No More Learning

v.


## p. 158 (#200) ############################################

158
The Bagratuni Dynasty
when the Arab tyranny was renewed, and for his loyalty was blinded by
his compatriots. Of his successors, some fought against the Arabs and
some sought their friendship; Bagratuni princes took a leading part on
both sides in the Armeno-Persian rebellions suppressed by the Arabs in
the first half of the ninth century.
The Bagratuni were also wealthy. Unlike the Mamikonians, they
owned vast territories, and founded a strong principality in the country of
Ararat. Their wealth, their lands, and their history made them the most
powerful of Armenian families and pointed out to them a future more
memorable than their past. Midway in the ninth century, the power of
the Bagratuni was inherited by Prince Ashot. The son of Smbat the
Confessor, he refounded the ancient kingdom of Armenia and gave it a
dynasty of two centuries' duration. Under the rule of these Bagratuni
kings Armenia passed through the most national phase of its history.
It was a conquered province before they rose to power, it became more
European and less Armenian after their line was extinct. Like Ashot
himself, his descendants tried at first to control the whole of Armenia,
but from 928 onwards they were obliged to content themselves with real
dominion in their hereditary lands and moral supremacy over the other
princes. This second and more peaceful period of their rule was the
very
summer of Armenian civilisation.
Ashot had come into a great inheritance. In addition to the provinces
of Ararat and Taïkh, he owned Gugarkh and Turuberan, large properties
in higher Armenia, as well as the towns of Bagaran, Mush, Kolb, and
Kars with all their territory. He could put into the field an army of forty
thousand men, and by giving his daughters in marriage to the princes of
the Arcruni and the Siwni he made friends of two possible rivals. For
many years his chief desire was to pacify Armenia and to restore the
wasted districts, and at the same time to earn the favour of the Caliphate.
In return, the Arabs called him “Prince of Princes” (859) and sent home
their Armenian prisoners. Two years later Ashot and his brother routed
an army, double the size of their own, led into Armenia by Shahap,
a Persian who was aiming at independence. Ashot's politic loyalty to
the Arabs finally moved the Caliph Mu'tamid to make him King of Ar-
menia (885–7), and at the same time he likewise received a crown and
royal gifts from the Byzantine Emperor, Basil the Macedonian. But
Armenia was not even yet entirely freed from Arab control. Tribute
was paid to Baghdad not immediately but through the neighbouring
Ostikan of Azarbā'ījān, and the coronation of Armenian kings waited
upon the approval of the Caliphs.
During his brief reign of five years, Ashot I revived many of the
customs of the old Arsacid kingdom which had perished four and a half
centuries earlier. The crown, it seems, was handed down according to the
principle of primogeniture. The kings, though nearly always active sol-
diers themselves, do not appear to have held the supreme military command,


