armenian chieftain, Manuel, ceded Tekis to the,empire Manuel, it will be recalled, moved to Constantinople where he was showered with honors while two of his sons were given new holdings in the region of Trebizond and the other two, important military commands. It was in this way too that the district of Taron had been definitely annexed to the empire in 966. The dispossessed princes were not always happy with the new arrange-

ment but they usually ended, as it has been pointed out above in connection with the Taronites, by Integrating themselves into the military and political life of the empire. This practice was applied on a large scale during the reign of Basil II and resulted in the annexation by the empire of virtually all Armenia. In most instances, the cessions were induced under pressure and not infrequently force was required to bring about actual annexation. The first important annexation thus made was the domain of the Curopolates David, a Georgian potentate of Armenian origin. The region known i7s M. Gy6rii, L'a?uvre de Kekaumenos, sources de l'histoire romaine, Rev. d'Hist.

Comparee, nouvelle serie, 3 (1945) 109-125. The relationship between Katakalon and the author Kekaumenos is not quite clear. See Gyoni's (op. cit., 126-128) review of the question. Concerning the Armenian origin of the Kekaumenoi see further Paul Lemerle, Prolegomdnes a une edition critique et commentee des s Conseils et REcits a de Kekaumenos (= Acad. Royale de Belgique. Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, M6moires, 56). Brussels, 1960, 20 if. 177 On membres of the family of Apocapes, Vryonis, The will of a Provincial Magnate, Eustathius Bollas (1059), Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 11 (1957) 274 f. The most distinguished

member of the family of Pacurianus was Gregory (d. 1086) who held very important positions and whose extensive properties are known in detail. Lous Petit, Typikon de Gregoire Pacourianos pour le monastere de Petritzos (Bat:kovo) en Bulgarle, BH3. BpeM. 11 (Supplement 1) (1904). On the origins and career of Gregory: p. VI If. Though he served the Byzantine empire and served it well, Pacourlanus never forgot his GeorgianArmenian origins. The monastery of Petzitzos which he founded was to house only Georgian monks. Greeks were specifically forbidden to become members of it. Ibid., 44.

V 232

as the Taik constituted the core of his territories, but the latter extended from Manzikert, north of Lake Van, to Erzerum on the upper Euphrates

and northward to the district of Kola and Artans, northwest of Kars. David had aided Basil II at the time of the revolt of Bardas Skleros, but some years later he sided with Bardas Phocas when the latter rose in revolt against the same Emperor (987). It was no doubt in order to escape the vengeance of the victorious Emperor that David made him his heir so that when he died in 1000, apparently the victim of poison, administered perhaps at the instigation of the Emperor, his realm was annexed to the empire and became the theme of Iberia.tlt The annexation of Taik was followed some years later (1022) by that of Vaspurakan. Vaspurakan, which extended from Lake Van to the Araxes and to the chain of mountains which today separates Turkey from Iran, was ceded to the empire apparently because its king, Senacherim, was no longer able to withstand the various foreign and internal pressures, especially the invasion of the Seljuk Turks. The newly annexed country was organized into a catepanate, I. e., a frontier province.179 The annexation of Vaspurakan had hardly been completed when Basil li received a bequest which resulted eventually in the acquisition of another

Important Armenian territory. The bequest same from Sempad (Smbat) cf Ani, King of Greater Armenia who, having sided with Georgi, the King of the nascent Georgian feudal monarchy, against Basil, had become rather uneasy concerning the intentions of the Byzantine Emperor. Its substance

was that while Sempad would continue to rule his realm until his death, the Byzantine emperor was to be his successor. When Sempad died in 1041, however, he was succeeded by his nephew Gagik who, while ready to acknowledge the suzerainty of the emperor, refused to turn his kingdom over to the empire. But the pressures which were brought to bear against him were in the end too strong and he was forced to abdicate. Thus, Ani and the Kingdom of Greater Armenia were annexed to the empire in 1045.180 About the same time Gregory Pahlavuni, a learned Armenian better known as Gregory the Magister, yielded to the empire the stronghold of Bgni, located some distance to the east of Ani on the 178 Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des Byzantinischen Reiches, 155 ff.; R. Grousset, Histoire

de I'Armgnie, 529-535; Schlumberger, L'epopee Byzantine, 2. Paris, 1900, 159-165. But

see Z. Avalichvili who denies that either Basil II or the pro-Byzantine faction in the

entourage of David had anything to do with, the death of David. La succession du Curopalate David d'Iberie, dynaste de Tao. Byzantion 8 (1933) 190 ff. 178 Continuator of Thomas Ardzrouni, Histoire des Ardzrounl, tr. by M. Brosset, Collection d'Historiens Armeniens, 1. St. Petersburg, 1874, 248; Samuel of Ani, Table Chronologique, tr. by Brosset, Collection ..., 2, 1876, 443; Cedrenus, 2: 464; Grousset, op. cit., 553 ff.; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 168 ff.; Schlumberger, Epopee ... 2: 500 ff. 180 Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 78. Aristakes of Lastivert, Histoire d'Armenie, tr. by E. Prud'homme. Paris, 1864, 69-70; Continuator of Thomas Ardzrouni, op. cit., 248; Cedrenus, 2, 559; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze ..., 175, n. 3; Grousset, op. cit., 556 ff., 577 ft.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

233

Churastan (Hurastan) river.181 And in 1064 Gagik, prince of Kars, also ceded his possessions to Byzantium.182 Thus virtually all Armenia had now become an integral part of the Byzantine empire. The newly acquired land was, of course, inhabited predominantly by Armenians. There were also some Georgians and perhaps elements of other nationalities, but there were no Greeks. This at least, is the impression given by the statement of a native of the theme of Cappadocia, obviously Greek-speaking, who had migrated to Taik about the middle of the eleventh century. "I became an emigrant," he writes, "and

I went a distance of one and one-half weeks from my fatherland. And I settled among alien nations with strange religion and tongue." Among the "alien nations" to which he alludes, he mentions only the Armenians.183

The Armenian princes whose territories were annexed were settled and given lands elsewhere in the empire. Thus Senacherim, the former king of Vaspurakan, together with his three sons, was settled in Sebasteia where he was given extensive possessions. Other lands located in Larissa on the upper Tochma-su, Abara or Amara, placed by Honigmann on the road from Sebasteia to Melitene, somewhat to the northeast of the latter, and Gabadonia, today Develi, south of Caesarea, were also given to him.184 Gagik, the former king of Ani, was given extensive new possessions in the themes of Cappadocia, Charsianon and Lycandos.18 Gregori Pahlavuni and Gagik

of Kars were also similarly rewarded. The new lands given to Gregory were located in the theme of Mesopotamia,186 while those of Gagik of Kars

were scattered in various places, some located at Tzamandos, others at Larissa and still others at Amasia and Comana. Gagik fixed his residence at Tzamandos.187 The Armenian princes were also honored with important titles. Senacherim was named patrician,188 Gagik of Ani, magister,189 Gre-

gory Pahlavuni magister and dux of Mesopotamia and in addition was entrusted with the administration of a part of Taron, Sasun and Vaspurakan.190

The displaced Armenian princes took along with them to their new 181 Aristakes of Lastivert, op. cit., 67-68; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 175. 182 Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 126; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze ... 188, n. S. 183 Vryonis, The will of a Provincial Magnate..., 264, 265. The existence of Greek dedicatory inscription in the regions to which this text refers does no alter meaningfully the ethnic situation which it indicates. Cf. Lemerle, op. cit., 29 ff. 184 Cedrenus, 2, 464; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 173, n. 4. 185 Cedrenus, 2, 559; Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 78; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze ..., 175, n. 3. 186 Aristakes of Lastivert, op. cit., 67-68; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 175. 187 Matthew

of Edessa, op. cit., 126; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 188, n. 6.

188 Cedrenus, 2, 464; Aristakes of Lastivert, op. cit., 31, n. 4. 169 Cedrenus, 2, 559.

190 Aristakes of Lastivert, op. cit., 67-68; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 175.

V 234

domicile, besides their families, a numerous retinue consisting primarily of their nobility and the latter's following. So numerous indeed was the nobility that followed their princes that their going is said to have emptied Armenia of the most valiant elements of its population. The Greeks, wrote Matthew of Edessa, "Dispersed the most courageous children of Armenia."191 "Their most constant care was to scatter from the orient all that there was of courageous men and valiant generals of Armenian origin."192 Of the actual number involved in this displacement no figure can be given. The national Armenian historian Tchamtchian puts those who followed Senacherim to his new domicile at 400,000193 and this figure has been repeated by others,194 but there is nothing in the existing sources which bears this figure out. All that we have is the figure of a medieval Armenian historian who says that Senacherim was followed by 18,000 of his compatriots, not counting the women and children.195 But whatever the final figure, there can be little doubt that the number of Armenians who left

their homes and settled elsewhere in the empire was a large one. The repeated raids of the Seljuk Turks which began in earnest about this time increased this number still more, and gave to the movement of the Armenians away from their native homes the aspect of a mass migration. The chroniclers who report this movement no doubt exaggerate in their descriptions,196 but their accounts, after allowance has been made for this exaggeration, remain nevertheless impressive. Armenians by the thousands left their homeland and went to settle in northern Syria, in Cappadocia, and in Cilicla where they laid the basis for the foundation later in the eleventh century of new Armenian principalities and, toward the end of the twelfth century, of the feudal kingdom of Little Armenia.

When the Armenians began to move into Cappadocia, Cilicia, and northern Syria sometime after the middle of the tenth century, they were, no doubt, as we have already observed, encouraged by the imperial author-

ities, anxious to repeople the various towns newly captured from the Saracens, particularly in Cilicia and northern Syria, which had suffered considerable losses in population as the result of the departure of most of the Moslems. Their displacement in the eleventh century served a similar purpose, but its primary objective was to assure the peaceful control of the newly acquired Armenian lands by removing the various elements that might be a source of trouble. This was traditional Byzantine 191 Matthew of Edessa, op. Lit., 113. 192 Ibid., 114.

193 Michael Tchamtchian, History of Armenia (In Armenian) 2. Venice, 1785, 903: I consulted Tchamtchian's work with the help of Professor Sirarple der Nersessian. 194 M. Brosset in Lebeau-Saint-Martin, Histoire du Bas-empire 14. Paris, 1838, 211. Tournebize, Histoire politique et religieuse de L'Armenie, 124. 195 Continuator of Thomas Ardzrouni, op. cit., 248. 196 For Instance Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 182.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

235

policy which had often worked. This time, however, it proved to be one of the major factors in the breakdown of Byzantine authority in Asia Minor. For the displacement of the Armenians coming as it did at a time when their homeland was being subjected to the repeated raids of the Seljuks had removed the element which, fighting for its native land, might have checked these raids. But more important, the displacement of the Armenians weakened the position of the empire in the regions in which they were settled. For, in some of these regions as, for instance, in Cappadocia, their settlement disturbed the social and ethnic complexion and so created serious tensions, while in others, as for instance, Cilicia and northern Syria, the new settlers were ready to start separatist movements the moment the opportunity presented itself. What particularly contributed to the development of tension between the Armenian element and the rest of the population were the ecclesiastical problems which the annexation of the Armenian lands and the consequent dispersion of the Armenians had created. There had always been heretical groups in the empire, but orthodoxy, as it finally crystalized, had come to prevail as one of the unifying forces of the empire-the Greek language and the imperial tra-

dition were the other two-but now for the first time since the loss of Egypt and Syria in the seventh century there was a powerful religious minority, dominant in certain regions of the empire, very strong in others. Both church and state were very much concerned about this situation and, as a consequence, brought pressure to bear upon the Armenians to accept the orthodox point of view. But the Armenians, whose cultural and national development was strongly associated with their religious beliefs and

practices, resisted stubbornly. As a result, the efforts of the Byzantine church to bring them in line made of them dubious subjects.198 The Arme-

nian element in the Byzantine army was as dominant as ever, but one could no longer be sure of its loyalty.199 Equally questionable was the loyalty of the civil population.200 Still the number of Armenians holding important military commands in the eleventh is as impressive as that of 197 On the expansion of the Armenians: Attaliates, 96-97, 137; Cedrenus, 2, 826; Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 182; Michael Syrus, 3, 133, 173, 187, 198; St. Narses of Lampron in Recueil des Historians des Croisades: Documents Armr niens 1. Paris, 1869, 576. 198 On the religious tension between Greeks and Armenians see now; Speros Vryonis,

Byzantlnum: The Social Basis of Decline in the Eleventh Century, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 2 (1959) 169 ff. It must be pointed out, however, that there were Armenians even in the eastern regions of the empire, the so-called Tzatoi, who accepted Orthodoxy as defined by Constantinople: Ibid., p. 169, n. 21; I. Doens, Nicon de la Montagne Noire, Byzantion 24 (1954) 134; P. Peeters, Orient et Byzance. Le Trd/onds Oriental de l'hagiographie Byzantine. Brussels, 1950, 163.

199 At Mentzikert the Armenian contingents in the Byzantine army deserted the Byzantine cause: Michael Syrus, op. cit., 3, 169; cf. Attaliates, 113. 200 Romanus IV Diogenes took special measures to protect his troops from the attacks of the Armenians; Attaliates, 135.

V 236

any other century.201 And if many of them did not integrate themselves definitely into the social, political, and military life of the empire as in the past it was largely because of the changed political conditions in Asia Minor.

The defeat of the Byzantine army by the Seljuks at the battle of Mentzikert in 1071 coupled with the civil wars which followed in Byzantium resulted In the definite loss by the empire of eastern and central Asia Minor. This loss included, of course, the regions inhabited by the Armenians. To be sure a territory of considerable extent, stretching from Tarsus in Cilicia to the mountainous country of the upper Pyramus (Gaihan) around Albistan and Marag. (Germaniceia) and thence eastward to take in the Mesopotamian regions of the empire around Melitene, Rumanopolis and Edessa and also into Syria to include Antioch, remained for a while, at least nominally, under the jurisdiction of the empire. It was in this territory, it will be recalled, that the Armenians, who had left their homes in connection with the great migration of the late tenth and the eleventh century, had settled. The territory had been salvaged by the Armenian Philaretus who at the time of the battle of Mentzikert was in the service of the empire and bore the title of Great Domestic. Philaretus acted at first as an independent ruler, but, beginning with 1078, he seems to have acknowledged the suzerainty of the Byzantine emperor and was given in return the title of curopalates.202 It was not long, however, before his domain disintegrated. Antioch fell to the Turks in 1084; Edessa and Melitene continued for some time longer to be ruled by Armenian potentates who bore Byzantine titles but who in reality had no effective connections with the empire. But these too were finally lost. Edessa fell to the Crusaders under Baldwin in 1098;203 Melitene to the Danishmend Turks in 1101.204 Only in Cilicia, where other Armenian chieftains had established themselves, were the Byzantines under the Comneni in the twelfth century able to reassert their authority, but even here, though Armenian barons might fight in their armies and Armenians might refer to their emperors as "our emperors",206 their hold on the Armenian population was always precarious. 201 Cf. J. Laurent, Byzance et les Turcs Seld/oucides daps l'Asle occidentale Jusqu'en 1081. Nancy, 1913, 38 ff. 202 On Philaretus: J. Laurent, Byzance et Antioche sous le curopalate Philarete, Rev.

des Et. Armdniennes 9 (1929) 61-72.

203 J. Laurent, Des Grecs aux Crosses. Etude sur l'histolre d'Edesse entre 1071 et 1098, Byzantion 1 (1924) 367-449.

204 Honigmann, Malatya, The Encyclopaedia of Islam 3 (1936) 195. 205 Sempad, Chronfque de royaume de la Petite Armdnie, tr. E. Dulaurier, Recuell des Historiens des Croisades: Documents Armeniens 1. Paris, 1869, 619. 206 Gregory the Priest, Chronfque, tr. Dulaurier, Ibid., 154. Also note 2 on same page

for other references to sources to the effect that the Armenians of Cilicia recognized the suzerainty of the empire.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

237

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. 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.207 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 1138.208 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 exaggeration, it does serve to indicate that the Armenian colony around Abydus and in the valley of the Scamander was a numerous one.209 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.210 207 P. Charanis, On the Ethfe Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor In the Thirteenth Century, llpoo(popd et5 Ertl,lwva H. KUQLOX 8T1v. Thessalonica, 1953, 142 ff. 201 Gregory the Priest, op. cit., 152 f.

209 P. Charanis, On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor..., 144. z10 Anna Comnena (Bonn) 2, 298 f.; Nicetas Choniates, Historta. Bonn, 1835, 527, 534;

V 238

There were Armenians in most of the large towns of the empire. They were particularly numerous in Constantinople211 and also in Thessalonica where they are known to have possessed in the thirteenth century a church of their own.212 But besides the Armenians who lived in Thessalonia 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 Dupnirca 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 Pcinja.213 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.

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."214 And elsewhere in the same paper: "There it is how at the hour of danger, Geoffrol de Ville-Hardouin, La Conqutte de Constantinople, edited and translated into modern French by M. Natalis de Wailly. Paris, 1872, 239. 211 For Armenians in Constantinople: Michael Syrus, op. cit., 3, 185, 186. 212 Fr. Miklosich et J. Miller, Acta et Dlplomata Graeca, 3. Vienna, 1865, B9; cf. Charanis, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire under the First Palaeologi, Speculum, 22 (1947) 76 f. 213 C. Jiredek, Geschichte der Bulgaren. Prague 1876, 222. The presence of Armenians

in the region of Moglena at least during the reign of Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180) is known from the Vita of St. Hilarios, bishop of Moglena, which was composed In the fourteenth century by Euphemius, the Bulgarian patriarch of Trnovo. It Is stated there that Hilarios launched a violent persecution against numerous heretics, Manichaeans, Bogomiles and Armenians: Jire6ek, Review of G. WeigELnd's, Vlacho-Meglen, Eine ethnographisch-philologische ilntersuchung, in Archiv f. sl. Philol. 15 (1893) 98. 214 J. Laurent, Les or!gines medieuales de la question Armdntenne, Rev. des Et. Armbniennes 1 (1920) 47.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

239

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."215

Another scholar who himself points out the distrust and dislike of the Armenians for the Byzantine empire has called this statement "fantastic nonsense". 216 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 217 There is no doubt either, as the reader already knows and later generations among the Armenians acknowledged,218 that this hostility between Greeks and 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 any one 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 eight centuries, when the empire was figthing 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', be215 Ibid., 49.

216 Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus..., p. 165, n. 2. 217 Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 152-154. For a poem of the ninth century expressing the hatred of the Greeks against the Armenians: Vryonis, Byzantium: The Social Basis Of Decline in the Eleventh Century, 173. 218 F. Macler, Erzeroum ou topographie de la haute Armdnie, Journ. Aslatique, 11th series 13 (1919) 223. Macler quotes an Armenian writer of the seventeenth century who

says in effect: The Armenians hated the Greek, the Greeks hated the Armenians and so God sent the Turks.

V 240

cause 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 possibly the preservation of this 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.

V1

A NOTE ON THE ETHNIC ORIGIN OF THE EMPEROR MAURICE

Nicholai Adontz was no doubt the foremost scholar in the study of the role of the Armenian element in the Byzantine empire. Time and time again by the most meticulous examination of the sources, both Greek and Armenian, he tried to

show that many of the great personalities in the political and military life of the empire were in reality Armenian or of Armenian descent (1). Some of his conclusions have been

definitely accepted ; some are still in a state of controversy. To this latter category belongs his view that among the great personalities of Armenian origin who served the empire we must also include the emperor Maurice (2). This view had been expressed before, but it was Adontz who called it to the attention of the scholarly world. He was,

of course, aware of the literary tradition, both Greek and Armenian, which held Maurice to have been Armenian, but he chose to concentrate his study on the place of origin of the Byzantine emperor. On the place of origin of Maurice there are conflicting tra-

ditions. A whole array of sources, Greek, Latin, Oriental, make Arabissus in Cappadocia his home ; on the other hand there is an Armenian tradition which has him come from Ta-

ron, while another makes him a native of O§akan, near Ejmiacin, roughly about fifteen miles to the west of Lake (1) For a partial listing of Adontz's studies on the role of the Armenians in the Byzantine empire see P. CHAAANIS, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 1963), 62. (2) N. ADONTZ, Les legendes de Maurice el de Conslanlin V, empereurs de Byzance, Annuaire de l'Institul de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales de l'Universild Libre de Bruxelles, II (= Melanges Bidez, 1), (1934), 2-12.

VI THE ETHNIC ORIGIN OF THE EMPEROR MAURICE

413

Sevan in the province of Ararat. The Taron tradition, according to Adontz, may very well be a confusion with that relating to the origin of Basil I, but that about O§akan is much more serious. On the other hand Arabissus as the original home of Maurice has too much backing by the sources to be entirely rejected. Adontz, therefore, comes to the conclusion that the family of Maurice originally came from O§akan and that at some time they moved to Arabissus where Maurice was born. Coming from Osakan, Armenian country, they were, of course, Armenians, but it is quite possible that at Arabissus they may have intermarried with other elements. Adontz, indeed, concedes this possibility, but insists on the Armenian origin of Maurice's father. Accordingly, Maurice was at least half-Armenian, but half-Armenian on his father's side. Henri Gregoire, who in matters pertaining to Armenians in the Byzantine empire usually followed his distinguished colleague, accepted this conclusion (1).

It was not long, however, before the view of Adontz was seriously challenged. In a long article, which may be described as a monograph, P. Goubert, who may now be described as the special historian of the reign of Maurice, offered several

arguments why the view of Adontz cannot be accepted (2). In the first place he refers to and analyzes a whole array of sources which make Arabissus the original home of Maurice and concludes that the testimony of these sources cannot be lightly rejected. He cites the passage in Paul the Deacon which

states that Maurice was the first emperor of Greek origin to ascend the throne. Paul the Deacon, who was a contemporary of Charlemagne, may have considered Maurice a Greek simply because he was born in Asia Minor and followed on the throne

a series of emperors who came originally from the Latin re(1) H. GRAGOIRE, Sainte Euphemie el l'empereur Maurice, Le Museon, 59 (1949) (= Melanges L. Th. Lefort), 2. (2) P. GOUBEAT, S.J., Maurice et l'Armenie. Note sur le lieu d'origine et la famille de l'Empereur Maurice, Echos d'Orient, 39 (1940), 383-413.

See also by the same author, Byzance avant l'Islam, I

(Paris, 1951), 34-41. I shall dispense with the necessity of giving

all the references to the sources. They may be found in the work of Goubert.

VI 414

gions of the Balkan peninsula. For this reason Goubert does

not insist too much on the significance of his statement. Still, he admits the possibility of a Latin father and a Greek mother. Continuing his examination, Goubert next analyzes the names borne by the various members of the family of Maurice and finds that none of them was of Armenian origin. He refers to the distrust and hostility which Maurice bore

towards the Armenians and points out that the important Armenian historian, Sebeos, who was almost a contemporary,

nowhere says that Maurice was Armenian in origin. On the

other hand, another contemporary closer to the reign of Maurice, the ecclesiastical historian Evagrius, who wrote, of course, in Greek, states that Maurice derived his name and origin from old Rome (1). Goubert considers the statement

of Evagrius decisive and concludes that there was nothing Armenian about Maurice, that he was of Latin origin with the possibility that his mother may have been a Greek. When I wrote my study on the Armenians in the Byzantine empire, I tended to follow Goubert and consequently rejected

Adontz's view that Maurice was Armenian in origin (2). Having re-studied the problem, I no longer hold this view. Goubert's arguments are by no means conclusive. That Maurice was a native of Arabissus there can be, I think, no doubt, but in the sixth century one could be a native of Arabissus and still be of Armenian origins for, as Goubert himself admits, there was by then a considerable number of Armenians

in the region where Arabissus was located. The silence of Sebeos is of no great significance, for the same writer fails to notice the fact that Heraclius was of Armenian origins. Nor is the fact that everyone in the family of Maurice bore a Greek or Roman name an indication of the ethnic origin of the family for, as I have pointed out elsewhere, in the Graeco-Roman east a Greek or Roman name was by no means an (1) The exact text of Evagrius: Xereorovel 6i Tjc Eciac oreart)ydv Maueixrov, lAmov'ra ,aiv yhos gal Toivopa 99

Tflc

'P(L)/4115, ig 6i True neoaaxruv naTiemv 'Aeal4raa6v ,rarei8a 1nu7Pag6µ6vov

rov Kairaraboxruv t9vovc. EvAGRIus, Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. BIDEZ and L. PARMENTIER, (London, 1898), 214. (2) Op. cit., 14.