## p. 159 (#201) ############################################

The Katholikos: A shot I: Smbat I
159
וי
which they usually entrusted to a “general of the forces,” an ancient
office once hereditary in the Mamikonian family, but in later times often
filled by a brother of the reigning king. In Ashot's time, for instance, his
brother Abas was generalissimo, and after Ashot's death was succeeded
by a younger brother of the new king.
The Katholikos was, after the king, the most important person in
Armenia. He had been the only national representative of the Armenians
during the period of anarchy when they had no king, and his office had
been respected by the Persians and used by the Arabs as a medium of
negotiation with the Armenian princes. Under the Bagratid kings, the
Katholikos nearly always worked with the monarchy, whose representatives
it was his privilege to anoint. He would press coronation upon a reluc-
tant king, would mediate between kings and their rebellious subjects,
would lay the king's needs before the Byzantine court, or would be en-
trusted with the keys of the Armenian capital in the king's absence.
Sometimes in supporting the monarchy he would oppose the people's will,
especially in a later period, when, long after the fall of the Bagratuni
dynasty, King and Katholikos worked together for religious union with
Rome against the bitter hostility of their subjects.
Ashot made good use of every interval of peace by restoring the
commerce, industry, and agriculture of his country, and by re-populating
hundreds of towns and villages. For the sake of peace he made alliances
with most of the neighbouring kings and princes, and after travelling
through his own estates and through Little Armenia, he went to Con-
stantinople to see the Emperor Leo the Philosopher, himself reputedly
an Armenian by descent. The two monarchs signed a political and com-
mercial treaty, and Ashot gave the Emperor an Armenian contingent to
help him against the Bulgarians.
Ashot died on the journey home, and his body was carried to Bagaran,
the old city of idols, and the seat of his new-formed power. But long
before his death, his country's peace, diligently cherished for a life-time,
had been broken by the Armenians themselves. One after another,
various localities, including Vanand and Gugarkh, had revolted, and al-
though Ashot had been able to restore order everywhere, such disturbances
promised ill for the future. The proud ambition of these Armenian
princes had breathed a fitful life into a conquered province only to sap
the vitality of an autonomous kingdom.
Under Smbat I (892–914) the lesser princes did more mischief than
under his father Ashot because they made common cause with the Arabs
of Azarbā'ījān, who hated Armenia. For more than twenty years Smbat
held his kingdom against the persistent attacks, now separate, now con-
nected, of the Ostikans of Azarbā'ījān and of the Armenian princes, and
for more than a generation he and his son looked perforce to the Greeks
as their only source of external help.
As soon as Smbat had defeated his uncle Abas, who had tried to seize
CH. VI.


## p. 160 (#202) ############################################

160
Armenia and Azarbā'ījān
the throne in the first year of his reign, he turned to face Afshin, Ostikan of
Azarbā'ījān. Afshin protested against the renewal of the Greco-Armenian
alliance and twice invaded Armenia. On the first occasion Smbat not only
forced the Arabs to retire by a display of his strength, but made conquests
at their expense. He seized Dwin, the capital of the Arab emirs, and sent
the Musulman chiefs captive to the Emperor Leo (894). A year later
Dwin was almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. The second time
the Arabs invaded Armenia, Smbat, though taken by surprise, cut their
army to pieces at the foot of Mount Aragatz (or Alagöz). Afshin then
provoked rebellion among the Armenian princes, but without seriously
weakening Smbat. At last, through Armenian treachery, Smbat was de-
feated by Aḥmad, Ostikan of Mesopotamia, who had invaded the province
of Taron. Afshin took advantage of this reverse to invade Armenia for
the third time. Smbat retired to Taïkh, but Kars, the refuge of the
queen, capitulated to Afshin, who took Smbat's son as hostage and his
daughter as wife. Not long after, Afshin died, and the hostages were given
back (901). Smbat took this opportunity to obtain from the Caliph both
exemption from the authority of the Ostikan of Azarbā'ījān and also per-
mission to pay the annual tribute direct to Baghdad (902).
Afshin's feud with Armenia was renewed by his brother Yusuf. Urg-
ing that the separation of Armenia and Azarbā'ījān gave dangerous
liberty to the Armenians, he invaded the country. Smbat's troops fright-
ened him into retreat before he had struck a blow, but he soon obtained
help from some Armenian princes who were restive under heavy taxation.
Constrained to retire into the “Blue Fortress” with a handful of men,
Smbat assaulted the Muslim and Christian besiegers with great success,
and after withstanding a year's siege he capitulated only on receiving a
promise that the lives of the garrison should be spared (913). Yusuf
broke his promise. He tortured Smbat for a year, and finally put him to
death (914). The Armenian princes retired into fortresses, and Armenia
fell once more under the Arab yoke. For several years Yusuf sent fresh
troops into Armenia and organised the devastation of the country from
his headquarters at Dwin. No crops were sown, and a terrible famine
resulted. It is reported that parents even sold their children to escape
death and that some ate human flesh (918).
But the triumph of Yusuf was short. In the first year of the Arab
occupation, Smbat's son, Ashot II, surnamed Erkath, the Iron, had
already avenged his father's death by routing the invaders and recon-
quering the fortresses they held. In 915 the Armenian princes had issued
from their strongholds to declare him king. Several years later he visited
Byzantium, where the Katholikos had interested the court in the troubles
of Armenia, and returned home with a force of Greek soldiers. His
reign was one of incessant struggle against the Arabs and the Armenian
princes (915–928).
To thwart the new-born power of Armenia, Yūsuf crowned a rival