VI THE ETHNIC ORIGIN OF THE EMPEROR MAURICE

415

indication of the ethnic origin of the person who bore it (1). There is no doubt that Maurice distrusted the Armenians,

but at the same time he admired their war-like qualities. This only means that he had some knowledge of their defects and qualities and he may have had this knowledge because he was one of them. In any case, it does not necessarily follow, as Goubert would like to have us believe, that Maurice's distrust of, and hostility toward, the Armenians is evidence to the effect that he himself was not Armenian. There is, of course, the passage in Evagrius which on the face of things appears decisive, but this decisiveness may be more apparent than real. In Byzantium, where the prestige of Rome was high, many a family which had achieved some

distinction may have tried to show that by origin it was connected with the old city. There is some evidence for this, although this evidence belongs to later centuries. As an example, we may give the tradition concerning the origin of the great family of the Phocades (2). According to this tradition, the Phocades of the tenth century were an old family, 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. Legends such as this must have begun early, fostered by families which achieved distinction, but which, like the Phocades of the tenth century, were of obscure origin. It is very probable indeed that the passage in Evagrius concerning the ethnic origin of

Maurice may reflect the existence of such a legend. Maurice's family may not have been by origin entirely obscure - his mother had a brother who served ask bishop of Arabissus - but what gave it distinction was the career of Maurice himself. Since the foundation of Constantinople, Maurice, with the exception of Zeno - and Zeno was not particularly distinguished - was the only emperor who came from Asia (1) Ibid., 38. (2) ATTALIATES, Historia (Bonn, 1853), 217 ff. Cf. CHARANIS, op. cit., 39: For other examples see F. DOLGER, Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner, Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, 56 (1937),

P. 9, n. 16. This article is reprinted in F. Do GER, Byzanz and die europaische Staatenwelt (1953), 70-115.

VI 416

Minor. All the others had originally come from the Latinized regions of the Balkan peninsula, Pannonia, and Spain. This

is something that may have bothered Maurice's immediate family and so led them to propagate the notion that they were originally from Rome. Goubert's argument that the latinizing tendencies of Maurice's immediate family offers another indication that they were originally from Rome may indeed prove the opposite. But more decisive than the arguments offered here against the Roman origin of Maurice is the existence of the Greek tradition to the effect that he was Armenian. To the texts cited by Goubert, I may add another, the anonymous Chronicle published by Franz Cumont in 1894 and made famous by the fact that it gives the precise date of the first Russian attacks against Constantinople (1). The Greek texts which report this tradition are, of course, late, removed by several centuries from the reign of Maurice ;

but they must derive from an earlier source, no longer extant. In any case, whatever the source, the origin of this tradition needs to be explained. Goubert has indeed attempted to explain it, but his explanation appears to me unsatisfactory. What he says in effect is this : Maurice was a native

of Arabissus ; Arabissus was located in that part of Cappadocia which during the sixth century was a part of the province known as Armenia II and then during the reign of Maurice as Armenia I. And so Maurice, a native of Armenia I, an artificially created administrative unit, could be called Armenian. The explanation is too superficial. Byzantine chroniclers often erred, often confused their material, and often used archaic ethnic appellations. They refer to Cappadocians, Phrygians, Mysians, etc., long after these peoples ceased to be identifiable ethnic entities. But with the Armenians it was much different. They were a vital, living ethnic group, very much in evidence with whom Byzantium had important relations both externally and internally. And so

(1) Franz GUMONT, Anecdota Bruxellensia. I. Chroniques byzantines du manuscrit 11376 (Gand, 1894), 29: Mavetxtoc ... zip yeves 'Ae i vcoc.

VI THE ETHNIC ORIGIN OF THE EMPEROR MAURICE

417

when Byzantine chroniclers refer to someone as Armenian,

it is a matter that cannot be dismissed lightly, especially when it finds some corroboration in the Armenian literary tradition. This is, of course, the case in the matter of the ethnic origin of Maurice. Goubert, in rejecting the texts, both Greek and Armenian, which give to Maurice an Armenian origin, gives what he considers solid evidence why he does so. But this evidence may be given as it has been given here, an interpretation which does not support his view. In other words it is not decisive as against the testimony of the texts which he rejects. Maurice must be accepted, therefore, as the first Byzantine emperor of a series of emperors, some of whom gave lustre

to the political and military life of the empire, to have been of Armenian origin. But while accepting this, one should never forget that in Byzantium the ethnic origins of a person was of no significance, provided he integrated himself into its cultural life. In other words, provided he had become a

Greek - not a Greek, of course, as of the classical period but a Greek nevertheless, one who had come to share Greek culture as that culture had evolved through the centuries (1). Isn't this in the final analysis how Isocrates defined a Greek?

(1) Cf. CRARANIS, op. cit., 57.

VII

THE SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR IN THE THllITEENHT CENTURY

The Byzantine empire was never in its long history a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. The conquests of the Arabs in the seventh century deprived the empire of huge blocks of non Greek-speaking elements and gave to it an aspect which was more Greek than ever before. But the incursions of the Slavs in the European possessions of the empire in the same century introduced new racial elements and lessened what homogeneity may have existed there. In Asia Minor also there were important ethnic groups which were hardly touched by Hellenism.

The situation was further complicated by the settlement through the action of the government of foreign elements in different parts of the empire and the transfer of the inhabitants from one part to another. Indeed, only during the last years of the empire when it was restricted to Constantinople, Thessalonica, Mistra and a few islands of the Aegean was the empire ethnically completely Greek (1). To the Byzantine empire of the thirteenth century belonged that part of Asia Minor which had been occupied in ancient times by the Greeks on the coast and by Thracians, Mysians, Bithynians, Lydians, Phrygians in the interior. But already by the time of Strabo it was difficult to identify these peoples, for the process of hellenization had gone very far (1). Yet in the rural communities of the interior there remained many elements which were only superficially touched by Hellenism (1) On the ethnic composition of the empire during the tenth century, see A. RAMBAUD, L'empire grec au dixieme siecle (Paris,

1870), 209-253. (2) STRAao, XIV, 5, ?r3.

VII 70

as the various heresies during the early centuries of Christian-

ity indicate (1). The triumph of Orthodoxy doubtless aided the hellenizing process, but the ethnic situation was again complicated by the settlement of new peoples during the early Middle Ages.

The most important of these settlements were those of the Slavs. The first Slavs were settled in Bithynia sometime

during the first half of the seventh century, during or before the reign of Constans II (642-668). This is known from a lead seal (2) which has been dated as of 650 and the statement of Theophanes that five thousand Slavs deserted to the Saracens in 665, when the latter made an incursion in Asia Minor, and were settled by them in Syria (3). More important were the Slavonic settlements in Bithynia which were established by Justinian II following his successful expedition against the Slavs in Macedonia in 688 (4). The Slavs involved were numerous, « multitudes », says Theophanes, and a modern (1) W. M. CALDER, ((The epigraphy of the Anatolian heresies n, Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester, 1923), 64. (2) B. A. PANCHENKO, a Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii VII. v., n Bulletin de l'Institut Archdologique a Constantinople, 8 (Sofia, 1903), 1ff ; the legend reads (Ibid., 25) r6v avdea; advtwv cxdafldwv BiOvvav Enae%lac.. Schlumberger reads the legend as follows : ruiv dvaeandaruv T6 V oxlafldwv

BtOvvruv e'naeX(ac,

and translates:

(sceau) des esclaces (mercenaires) slaves de l'dparchie de Bithynie. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 12 (1903), 277. Panchenko with good reasons dates the seal as of 650, p. 27. G. OSTROGORSKY (C'eschichte des

byzantinischen Staates, p. 85, n. 3) dates the seal as of 694/95 and H. Grtgoire follows him : Grdgoire, aUn edit de 1'empereur JustinienII*, Byzantion, 17 (1944-45), 123. But as 20,000 of the Slavs settled in

Bithnynia in 688 or shortly after deserted to the Arabs in 692 and

the bulk of the remaining were slaughtered by Justinian II the date given by Ostrogorsky for the seal may be questioned. (3) THEOPHANES, Chronographia, edited by C. de Boor., 1 : 348.

From this reference in Theophanes it cannot be known whether the Slavs in question had been settled in Bithynia. All that 'rheophanes says is that the Sarecens made an expedition in 'Pw,uavia and the

Slavs deserted to them. But as the expedition was obviously by land, by `Pw,uavia Theophanes obviously means Asia Minor. (4) Ibid., 364 ; Nicephorus, Opuscula Historica, edited by C. deBoor (Leipzig, 1880), 36,

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN 13YZANTINE ASIA MINOR

71

Russian scholar has estimated them at no less than 80,000 men (1), and another at 250,000, including men, women and children (2). All that can be said, however, is that these Slavs were sufficiently numerous to enable Justinian II, shortly after he had settled them in Bithynia, to raise an army of 30,000 among them. At least that is what Theophanes says (3). About seventy years later, during the reign of Constantin V (741-775), another mass of Slavs, 208,000 according

to one chronicler (4), were settled in Asia Minor about the Artanas river, a little stream which flows into the Black sea west of the Sangarius and not far from the Bosphorus. In 1129 or 1130 additional Slavs were transplanted to Asia Minor.

They were Serbian prisoners whom John II settled in the neighbourhood of Nicomedia, assigned them land, enrolled those who could bear arms in the army, and subjected the others to taxation (11). These Serbes were doubtless the inhabitants of the servochoria which are mentioned in the Partitio regni graeci at the beginning of the thirteenth centtury (6).

Russian scholars have attributed to the Slavs a role of major importance in the history and development of the in-

stitutions of the Byzantine empire. A theory particularly developed by them is that the free village community which

was the characteristic feature of the rural structure of the Byzantine empire from the seventh century onward was a Slavic institution adopted by the Byzantines at the time of the establishment of the Slavic settlements in the empire ('). (1) V. J. LAMANSKY, 0 Slavianakh v Maloi Azii v Afrikie i v Ispanii in Uchenyia Zapiski II old. Imp. Akademii Nauk, 5 (St.

Petersbourg, 1859), 3.

(2) Th. N. IJSPENSKY, o K istorii krest'ianskago zemlevladieniia v. Vizantii ), in Zhurnal Ministerstva Prosvieshcheniia, 225 (St.

Petersbourg, 1883), 319. (3) THEOPHANES, op. cit., 1: 366. (4) NICEPHORUS, op. cit. 68 f. (5) Nicetas CHONIATES, Historia (Bonn, 1835), 23.

(6) G. L. Fra. TAFEL and G. M. THOMAS, Urkunden zur dlteren Handels- and Staatsgeschichle der Republik Venedig, 1 (Vienna, 1856), 475. (7) V. G. VASILIEVSKIJ, x Materialy k vnptrennej istorii viZantijs-

VII 72

The important element of this theory is that the composition of each community was predominatedly Slavic with communal

rather than private ownership of property. This theory is no longer accepted, for it is now known that the village community was a territorial circumscription designed to facilitate the imposition and collection of taxes, that the property in it was private and not communal, that in its origins it is much older than the appearance of the Slavs, and consequently the establishment of it had nothing to do with them (1). Nevertheless some of the Russian scholars who developed this theory ac-

cepted it as a fact and offered it as proof that the Slavs in Asia Minor maintained their national entity throughout the history of the empire, were still there as a racial unit in the thirteenth century and constituted the core of the akritai, the frontier soldiers, under the Lascarids and Michael Paleologus (2). Lamansky even went furher.

He believed that there

was still in the population of Bithynia in the nineteenth century many concrete traces, indicating the survival of the Slavs long after the fall of the empire. (( It has to be supposed, he wrote, that there are at present in Asia Minor, though

the Slavic element has not been preserved in its purity, many Slavic traces in the customs, language, songs, melodies. finally even in the physical peculiarities of the inhabitants of some parts of Asia Minor )) (3). That by « some parts of Asia

Minor)) Lamansky had in mind Bithynia follows from the discussions in his work which precedes this statement. The opinion of Lamansky and the other Russian scholars who shared his views was conditioned no doubt by a pro-Slav

kago gosudarstva s>, in Zhurnal Ministerstea Pros viesheheniia, 202 (1879), 160, 161. ; USPENSKY, op. cit., 307, 309, 310.

(1) The credit for exploding the theory of the Slavic origin of the village community in the Byzantine empire belongs to Panchenko. See his fundamental work, (( Krestjanskaja sobstvennost v Vizantii )s in Izuiestiya Russkago Arkheologicheskago Instituta v Konstanti-

nopole, 9 (Sofia, 1904), 1-234. See also Charanis, x On the social structure of the later Roman empire, s> Byzantion, 17 (Boston, 1946), note 34 a. (2) USPENSKY, op. cit., 322-326, 340-341. (3) LAMANSKY, op. Cit., 18.

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

73

approach to the history of the Slavs. But the question of the survival of the Slavic element in Bithynia down to the thir-

teenth century and beyond is one that should be decided solely by the data found in the sources. The question of the survival of the Slavs in Bithynia depends to a considerable extent upon the magnitude and fate of the Slavic settlements established there during the seventh and eighth centuries. There is some evidence, indeed, that additional Slavs settled or were settled in Asia Minor after the eighth century, but this evidence is general and contains no indication that these Slavs were very numerous. In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian in the reign of Michael II, Theophanes Continuatus says of the Slavs that they # often took root in Asia Minor » (1). Uspensky seized upon this statement and inferred from it that there was an almost continuous stream of Slavs settling in Asia Minor (2).

What led Uspensky to draw this inference was doubtless the use of the term « often », but it is by no means certain that by the use of this term the Continuatus had in mind anything more than the settlements of the seventh and eighth centuries. Three transfers of Slavs to Asia Minor carried out at different times by three different emperors certainly justified the use of the term c( often. * There is only one more reference, besides the one already noted, that concerning the settlement of Serbs in Asia Minor during the reign of John II,

which may indicate that Slavs were settled in Asia Minor after the eighth century. This concerns the Bulgarians who fled to Michael I (811-813) and were settled by him in different parts of the empire (3). Some of these Bulgarians may have been settled in Asia Minor, but this can only be a conjecture, for the source says nothing about it. Besides, they do not appear to have been very numerous. (1) Theophanes CONTINUATUS, Chronographia .Bonn, 1838), 50, tcuv ExAafloyevcuv, tGly noARdxtg eyxtaaevOevttuv rata to 'Avarod4v. (, 2) USPENSKY, op. cit., 315, where Uspensky quotes from Lamansky

with approval.

(3) Georgius CEDRENUS, Historiarum Compendium, 2 (Bonn, 1839), 52. Bovdyaeol ttvcS of 486v dvaatdvreS r7r mateoiaty `Pcoyaiwv xaradaµ,9dvovat nayyevel, mat napd roi #aocl.eutc npoaleXOtvtec MtXarA ev Stapdeots i?yxaTouiiZovsac xoieauc.

VII 74

Now to analyze the data given by the sources concerning the settlement of the Slavs in Asia Minor during the seventh and eighth centuries. Of the Slavs settled during or before the reign of Constans II, not much can be said. It must be noted, however, that, unless the settlement was very large, the desertion of 5,000 of its members to the Saracens in 665 must have crippled it very seriously. More is known concerning the Slavs settled by Justinian II. Following is the account of Theophanes (') : « In this year (6180 - 688 A.D.), Justinian made an expedition against Sclavinia and Bulgaria... and, sallying as far as Thessalonica, seized many multitudes of Slavs, some by war, others by consent... and settled them in the region of the Opsikion theme. » But by 692 all these

Slavs had disappeared from the Opsikion theme. To give again the account of Theophanes. In the year (6184- 692 A.D.) Justinian selected 30,000 from the Slavs whom he had trans-

planted, armed them, and named a certain Neboulus as their leader. He then led them against the Arabs. Neboulus, however, was bribed by the Arabs and deserted over to them with 20,000 of his followers. This desertion, which was responsible for the rout of the Roman army, angered Justinian who « then destroyed what remained of the [Slavs] with the women and children at a place called Leucate, a place which was precipitous and close to the sea in the gulf of

Justinian's horrible dead against the Slavs is recorded only by Theophanes. The patriarch Nicephorus says nothing about it, but his account implies that all the Slavs whom Justinian

had conscripted deserted to the enemy (3). That Justinian (1) THEOPHANES, op. cit., 364. TovrV rui Fret (6180) insarpdrevaev 'Iovartvtav6q xard ExAavtvlas xai Bov1yaelag ... µixpt 6i ®eaaaRov(x?)5 ixheaµaiv, noRRd nA40ti rwv Ex1aflaty rd µiv noAiµtn, rd 69 neoaevivra naeaAafltiw els rd roi 'Otytxlov 6td roc 'A48ti6ov needaas xariar17ae µipq.

(2) Ibid. 366: inopaRty 69 Movdµe6 rah ovtµaxov-vrt 'PotµaloLS arparriycu r@v Er.2.dflwv, niltnet atiruw rovxovpov yiµov voµtaµdrowv ...

ne(Oet npoaTvyeiv neon atir" µerd x' xiAtd6aw ExRdflaty ... rote 'Iovartvtavds dveiRe rd rovrwv 1yxardAetltlta aOv yvvatEi rai riuvotg naps rt Reyoµiv(Z Aevxarn rdnup xe, v(n6et mat naeaOa&aaal(p xard rdv Ntxoµt,6etdatov rdxnov xetµivai. (3) NicEPHOaus, op. cit., 37, xai 6 x)gOeis neetovatos riov 'EmAd-

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

75

actually committed the horrible deed attributed to him by Theophanes has been denied by Lamansky and others (I). The deed was too cruel, it is not mentioned by the patriarch Nicephorus, and Justinian's relations with the Slavs were on the whole friendly. None of these arguments, however, justify the rejection of Theophanes' testimony. The deed was cruel indeed, but Justinian II, when angered, was capable

of the greatest cruelty. Was it not he who ordered and dis-

patched a fleet to destroy the well to do inhabitants of Cherson? The Chronicle of the patriarch Nicephorus is brief

and does not contain everything that Theophanes relates, and, while Justinian was friendly with the Bulgarian king Terbel, he had previously taken arms against both the Bulgarians, and the Slavs of Macedonia. In the edict, issued in 688, by which he granted to the church of St. Demetrius of Thessasalonica a salina, Justinian calls the enemies, i.e. the Slavs, of St. Demetrius, his own (2). It is not improbable also that the number of Slavs settled in Opsikion by Justinian II was largely exaggerated by Theophanes. This is indicated by a reference in an Armenian his-

torian which says that the Slavs who deserted to the Arabs numbered 7000 horse (3), almost two-thirds less than the number given by Theophanes. The number given by the Armenian historian, if correct, would indicate that the entire Slav army which Justinian led against the Arabs numbered considerably less than 30,000. But, whatever the size of the

original settlement may have been, that settlement was virtually liquidated by the desertion to the Arabs and the subsequent cruel deed of Justinian. If some Slavs succeeded in surviving they were doubtless not many. Holy AaoS rots Eaeaxrlvois neocxt6erae, xal aJv avroic `Prvµaiovc dvpeovv.

(1) LAMANSKY, op. cit., 3; USPENSKY, op. cit., 319; PANCHENKO,

Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii, » 33. (2) A. VASILIEV, a An edict of the emperor Justinian II, September, 688 ,>, Speculum, 18 (Cambridge, 1934), 5. neieav avppaXov CIAq-

9dr(Ov 4j Uiv rov dylov peyaloyderveoc dr1µl7relov ?v roil nae' ljaiv neaX9eiaiv naed rCov avrov re ,eai rjltiov noAcglowv dca.deoic noAEµocs.

(3) J. B. BURY, A History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1889), p. 322, note 3.

VII 76

The Slavic settlement established by Constantine V about the river Artanas (1) proved more durable. At least there are no indications anywhere that it was ever destroyed. It is doubtful, however, if it were as large as it has been supposed by certain scholars. Here again it is important to reproduce the sources. In the year 6254 (762 A.D.), says Theophanes,

the Bulgarians revolted and raised to the throne Teletz. ((And many Slavs, having fled, went over to the emperor, who settled them about the Artanas (2). More explicit is the statement of the patriarch Nicephorus. a Tribes of Slavs 6, he writes, x abandoned their land as fugitives and crossed the Euxine. Their multitude reached the number of 208,000. They were settled about the river which is called Artanas » (9). The two important elements of information given by Nicephorus are that the Slavs in question reached the Artanas by

sea, and that they numbered 208,000. Panehenko, the most judicious among the Russian scholars who have dealt with the question of the Slavic settlement in Asia Minor, interprets the figure given by Nicephorus to refer to the number of men capable of bearing arms, and, accordingly, fixes the total number of Slavs involved in the settlement at about 750,000 (4)

It is doubtful, however, if the passage of Nicephorus lends itself to such an interpretation. Nicephorus speaks of tribes of Slavs (yev?? ExAaf?Jvwv) and the multitude

of these

Slavs. Multitude here means mass, total number, and the figure that Nicephorus gives must refer not to the men alone, but to the total number of the Slavs involved, men, women and children. (1) The Artanas is a little stream flowing in the Black sea, not far from the Bosphorus. W. Tomaschek, a Zur historischen Topographie von Kleinasien im Mittelalter » Sifzungsberichte der kais. Akademie der Wissenscha/ten in Wien : Phi losophisch-his torische Classe, 124 (Vienna, 1891), 74. (2) THEOPHANES, Op. Cit., 1, 432: Er.Adfw v Ss nollty exq,vydvra0 neoaeePti7aav rw flaacAei, o0S eni toy 'Aerdvav. (3) NICEPHORUS, op. cit., 68 f. Zxlafrlvwv ysvij rns av-aiv ucravaardvra y± c wvydaec btaneecoat rov Eiil:etvov. Se' avran

to nA70oc dxec rai els detOµov drub mat btaxoalac xtAidSac xai nQ69

toy noraµov Sc 'Aerdvas xa2eirat avrol xarocxilovrat. (4) PANCHENKO a Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii r 35.

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

77

But even the figure of Nicephorus, as interpreted here, cannot be accepted without some reservations. Figures given by medieval chroniclers are generally of doubtful accuracy,

and in this case the doubt is increased by the fact that the Slavs in question reached the Artanas by sea. To have transported by sea a crowd of 208,000 with at least some of their personal and householdffects was a tremendous undertaking, requiring a tremendous amount of shipping, and it is question-

able if this shipping was available or at the disposal of the Slavs. It is known, indeed, that Constantine V, in order to fight the Bulgars, built a fleet of 800 vessels, each vessel capable of carrying twelve horses, but this fleet was constructed after the settlement of the Slavs in the region of the Artanas (I). Besides, there is nothing in the sources which indicates that the Slavs were transported to Bithynia under the supervision of the imperial government. They came by themselves, with their own means, in such ships as they could

find. They must have been considerably less than 208,000 if they all found shipping and succeeded in reaching Bithynia.

What it meant to transport a large number of men in the eighth century is shown by the expedition which Justinian II sent against Cherson in the Crimea in 710. The men involved in this expedition are said to have numbered 100,000 and to have them transported Justinian imposed a special charge on the people of Constantinople and utilized every ship available, including fishing smacks and very small boats (2). An

effort considerably greater than this would have been required to transport a multitude 208,000 from Bulgaria to Bithynia, but there is no indication anywhere that any special effort was made in connection with the settlement of the Slavs about the Artanas region. But, while rejecting the figure of Nicephorus, one cannot (1) NICEPHORUS, Op. Cit., 0; TIIEOPIIANES, Op. Cit., 1 : 432 f. On

the chronology see S. RUNCIMAN, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (London, 1930), p. 38, note 1. (2) THEOPHANES, Op. Cit., 1. 377. naaav vauv 8eoluuvwv rs Peal Te471ethv xai axapmv µveiay(0ymv Peal ddiddwv mat dews xsAav61wv, dno 6&Qvopnc rmv olxovvrwv rIjv n6;Lcv avy,dAs/T4xiov we mat £gyaarttgia x(vv gal 6s1µoTC5v Peal navr6g dggcxlov. NICEI'uonus, op. cit., 44.

VII 78

deny that the number of Slavs involved in the settlement about the Artanas was considerable, perhaps several tens of thousands. The question now is to determine to what extent these Slavs were conscious of their national origin and tried to keep their racial unity. The question cannot ue answered definitely, but there are a number of observatio s that can be made. When these Slavs came to Asia Minor they were still to some extent barbarians and, of course, pagans. But not long after their arrival they must have been converted to Christianity and put under the jurisdiction of Greek bishoprics (1). There is no reason to assume that the services in their churches were conducted in any other language than Greek. Greeks were doubtless the first priests appointed

over them, and the Slavs who subsequently took holy orders must have learned at least how to read the scriptures in Greek. Whatever instruction there may have been. among them, it must have been in Greek, for there was no Slavonic alphabet as yet. Christianization was thus a powerful force making for the absorption of these Slavs (2). But there were other forces. These Slavs were settled in a region that had long

felt the impact of hellenism and over which the imperial government kept a strong hold. They were isolated from the vast body of Slavs in Europe. The official business with the government involved Greek, and Greek was essential for a career in the army and the administration. It is difficult (1) NobishopricsinBithyniawith Slavonic names are known for certain, for the Slavic origins of Gordoserva and Modrina are doubtful. The etymology of Modrina is considered by M. Niederle as non Slavic (as cited by F. DVORNIK, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IXB sidele,

Paris, 1926, p. 103) and Gordoserba which is first mentioned for certain in 692 (MANSI, XI, col. 996 E) and perhaps as early as the reign of Heraclius (Notitia Epiphanii, edited by H. GELZER, Abh. der I Kl. der k. Ad. der Wiss. Munchen, vol. 21, Munich, 1901, p. 538, no 187) contrary to what is thought (DVORNIK, op. cit., 103), may

have nothing to do with the Serbs. It has been recently questioned whether there was such a Slavic tribe as the Serbs, and it is suggested that the name may derive from Servus. See H. GREGOIRE, a L'origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes », Byzantion, 17 (Boston, 1946), 117.

(2) In discussing the conversion of the Slavs of Asia Minor Dvornik (op. cit., 103) remarks : e la conversion ne fut ici que la premiere etape de l'hellenisation.

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

79

to see, in view of these observations, how the Slavs who came to Asia Minor in a state of comparative barbarism could have

remained for centuries impervious to the powerful hellenizing forces all round them and kept their racial identity. In

the Byzantine empire there was no racial distinction ; differences in religion was what marked certain elements of the popu-

lation from another, but there is no evidence that the Slavs of Asia Minor developed heretical views ; they were doubtless

attached to the official church, a fact which made their absorption much easier. There is some evidence, however, which

shows that the process of Byzantination was slow and that for many years the Slavs of Asia Minor kept, at least in part, their Slavonic character. A part of this evidence concerns the revolt of Thomas, known as Thomas the Slavonian (1). The revolt of Thomas, in which many ethnic elements of Asia Minor participated, broke out in 821, about sixty years later than the settlement of the Slavs in the Artanas region. In 821 many Slavs among

the original settlers no doubt were still alive, and it is probable that the hellenizing process had not yet touched deeply

even those who were born and raised in Bithynia. But is it true, as it is contended, that they were conscious of their nationality, and for that reason rushed to the standards of Thomas in whom they saw a leader who might lead them to independence (2)? Thomas, although the evidence is not without contradictions, seems to have been of Slavic origins (3),

(1) The fullest account of the revolt of Thomas is that given by A. VASILIEV, Byzance et les Arabes, translated from the Russian and revised by H. Grdgoire et al., 1 (Brussels, 1935), 22-49. (2) Uspensky as cited by VASILIEV, Byzance et les Arabes, p. 24, note 4. (3) J. B. Bully, x The identity of Thomas the Slavonian. » Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1 (Leipzig, 1892), 55-60 ; A History of the Eastern Roman Empire (London, 1912), 11. In the French version of Vasiliev's Byzance et les Arabes, p.24, Thomas is said to have been an

Armenian, whereas in the Russian version he was said to be a Slav. [G@nbsius, p. 8, dit tres prbcisbment que Thomas nb a Gazioura dans le Pont, etait de souche arrnenienne. Ce temoignage doit etre pr(f(re (cf.Concelui, plus vague, de la page 32, oil Thomas est dit tinuateur de Theophane, p. 50, c. 10 qui l'appelle Ex2a floylvpc). H.G.]

VII 80

but he had occupied important posts in Byzantium, and had become, or, at least sought to have himself pass as, a Byzantine, as is shown by the fact that he posed as Constan-

tine VI. In his attempt to seize the throne he was backed by many elements which were discontented with the administration of Michael II. The revolution headed by Thomas, as the ever judicious Panchenko remarks, was a social movement, complicated by religious and political factors (1). Among the followers of Thomas there were some Slavs, (2) but to assume

that this fact gave to his revolt the caracter of a Slavic national movement is pure nonsense. No better proof for this can be offered than the fact that the Opsikion theme, the theme where most of the Slavic settlements were located, was one of the two themes in Asia Minor which failed to support

Thomas (3). The references to the revolt of Thomas, however, do show that during the first quarter of the ninth century

there were Slavs in Asia Minor who had not yet lost their identity as Slavs. Not until the tenth century are there. any more references to the Slavs of Opsikion, but these are no longer known as Slavs but as Slavesinians (IxAaj4T1atdvot). These Slavesinians

were enrolled soldiers and appear in the sources in connection with military expeditions. The new name seemingly was used in order to distinguish these Slavs from the rest of the Slavs, but on what ground was this distinction made? Doubtless because they lived in a region known as Sclavisia,

a region which must have been located in the Opsikion (1) PANCIIENICO, v Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii, # 37.

(2) But besides Slavs there were numerous other peoples who supported Thomas. Here is the list as given by Genesius, Historiae. (Bonn, 1834), 33. elra per' 'Ayapgvc"ov 'Ivtwv AlyvaTiwv 'Aaavetwv, M6&ov'Aj3aalwvZggthv 'Ij94ewv E'aflelewv ZxAdflwv Odvvwv Bavd4Awv retivv mat liaot rtjg MdvevTog f 6s2velag pEreizov, AaCti,v Te mat 'A2avwv Xd,, wv Te mat 'AQµevla)v xai eTeewv navrola)v !Ovwv. On the iden-

tity of these peoples see VASILIEV, Byzance et les Arabes, p. 31, note 2. (3) Ibid., 32-33. 'O2fltavo16 µdvov, TO rwv'AQpevtaxwv aTQaTSjyovvTog, rotTovg neeivolatg EntnetOeic dyovrog cal Kardcv2a Tov 'Orptxlov Tip paat2El Mtxa, 2 ye neooxetjsevwv. THEOPHANES CONTINIJATUS, Op.

oil., 53.

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

81

theme (1), since the Slavesinians were enrolled in the army of the Opsikion theme (2). The name, therefore, throws no light upon the degree of hellenization of these Slavs, probably

descendants of the Slavs who were settled in Bithynia in the eighth century, but there are other indications that some

of them had become highly hellenized, while others had remained essentially Slavic. Basilitzes whom at one time the emperor Alexander had thought of raising to the throne was doubtless a highly hellenized Slav (3), but the Slavesinians who, during the reign of Romanus Lacapenus, had landed in the Peloponnesus must have been essentially Slavic. For the statement of Constantine Porphyrogennitus (4) that Romanus Lacapenus was disturbed lest these Slavesinians join the Ezeritae and Milengi, Slavic tribes of the Taygetus chain, and consequently granted to the latter better terms of submission to the imperial authority than they enjoyed before, can mean only one thing ; that these Slavesinians spoke Slavic

and could recognize the Ezeritae and the Milengi as people of the same stock as themselves. By the middle of the tenth century, therefore, there were

still Slavs in the Opsikion theme, who doubtless had adjusted themselves to Byzantine civilization, but who still retained, at least to some extent, their Slavic character. In the next three hundred years their number must have been reduced by the inroads of the process of hellenization, just as the same process had led to the absorption of many of them in the previous three centuries. In any event Slavs in Opsikion are not mentioned by the sources after the tenth century, a silence which may mean two things : either that (1) Theophanes CONTINUATUS, op. cit., 379: Baa&AITCgv sov dno X%Aafltalav.

(2) Constantine PORPHYROGENNITUS, De Cerimoniis, 1 (Bonn, 1829), 662: of E62a1siaidvot of xaOtaOivse6 eis so otpixtov ; 666: dno T6v EB.laflsiatdvwv vwv xaOtiitivmv eis so d,plxtov.

(3) Theophanes CONTINUATUS, op. cit., 379 f. (4) Constantine PORPHYROGENNITUS, De Administrando Imperio Bonn, 1840), 223. inei Se` ... eiaiiA6ov of ExAa/gatavoi & tip Biµait Ile20novv1iaov, SeStuls 6 Saat2evs tva pti mat avxoi neoaseOivses zois E'Zdflots navTeA# i o2,6Oeevaty tov avtoi Oipaso5 ieYdaawcat, inoifiaev ai Toic xevaoIoiA LOV ... BYZANZION. XVIII.

- 6.

VII 82

the Slavs of Opsikion completely disappeared, or that there, was no occasion for the sources to take account of them. Of these two alternatives the latter seems the more plausible. The Slavesinians of the tenth century were enrolled soldiers and it is as enrolled soldiers that they are mentioned by the sources of the century. But the institution of the enrolled soldiers as it was known in the tenth century virtually ceased' to exist after the eleventh century. It is more than likely therefore, that the descendants of the Slavesinians of the tenth century had lost their status as soldiers and were re-

duced to the status of tenant peasants. As poor peasants there was no reason why they should have been particularly noted by the sources (1). It is quite posssible, therefore, that in the thirteenth century

there were still some remnants of the descendants of the Slavs who had been settled in Bithynia in the eighth century. To these should be added the descendants of the Serbs whom John II settled near Nicomedia. It is doubtful, however, if these remnants were very numerous. That the Akritai of the thirteenth century were Slavs is an opinion by no means well founded (2). It is expressly stated by Pachymeres that in

reconstituting the Akritai, the Lascarids drew from every part of the empire (rcavraxdBsv) (3). The same writer refers to the Akritai as mountaineers(4), doubtless because they were

stationed along the mountains, and when he uses ethnic terms in connection with the army of Asia Minor, they are terms of classical Asia Minor or of the early Byzantine period (5). Nowhere

- Boucellarii, Maryandeni, Paphlagonians

(1) Panchenko remarks that the Slavs other than the soldiers disappeared and left no traces. « Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii r 51. (2) PANCHENKO (Ibid., 57) already remarked that there is nothing in the information given by the sources concerning the Akritai which indicates that they were Slavs. (3) PACHYMERES, Op. Cit. 1, 16. elsa viusa arphpavsec 'axdvrai dxdvtwv HeeaJv soic dpeaiv ansf da,ovro, avxvolg 89 sois navsaxdOsv Inolxotc xal laxvpoic xaiaagaAcadµevoc I vuva se1zei xal olov 8vas u xece rove 9payxotls Tfi `Pw saMi savsa xasaasnaav.

(4) Ibid., 1, 193. of xasd rfis ffixalaS rdxpa xo.pisai dypdrat µa+' dvss9 xal ysmeylg npooaxovTe . (5) Ibid., 1, 221.

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

83

does he refer to the Akritai or other soldiers of Asia Minor as TetPaAAot or Mvaot, terms which he applied to the Serbs and Bulgarians respectively when he used classical terminology. The Akritai were doubtless composed of different ethnic groups, with a culture typical of the frontier (1). Slavs may have been included among them, but to see in them only Slavs is to ignore the sources with contempt.

(1) The Akritai apparently did not feel themselves very different in culture from those on the opposite side of the frontier, to whom they deserted frequently if for any reason they were displeased with the Byzantine administration. Ibid., 1, 222. of tats axpatc neoaxaO,µevot, zm to ndaxecv ivOevde xai tw BAn1Csty ixeiOev rd Atova, Et I&dvov

npoaxmpoiev ix6vtec, npoaxweeiv gyva,aav xal oatipipat npovetiOevto I7Cpaacs.

VIII

ON THE ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF BYZANTINE

ASIA MINOR IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY The Byzantine possessions in Asia Minor when Michael Palaeologus became emperor included the entire coast from the river Indus (Dalaman-cai ) to and including Amastris onthe Black sea. As for the interior the frontier line began on the Aegean and, leaving the towns of Melanudion ( Mendelia ) and Mylassa (Milas ) within the empire, extended to the northeast to take in Antioch and then moved toward Sublaeon, a town which does not seem to have belonged to the empire. The line then most probably ran west of Kutahia, the region of the stream of Bathys and Claudiopolis (Bolu ) and reached the Black Sea at Amastris. 1

This is the part of Asia Minor which had been occupied in ancient times by the Greeks on the coast and by Thracians, Mysians, Bithynians, Lydians, Phrygians in the interior. But already by the time of Strabo 2 it was difficult to identify these peoples, for the process of hellenization had gone very far. Yet in

the rural communities of the interior there remained many elements which were only superficially touched by Hellenism as the various heresies during the early centuries of Christianity indicate.3 The triumph of Orthodoxy doubtless aided the hellenizing process, but the ethnic situation was again complicated by the settlement of new peoples during the early Middle Ages. 1. For the justification of this frontier line which differs from that given by virtually every historical atlas, see P. Charanis, On the Asiatic Frontiers of the Empire of Nicaea. Miscellanea Guillaume de Jerphanion, 1 ( Orientalia christiana Periodica, vol. 13 (Rome, 1947) 58 - 62.

2. Strabo 14, 5, 23. 3. W. Al. Calder, The epigraphy of the Anatolian heresies. Anatoli-

an Studies presented to sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester, 1923) 64.

VIII On the ethnic composition of byzantine Asia Minor

141

Some time during the early centuries of the empire Goths were settled in Bithynia, in the territory which later formed the Opti-

mate theme. They were still there at the beginning of the eighth century, but they seem to have been at least semi-hellenized, for they are known as Graeco-goths ( ro-rOoypa%xoL ).4 What happened to them after this time is not known. They are referred to for the last time in a hagiographical document concerning three saints who lived at the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the ninth. The reference there is to a Gothograecia ( PorOoypatxia ), which was reached after a two days voyage from Lesbos in stormy seas. 5 This Gothograecia was obviously located in Asia Minor and the opinion of Koulakovsky that it was identical with the Optimate theme seems entirely sound. 6 But as the Optimate theme was located opposite Constantinople, the Graeco-goths must have eventually become completely hellenized and absorbed, which would explain the reason why they are not mentioned by the sources after the beginning of the ninth century. More important than the Gothic settlements in Asia Minor were those of the Slavs. There is some reason in believing that Slavs were settled in Asia Minor during the first half of the se-

venth century. But the first extensive Slavonic settlements in Bithynia were those which had been established by Justinian II following his successful expedition against the Slavs in Macedonia in 688. About seventy years later, during the reign of 4. Theophanes, Chronographia, edited by C. de Boor ( Leipzig, 1883 1, 385.

5. Acta Graeca SS. Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii. Analecta Bollandiana 18 ( Brussels, 1899 ) 256. (ULaou yoip rtvo; kv ToES roOoypotx(MS )6ey0uiV715, 67rapXovroS LEpECL VoOT)(lcTL SetwoTiT(J riEp LriEC6VTOS xai TOtS tMTpotS arayopeV0kVTrc xai Tip ayLw xaroxv5 i 7rapea6eiv E(S a676v txetuco ataµii-

VUaaµt(VOU, ri Oaugaa(a xaL owroS praaVOpw7rcra.r, 4uX (.L TE rrp6q TO TO'J xcLpOU yep. pLOV &7LSWV

7

xxi 7rp6q E6epycaLac &TO(a

Th Tr; (Jpay 64i, T(JV Te Ck

cinaymyrv &),06vTwv MdTOU xai Twv pLAoci c a6Tav wvoaeSCat k7ri Tfl TOU 6CT05 xai ,Et(1 o c'JVOyr VEyaacS SELaaVSp(acVTwv, &vap.ELvay a6yot; Te To6TOty, rapa0app6vcc, au&iv tVµ pcwz xai k7ri ro c&raL5 vuliv 6ETOU

zv oaf

pMy3MLOTQTOU &QTPMricV TE xai (3pOVrwV XMl xEpMUVwV xaTafpEpoVvcV

ri reptyeE(p T9;

&yyeaou, ravrwv 6p6vrwv, a6r6v -cc xai roc C6v

M6-Cf.) i7rLpcLVOtL& OU xai 7repLCY,EroVTo;, TYjv in t T6 pEXov &6xvoc...OfltatQEV...

6. J. Kulakovskij, Istorija Vizantii 3 ( Kiev, 1915 ) 415 f.

VIII 142

Constantine V ( 741-775 ), another mass of Slavs, 208.000 accor-

ding to one chronicler, were settled in Asia Minor about the Artanas River, a little stream which flows into the Black Sea west of the Sangarius and not far from the Bosphorus. In 1129 or 1130 additional Slavs were transplanted to Asia Minor. They were Serbian prisoners whom John II settled in the neighbourhood of Nicomedia, assigned them land, enrolled those who could bear arms in the army, and subjected the others to taxation. These Serbs were doubtless the inhabitants of the servo-

choria which are mentioned in the Partitio regni graeci at the beginning of the thirteenth century. There can be no doubt that the Slavs involved in the Bithynian settlements were numerous, but few, if any, had survived by the thirteenth century. Those settled by Justinian II had been

destroyed, while the descendants of those displaced by Constantine V had long been hellenized. It is quite probable, however, that the descendants of the Serbs whom John II settled near Nicomedia still retained their identity. Some Slavs may have also been included among the a k rit ai, but that opinion that the akritai were mainly Slavs is without foundation.? In the population of Byzantine Asia Minor in the thirteenth century was a considerable element of Armenians. It is well known that many Armenians were enrolled in the Byzantine army of the earlier periods, but their settlements were located chiefly along the eastern frontiers of the empire. In the opinion of Rambeau only two Armenian military settlements were located in western Asia Minor by the tenth century. Rambeau had in mind the settlements at Prine and Platanion which, according to Constantine Porphyrogennitus, furnished a number of Armenian troops in the expedition against Crete during the reign of Leo VI.B Tomaschek, rejecting the opinion of Rambeau, 7. For the evidence and essential bibliography concerning the Slavs in

Asia Minor, see P. Charanis, The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia

Minor in the Thirteenth Century, Byzantion, 18 (1946-1948) 69-83. See further the review of this article by George S oules in 'Ere7pl; :nc 'FTMLpeia; Bu;xv-rwwv 17roUSWV 19

( 1949 ) 337-340.

8. Rambeau, L' Empire Grec au Dixieme Siecle. Constantin Porphyrogenete ( Paris, 1870) 251.

VIII On the ethnic composition of byzantine Asia Minor

143

has identified Prine with the Modern Giraprino, situated on the coast of the Black Sea between Kerazund and Tireboly, not far from Trebizond, and Platanion with the modern Pulad-Khane, located to the east of Giraprino and to the west of Trebizond.9 Both these identifications, however, must be wrong, for in another passage and in connection with the same expedition Constantine Porphyrogennitus places Platanion in the Anatolikon theme, 10 which, as is well known, did not extend to the Black Sea.

As for Prine it is probably the same as Priene. This is indicated by another passage of the De Ceremonies where it is stated that Armenians were stationed on the coast of the Thracesian theme in order to guard it. Some of these Armenians participated in the expedition against Crete of 948.11 The probability is that the Armenian settlement of this passage and that of Prine mentioned in connection with the expedition against Crete during the reign of Leo VI are the same and consequently Prine is probably Priene. 12 In the sources of the thirteenth century there is no mention of the Armenians of Priene, but Armenians are known to have lived near the village of Panaretos, 13 not far from Smyrna. It is 9. W. T o m a s c h e k, Zur historisciten Topographie v on Kleinasien in Mittelalter. Sitzungsberichle der kais. Akadernie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch - historische Klasse 124 ( Vienna, 1891) 80-81. 10. Constantine Porphyrogennitus, Dc Ceremonies ( Bonn ) 657 : alsc).96v etc 'Avaro),txouc ;cat xaraypa aaOat Touc II).x-tvt&Tac... 11. Ibid. 667: dead -&v '_1p!.cevuav To3 mUToU 061=Toc Twv Opxrraic,v r (pu),aea6VT(ilv

v

rile rapaaiav To:i

12. The spelling of Ilpivr instead of ffptr' i is no obstacle in the identification of the one with the other. The error was often made. See Mansi 11, col. 993C, where we have Ilptvtc,c rbacm;. Ilepivr as a variant of Ilptrlvr appears in the acts of the Council of Ephesus of 431. Corpus Notitiarum Episcopatttum. Volume 1. Les Listes Conciliaires, edited by E, Gerland and V. La u r e n t (Kadikoy, 1936) p.68, no.77. See also G. P a r t h e y, Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitiae Graecae Episcopal.uum ( Berlin, 1866 ) p. 17, no. 6593, where IIpive, Ilpivec are given as variants of Hptljvr. Cf. E r n e s t I1 on i g m a n n, Le Synecdemos d' Jlierokles et 1' Opuscule Geographique de Georges de Chypres (Brussels, 1939 ) p. 21, no. 659. 13. Fr. Miklosich et J. Miiller, Acta et Diplomata Graeca 4 ( Vienna, 1871) 79: xai r,arataarac 1;tovra xrU utty avarOar`,c Touc 'Apiaeviouc xal d7r6 8'iaeo>S Touc aUTOUc 'ApµeviOo;.

VIII 144

quite possible that they were the descendants of those who composed the old Armenian colony of Priene or others on the neighbourhood. In the thirteenth century, however, the Armenians were more numerous in the northwestern corner of Asia Minor,

around Abydus and in the valley of the Scamander. It is difficult to determine at what time the Armenians settled in this part of Asia Minor, but it is not unlikely that they came following the disruption of the eastern frontiers of the empire in the eleventh century. As a group they had remained faithful to their own traditions and resisted the process of Byzantinization. They hated the Greeks. 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 the Troad flocked to his standard. It was with their help that Henry took Abydus which he trusted to an Armenian garrison. 14 Not long afterwards, however, Henry returned to Europe and lie was followed by the Armenians of Abydus and the environment because they did not dare remain behind. According to Villehardouin the Armenians who followed Henry into Europe numbered 20.000 and they brought with them their wives and children. In Thrace these Armenians, all of them, according to Villehardouin, were captured and put to death by the Greeks. 15 But doubtless not all the Armenians of the Troad region followed Henry to be

exterminated in Thrace. Many must have stayed behind in Asia Minor.

Included among the population of Asia Minor were also some Cumans. These Cumans had been settled in the Meander regions 1'l. Geoffroi de Ville - Hardouin, La Conquete de Constantinople, edited and translated into modern French by M. Natalis de Wailly ( Paris, 1872) 185. Et les 1:Iermins du pays, dont it y await beaucoup, commencerent a tourner de son cote ; car ils haissaient beaucoup les Grecs ; Nicetas Choniates, Ilistoria ( Bonn, 1835 ) 796, 814 ; Theodore Scutarioles, Additamenta ad Georgii Acropolitae Historiam in Acropolites, Opera, edited by A. Heisenberg ( Berlin, 1903 ) 277.

15. Villehardouin, op. cit., 227. Et aver lui avaient passe les Hermins du pays, qui 1' avaient aide contre les Grecs, hien vingt mille avec leurs femmes et leurs enfants ; car ils n' osaient rester au pays ; Ibid., 229. Et alors advint une mesaventure aux Hermins qui venaient apres Henri... car les gens du pays s' assemblerent et deconfirent les Hermins ; et ils furent tous pris of. tues on perdus.

VIII On the ethnic composition of byzantine Asia Minor

145

of the empire in the thirteenth century, during the reign of John Vatatzes. Gregoras relates that 10.000 Cumans, driven away from their homes by the Tartars, crossed the Danube and began to wander in Thrace. They were picked up by John Vatatzes and were settled by him as soldiers in Thrace, Macedonia, and the Meander and Phrygian regions of Asia Minor. is Of the Cumans settled in Asia Minor something more is known from a monastic document of the thirteenth century which relates to a dispute over a piece of land. This land had been sold to a certain Koutoules by a peasant tenant of the monastery of Lemvo, located not far from Smvrna. The land was fertile and had attracted the covetous eyes of a local functionary, Keramanes by name who, after failing to have the original sale cancelled in order that he might buy the property himself, drove out Koutoules and seized the property. Koutoules fled to the Cumans who lived nearby 17 and with their help he seized another property which belonged to Keramanes. But Keramanes had money and wine. Money he gave

to Koutoules and wine to the Cumans ( they had a special weakness for wine ) and was thus able not only to keep the property which he had illegally seized, but to recover the one which Koutoules, aided by the Cumans, had taken way from him. The incident shows that the Cumans were settled in separate communities and that they exercised considerable influence in the neighbourhood. Some Cumans enrolled in the Byzantine army at the

time Michael Palacologus came to power are known to have spoken Greek well. 11

Michael Palaeologus was on the throne when Turkish tribes began to infiltrate into the Asiatic regions of his empire. They first became masters of all the territory south of the Meander, then crossed the river and began to conquer the regions on its northern bank. As the Turkish tribes advanced the Byzantine subjects were driven out, killed or taken captives. A similar process 16. Oregoras, Hisloria I ( Bonn, 1829 ) 37 : 'O ,3xcrLX6S 'Iol&vvi;... au-7ouS

atp

1 4Lzar, xwpa; DaouS Daoc 8l0fvciµ&uevoc :IS xaroLxrlaav

-oiy p.ev xa-7& Opaixrv xai'_1farc8ovtav, -roi; S' &Y'Aa%gt xar& Mxsav3pov xat Opuyiav.

17. Miklosich et .Muffler, op. cit. 4,167. 18. Acropolites, op. cit., 158 : kirct 8k xat zu ExuNx6v rcovro yEvoS, ou' ovro &),a& xat Eaarlvrxw; -c xat The Scythians of Acropolites here are the Cumans. P'ap(ixprxo; i71".

VIII 146

was taken place in the north, in the region of the Sangarius river. many places which were nominally still within the borders of the

empire were infiltrated with Turcomans and other Turkish tribes.

Thus, the population of Byzantine Asia Minor during the

reign of Michael Palaeologus was composed of people belonging to different races - Greek, hellenized and perhaps nonhellenized elements of the ancient populations, Armenians, Slavs, Cumans, Turks. The mixture was more predominant along the frontiers,

among the frontier soldiers, the akritai. Throughout the history of the Byzantine empire the akritai had always been composed of different ethnic groups. The Byzantines had no racial or natio-

nal tradition except that of Greek Christianity ; they accepted and settled within the borders and along the frontiers of the empire peoples of any race. To these peoples they gave land on con-

dition that they would serve in the army. In the tenth century the enrolled army of the empire in Asia Minor consisted of Greeks,

Armenians, Isaurians, Lycaonians, Persians, Arabs, Slavs, mixtures such as the Mardaite and other elements drawn from the population of Anatolia and elsewhere. ' As the Turks advanced the frontiers shifted, but the elements composing the akritai never came to consist of one racial group. In the thirteenth century

they still consisted of a mixture, but the only definite known ethnic group known among them is that of the Cumans. The akritai were not always faithful, and easily transferred their allegiance to the other side of the frontier from which they did not differ very much in culture. But if the frontiers were inhabited by a mixture of peoples and if some of them were to be found elsewhere well within the frontiers, the large populous places along the coast and elsewhere were peopled predominately by Greeks and Greek was the one general language. Sanudo, who knew the Byzantine empire as well as any one, writing in the

second quarter of the fourteenth century, remarked that the 19. Rambeau, op. cit., 247 ff. See also the list of peoples who, at the beginning of the ninth century, are said to have followed Thomas the Slavonian in his rebellion against Michael H. V a s i 1 i e v - Greg o i r e, Byzance et les Arabes. T. I: La Dymastie d' Amorium (Brussels, 1935) p. 31, n. 2.

VIQ 147

On the ethnic composition of byzantine Asia Minor

greater part of Asia Minor was under the domination of the Turks, but the majority of the population followed the Greek rite and were Greeks.,,*

Ee). 140, at. 3 &vtl onthe yp&qe : on the 141, brroa. 5, as. 3 vi Scaypagn -b x6µµa µe-r& 'rrv :.. 141, urroa. 5, ar. 5 v& &aypai?n tb x6µµa µez& 'riv A. gnAaV0e0ncordsq 141, urroa. 5, at. 6 v& npoare071 x6µ4a µeT& 'rrv A. &Mdoiv 141, urroa. 5, at. 9 vi &aypnpT tb x6µµa µsti. rv A. zotocs

» Ee),.

143, ar. 7 xai urroa. 10, at. 1 &vzi Porphyrogennitus yp&qc Porphyrogenitus 143, at. 10 xai urroa. 10, at. I &vti Ceremonies , p&qs : Ceremoniis 145, at. 13 rrp6a0es x6µµa µeTi 'r v A. name 170 auv& eta Uaoa. 2 at. 12 &vti d8eAo6 yp&¢e: dude

ot6

20. Marino Sanudo Torsello, Istoria del Regno di Romania, ed. by C. Hopf, Chronique greco - romane (Berlin, 1873 ) 1943. La maggior parte (of Asia Minor ) e sottoposta a Turchi, per it piii li popoli seguono it Ritto Greco e sono per it piu Greci. See further, G. G. Arnakis, Captivity of Gregory Palamas by the Turks and related Documents as Historical sources, Speculum 24 (1951) 115.

IX THE JEWS IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE UNDER THE FIRST PALAEOLOGI IN matters of worship the Jews who dwelled in the Byzantine empire, except for an occasional outburst of persecution, were left unmolested by the Byzantine government. Starr has pointed out that between the death of Heraelius (641) and 1204, a period of more than five and a half centuries, the Jews suffered only three

general persecutions which together covered about fifty years.' As the last of these persecutions took place during the reign of John Tzimiskes (969-976), there was a period of almost two and a half centuries during which the Jews were left unmolested to worship as they pleased. If Starr's conclusion errs in any way, it errs most probably in the inclusion as anti-Jewish of certain measures, especially those taken during the reign of Leo 111 (717-741), whose anti-Jewish character is by no means certain. No less an authority than Henri Gregoire has stated that if Starr's conclusion 'is ever revised, it will be in favor of the thesis of absolute

toleration.'2 The problem needs to be further examined. In the meantime we make some observations concerning the status of the Jews during the period of the first Palaeologi, a period which is not covered by Starr's book.

What characterized the position of the Jews during the reigns of Michael Palaeologus and his son, Andronicus II, was the remarkable degree of toleration which they enjoyed. The long period during which the Jews had been left unmolested by the Byzantine government had come to an end following the dissolution of the Byzantine empire as a result of the Fourth Crusade. Persecutions against the Jews broke out in two of the Greek states which rose out of the ruins of the former empire. A Jewish document, a letter of Jacob de Latte to his cousin Pablo Christiani, is the source of this information.' According to this letter the

Jews suffered a persecution under Theodore Ducas Angelus, the despot of Epirus, after he had occupied Thessalonica and had himself crowned emperor (1222-1290), and again under John Vatatzes, the emperor of Nicaea, who wanted the Jews to 'follow his cult and adhere to his faith.' John Vatatzes issued his antiJewish measure in 1258, a year before his death, but it seems to have been con-

tinued by his son and successor, Theodore II Lascaris. Thus when Michael Palaeologus came to the throne, the Jews were being persecuted. Michael Palaeologus put an end to this persecution. De Latte's letter is again the source of this information. De Latte gives no particulars; he states simply J. Starr, The Jews in the Byzantine empire (Athens, 1939), 1-10. ' In his review of Starr's book in Renaissance, Reeve trimeetrielle publiSe par L'Ecde Libre des hautea Etudes de New York. n-m (New York, 1946), 481.

' Jacob Mann, 'line source de l'histoire juive an xme sibcle: La lettre polkmique de Jacob b. Elie A Pablo Christian; Revue do* Etudes Juises, U =n (Paris, 1988), 878-373. Mann's work was called

to acv attention by Joshua Starr. But see also L. Lewin, 'Fine Notis sur Geschichte der Juden im byzantinischen Reiche.' Yonatudhrift far Gesehichte and Wissensehaft des Judentums, x (Brealau. 1870), 117-1228. Also N. Bees, 'Ubersicht fiber die Geachichte des Judentum von Janina (Epirus); Byaant+niach-Neugrieohiseke Jahrbdaher, n (Berlin. 1921), 169-177. 75

IX

76

The Jews in the Byzantine Empire

that Michael called together the leaders of the Jews and promised them religious

toleration. That he actually carried out his promise may be inferred from the Jewish policy of his son and successor, Andronicus II, which doubtless indicates that the latter had grown up in an atmosphere more or less friendly to the Jews. The tolerance which Andronicus showed toward the Jews was indeed remarkable. The information about Andronicus' Jewish policy is derived from two unimpeachable Greek sources, an imperial chrysobull which Andronicus himself issued and a letter of the patriarch Athanasius addressed to Andronicus himself.

Andronicus' chrysobull has been known for a long time and has served as the basis of a learned monograph on the Jews of Janina in Epirus by the Greek, N. Bees' The letter of the patriarch Athanasius has not yet been published, but its contents have become recently known through the analysis of Athanasius' correspondence issued by the Rumanian, N. BAnescu 6

Andronicus' chrysobull is not a document specifically dealing with the Jews. It was issued in favor of the city of Janina, and its principal aim was to define the status and privileges of that important fortress. Included in the document, however, there is a clause which covered the Jews of the town. They were to be free

and unmolested like the rest of the inhabitants.6 The letter of the patriarch Athanasius was drawn in protest of the emperor's tolerance toward the Jews and

other non-Christian or heretical elements which dwelled in Constantinople. Besides the Jews, the patriarch singled out the Armenians and the Turks and charged the emperor with letting them set up their houses of prayer among the Orthodox Christians. In addition, he accused a certain Kokalas who, allowing himself to be bought by presents, gave to the Jews 'great power.' It follows from both the chrysobull and the patriarch's letter that the attitude of Andronicus II toward the Jews was that of absolute toleration.

What apparently had shocked the patriarch and led him to protest to the emperor was the freedom granted to the Jews, Armenians and Turks to circulate

in Constantinople and to erect their houses of prayer wherever they pleased. His protest indicates that this freedom was unusual and raises the question whether Jews and heretics were not usually required to live in special quarters apart from the Orthodox Christians. That special Jewish communities existed in Constantinople, Thessalonica and elsewhere there is no doubt, but the question is whether this segregation was obligatory or voluntary. Starr raised this question, but offered no satisfactory answer.' Starr seems to have overlooked an important document, which actually gives the answer. This is the reply given by John, bishop of Citrus, toward the end of the twelfth century to Constantine ' Bees, op. cit. N. Blinescu. 'Le patriarche Athanase I- et Andronic II Paleologue. -Etat religieux, politique et social de l'empire; Aoademie Romaine. Bulletin de la section hutorique, err, I. (Bucharest, 1944), 86-86. The letters of the patriarch Athanasius were also studied on the basis of different manuscripts from the one used by Bdnescu by R. Guilland, but the letter concerning the dews was not included. A. Guilland, 'La correspondance inEdite d'Athanase, patriarche de Constantinople (1489-1499; 1904-1810); Melange. Ch. Diehl, i (Paris, 1980),191-140. s F. Mikosich and J. Minter, Aela at Diplomats, v (Vienna, 1887). 83. I Starr, op. cit.. 49.

IX

The Jews in the Byzantine Empire

77

Cabasilas, archbishop of Durazzo, who asked whether it was permissible for the

Armenians to build churches of their own in the cities where they resided. 'People of alien tongues and alien beliefs,' wrote John, 'such as Jews, Armenians,

Ismaelites, Hagarites, and others such as these were permitted from of old to dwell in Christian countries and cities, except that they had to live separately and not together with the Christians. For this reason quarters located either within or without the cities are set apart for each one of these groups that they may be restricted to these quarters and may not extend their residence beyond them.'s It must be noted, however, that obligatory confinement to a special quarter was not a restriction imposed only upon the Jews. It was applied to all foreigners, especially to those of alien or heretical beliefs.

Whether the Jews in Byzantium were as Jews subject to a special tax is a question on which there has been no general agreement. The references are very few and by no means entirely clear and their interpretation depends to a considerable extent upon what is specifically known, and this is not much, about Byzantine taxation. The problem of a special Jewish tax has been thoroughly discussed by Andreades, D61ger and Starr.9 Andreades and Dblger, after an initial disagreement, ended by agreeing in favor of a tax, while Starr, referring essen-

tially to the same texts, expressed a contrary view. Notwithstanding this disagreement it seems probable, at least for the period of the early Palaeologi, that the Jews of the empire were, as Jews, subject to a special tax. The source for this

opinion is a chrysobull, dated 1333, according to which the sum of twenty hyperpera was collected annually from the Jews of the town of Zihna, located not far from Serres, as a tax.10 There is, indeed, nothing in this text which proves that

this tax was paid by the Jews as Jews, but the document does show that an account of the tax paid by the Jews of Zihna was kept by the treasury, a fact which indicates that this tax was perhaps different from the taxes paid by the Christians.

' G. A. Relic and M. Potle, Syntogma ton theion kai heiren kanonon, v (Athens, 1855), 415.

' A. Andreades, 'Les Juifs et le fise dens l'empire byzantin.' This article was first published in Mianges Diehl (Paris, 1930), 1: 7-29. It was reprinted in Oeuvres, i (Athens, 1938) 629-859; 'The Jews in the Byzantine empire,' Economic fliatory, nl (1934), 1-45. F. Dolger, Beitrage zur Geaehichte der Byzantinitchen FinananenaaUung besonders des 10. and 11. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1927), 501; 'Die Frage der Judensteuer in Byzanz,' Vierteljahrschrift far Social- and Wirtachaftapeaehichfe, xxv[ (1999), 1-24. Starr, op. cit., 11-17. See also the review of Starr's book by DSlger, Byzantiniuche Zeiteehrift, XL (1940), 291 f., and Gr6goire's review of the same book in Renaissance, op. cit., rn-iv (New York, 1945), 481. Grhgoire accepts Starr's conclusion on the question of a special Jewish tax. l' Miklosich and MU ler, op. eit., v, 106.

X THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA AND THE QUESTION OF THE SLAVONIC SETTLEMENTS IN GREECE

X

MONG the short Byzantine chronicles, that concerning the Foundation of Monemvasia is perhaps the most curious and interesting. The most curious because, despite the importance of its contents, neither its author nor the date of its composition is known; the most interesting because of the notices which it contains concerning the establishment of Slavonic settlements in Greece, especially in the Peloponnesus, during the Middle Ages. Those who have dealt with the problem of these settlements have used it, either discounting its importance or emphasizing it unduly, their attitude depending upon their view concerning the magnitude, chronology, and significance of these settlements.' Notwithstanding its brevity, it has been the subject of two rather lengthy monographs wherein the attempt was made to determine its sources, the trustworthiness of its information, its author, and the date of its composition,' but the results have not been entirely

conclusive. It is the object of this paper to reexamine the question of the trustworthiness and the date of the composition of this chronicle.

The chronicle was first published in 1749 by Joseph Pasinus and his collaborators in their catalogue of the manuscripts of the royal library of Turin, from a manuscript written in the sixteenth century.' Pasinus' edition was the only edition available until 1884 when S. P. Lampros reissued it, together with two other versions which he found in two manuscripts, the one

belonging to the monastery of Koutloumousion, the other to that of the Iberikon, both monasteries of Mount Athns.' According to Lampros, the manuscript of the Iberikon was written in the sixteenth century, that of Koutloumousion probably in the sixteenth, although there are some indications which point to the seventeenth.' In 1909 these three versions were re' Fallmerayer was the first to call attention to this chronicle and used it to bolster his fantastic theory that the ancient Greek race disappeared completely. Jacob Ph. Fallmerayer, Fragmente aus den Orient, 2nd edition by Georg M. Thomas (Stuttgart, 1877), p. 508, note 2. Opponents of the theory of Fallmerayer tried to discount the importance of this chronicle. See, for instance, K. Hopf, "Geschichte Griechenlands vom Begins des Mittelalters his auf unsere Zeit," in Ersch and Cruber, Allgemeine Encyclopedia der Wissenschaften and Kiinste,

85 (Leipzig, 1867), 106ff.; and K. Paparrhegopoulo, Aavleai Fv rats `EAA+ivacais xipacs brotK7fae1c, in 'Ioropucai Hpaypard (Athens, 1858), p. 247, note 25. Others have looked at it more impartially. See A. A. Vasiliev, "The Slavs in Greece" (in Russian), Vizantiiskii Vremenrrik, 5 (St. Petersburg, 1898), 411, 655ff. Vasiliev's work, although written fiftytwo years ago, is still fundamental on the question of the Slavs in Greece. I read it with the aid of Mrs. Nathalie Scheffer. ' S. P. Lampros, T. AEp! KTLOU)q MOVepflailav xpov a iv, in his 'IaTOpuca MEAET44uaTa (Athens,

1884), pp. 97-128. N. A. Bees, To "'rcpt Tits KTtacws Tic Movepffaoias" xpovurov, in BvCavTis,

1 (Athens, 1909), 37-105. 'Codices manuscripti bibliothecae regii Taurinensis Athenaei, I (Turin, 1749), 417f. ' Lampros, op. cit., pp. 98-109. ' Lambros (Lampros), Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos (Cambridge, 1895-1900), 1:301; 2:86.

x 142 printed by N. A. Bees with some corrections,' and three years later a foUJ1:h version, found in a manuscript belonging to the Collegio Greco in Rome, was published by Lampros! Among these various versions there are substantial diHerences. The Iberikon deals primarily with the Avar and Slavic invasions of the Balkan peninsula, including Greece, in the sixth century; the settlement of the Slavs in the Peloponnesus, and their subjugation to the authority of the emperor during the reign of Nicephorus I. There is no mention of any event beyond the reign of Nicephorus I. The KoutIoumousion and Turin versions on the other hand include, besides the main contents of the Iberikon, a number of other notices which deal primarily with events and persons connected with the metropolitan sees of Monemvasia and Lacedaemon, especially the latter. Chronologically these later notices cover the period from 1083 to about the middle of the fourteenth century, but most of them refer to the second half of the thirteenth century and the first half of the fourteenth. The Roman version consists of these later notices and includes none of the contents of the Iberikon. Between the Iberikon version on the one hand and the Koutloumousion and Turin versions on the other there are a number of other diHerences, but these are of minor significance. The diHerence in contents between the Iberikon on the One hand and the Turin and Koutloumousion versions on the other was the principal argument used by Lampros in support of his opinion that these versions represent two diHerent traditions of which the Iberikon was the original and the earliest, while the other, represented by the Turin and Koutloumousion manuscripts, was a reproduction of the Iberikon version with additional notices added by a later scribe. And, since the Iberikon version ends with the subjugation of the Slavs in the region of Patras during the reign of Nicephorus I when Tarasius. who died in 806, was still patriarch, while of the later notices found in the Turin and the Koutloumousion versions and missing in that of the Iberikon the earliest refers to the raising of the see of Lacedaemon to the status of a metropolis in 1083, Lampros came to the conclusion that the original version - the Iberikon - must have been written sometime between 806 and 1083.' As for the Turin and Koutloumousion versions, Lampros thought that they must have been written toward the end of the thirteenth century.' The conclusions of Lampros were rejected by N. A. Bees, who re• Bees. cp. elt.• pp. 61-73. 'LamproJ. Ni... «.. S~ TOV )(po,,«o;, Mov.p.fJa.~;Q'. in

N'..

245 ff. • Lampro5, 1I'tPL Ilf'LUEWC; MOYfp.{jan{a,r;; XPOf!&lf:o". p. 118. • Ibid., pp. 119. 128.

To

'E.u.~yop.V>jp.wv, 9 (Athens. 1912).

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

143

examined the problem in detail. Bees rightly observed that it is impossible to accept the view of Lampros that the original version was written before 1083 simply because the additions found in the other versions begin with that year.10 Nor is Lampros' view that these additions were appended to the original toward the end of the thirteenth century any more acceptable, for among them there are chronological notices that refer to the fourteenth century." Indeed, Bees rejects the notion that the Iberikon is the original and earliest version, thinks that it is a simple variation of the other two, and considers the differences among them as accidental. He believes that the whole chronicle was composed sometime between 1340 and the sixteenth century, because one of the notices refers to the year 1340 while the manu-

scripts in which the chronicle has been found belong to the sixteenth century." When Bees published his study, the Roman version was not yet known. The peculiarity of this version is that it includes none of the contents of the Iberikon. In other words, it contains only the later notices which are found only in the Turin and Koutloumousion versions - notices which, according to Lampros, had been appended to the original chronicle later. In publishing the Roman version, Lampros remarked that its peculiarity confirmed his earlier view that the later notices of the Turin and Koutloumousion versions form a section independent of the part which constitutes the Iberikon version.13 Indeed, the existence of two manuscripts - the one containing the part with the earlier notices, the other, that with the later notices - lends support to the argument of Lampros that these two parts were originally independent and that later someone put them together, producing thus the version represented by the Turin and the Koutloumousion manuscripts. And since the Iberikon is much more precise and complete in its notices, it is

quite probable that it represents the original redaction of the chronicle, while the Turin and Koutloumousion versions are imperfect copies of it with the later notices added. On determining the date of the composition of the original chronicle, that is, the Iberikon version, Lampros failed to notice one important detail. In his account of the subjugation of the Slavs near Patras during the reign of Nicephorus I, the author of the chronicle refers to that emperor as "the Old, who had Staurakios as son." 1' This detail is of chronological importance Bees, op. cit., p. 75. Ibid.. p. 98. pp. 98-99. Lampros, Nioc xate rov Xpovmvi; Movap#aoiac, p. 250. Lampros says that this is a manuscript of the thirteenth century, but surely there must be a mistake, for certain notices of the chronicle definitely refer to the fourteenth century. "Bees' edition, p. 68: Nuoopov rou sa ,nou rov IXovroc (vine) 1iravpaxr.ov.

x 144 because it places the composition of the chronicle after the reign of Ni· cephorus Phocas (963--969). This was pOinted out by S. Kougeas,U who called attention to another expression of the chronicle which also helps to detennine the date of its composition. This is the reference to the Tzacones, where it is said that this name had been lately given to them/ 8 and as is well known the first mention of the Tzacones is made by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. 17 These observations led Kougeas to conclude that that part of the chronicle which constitutes the Iberikon version was composed during or not much after the reign of Nicephorus phocas.'" There is another expression in the chronicle which lends support to the view of Kougeas. In describing the depredations of the Avars and Slavs in the Peloponnesus in 584, the author of the chronicle writes that many of the Greeks fled and found refuge in Calabria and Sicily. Those who went to Calabria came from Patras and settled in the region of Rhegium; those who went to Sicily came from Lacedaemon, where, says the chronicle "they still live in a place called Demena, are called Demenitae instead of Lacedaemonitae, and preserve their own Laconian dialect." It Since the publication of Amari's work, Storia dei Musull1umi di Sicilia, Demena as the name of a region in the northeastern part of Sicily and that of a town located in that region is well known;" but all of the references to the town belong to the ninth and tenth centuries. This fact has led Amari to declare that the town Demena existed until the tenth century, possibly until the eleventh, although that is doubtful." But if the Lacedaemonians who had fled to Sicily still lived in Demena at the time of the composition of the chronicle, it means that Demena still existed, and this would place the composition of the chronicle not later than the end of the tenth century or the beginning of the eleventh. The date of the composition of a document is, of course, of great importance, but more important still is the nature of its sources and the credibility lIS S. Kougeas, "E".t TDU KaAoHp.i"ou XpOYtKOV "llivo8 (

Katapv6ov-T S, arpa1Try4s IIEAowovYit ov & alYrgl TQl pipe 1rWO T01) 'Pwpa wv 6aw&Afww carariAvero. EELS

Si rWY TOLOVTWV orparvywy Opptup'VOS p!v a 'TO riis

pcKpas 'Appc,Las,

.a7pLav

SE

Troy

'TOVOpa opiyWV YKATipWV avµftaANV 'r l YOAai4TiVlp (Ova TOAEpcKUIS dAf T! Kai , dywwc ft's 7iAoc cal

701S ' pX.iio,, OlJa70puc a'TOKaTaOT)VaL ra olccIa 'KapEOXcr. TOVTO paOWv O Tpoap,ipiroc #aa'AEVs

would justify Amantos' opinion. Indeed, while Vasiliev makes here no categorical statement on the problem, restricting himself to a summary of the conclusions of other scholars, I know, from several conversations that I have had with this distinguished Russian-American scholar, that he considers the term Tzacones to be certainly related to that of Lacones. On Tzacones see further C. N. Hatzidakes, Todcwvcc, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 27 (Leipzig, 1927), 321-324; Dolger, Byz. Zeitschrift, 26:107. For a different etymology, see Ph. Koukoules, Ti o,vla Kal Tudgwvls, in Byz. Zeftschrift, 26:317-327. For the Tzaconian dialect see H. Pernot, Introduction a Petude du dialect Tsakonien (Paris, 1934). Bees' edition, pp. 65-70. The Iberikon version.

x 148

ea

N~optX 1f4' XapO.i "A']U8Ek sw. ~poVf'i8o~ (8(1'0 TO .,u Tc..~ Ut'Ut. ...oAUi ci.,IIJUU",ltf(Ji «Got •• {Jo.{JOP'" .O~""gO. u..)"TJ