## p. 161 (#203) ############################################

Friendship between Armenia and the Arabs
161
king and provoked a fierce civil war, which was finally ended through the
mediation of John, the Katholikos. Many other internal revolts followed,
but Ashot suppressed them all, and Yusuf turned aside to attack the
peaceful kingdom of Van. Here, too, he was unsuccessful, but he appointed
a new Ostikan of Armenia. The purpose of this new Ostikan and of his suc-
cessor Bêshir was to capture the Armenian king and the Katholikos. But
Ashot retired to the island of Sevan, and built ten large boats. When
Bêshir marched against him with a strong army, he manned each boat
with seven skilled archers and sent them against theenemy. Every Armenian
arrow found its mark, the Arabs took to Alight, and were pursued with
slaughter as far as Dwin by Prince Georg Marzpetuni, Ashot's faithful
supporter. After this epic resistance, Ashot left Sevan in triumph, and
took the title “King of the Kings of Armenia” in token of his superiority
to the other Armenian princes. He died in 928.
Two reigns of perpetual warfare were followed by nearly a century of
comparative peace (928–1020). Ashot's successors were content with more
modest aims. At home they confined their real rule to their own patri-
mony and exercised only a moral sway over the other Armenian States.
Abroad they sought the favour of the Arabs, rather than that of the
Greeks. In this way alone was it possible to secure a measure of peace.
Ashot II was succeeded by his brother Abas (928-951), who concluded
a treaty with the Arabs of Dwin and exchanged Arab for Armenian
prisoners. He restored towns and villages and built churches. But when
he built the cathedral of Kars, he brought not peace but a sword to his
countrymen. Ber, King of the Abasgians (Abkhaz), wanted the cathedral
to be consecrated according to Greek rites. On the banks of the Kūr,
Abas defeated him twice to cure him of error, and then blinded him for
having looked on the building with impious eyes.
Ashot III (952–977) adopted a conciliatory policy. When his rebel-
lious brother Mushel founded a kingdom in Vanand with Kars for its
capital (968), Ashot entered into friendly relations with him. He earned
the good will of Baghdad by defeating a rebel who had thrown Azarbā'ījān
and Mesopotamia into confusion. Side by side with a prince of the
Arcruni family he faced the Emperor John Tzimisces, who came eastward
to fight the Arabs and who seemed to threaten Armenia by pitching
his camp in Taron. Baffled by the bold front of Ashot's army, eighty
thousand strong, the Emperor demanded and received an Armenian con-
tingent, and then marched away from the frontier.
By such circumspect action, Ashot III gave peace to Armenia. He re-
organised the army and could put into the field a host of ninety thousand
men. Surpassing his predecessors in the building of pious foundations, he
bestowed great revenues on convents, churches, hospitals, and almshouses.
He made Ani his capital and laid the foundations of its greatness. He
was known as Olormadz, the Pitiful, for he never sat down to meals with-
out poor and impotent men about him.
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. VI.
11


## p. 162 (#204) ############################################

162
The civilisation of Greater Armenia
Ashot's son Smbat II (977-990) was a lover of peace and a great
builder like his father. But he was forced into war with his rebellious
uncle Mushel, King of Vanand, and before his death he angered the Church
by marrying his niece.
Under his brother and successor, Gagik I (990–1020), the Armenians
enjoyed for a whole generation the strange experience of unbroken pros-
perity. Gagik was strong enough to prevent foreigners from attacking
him, and to gain the friendship of the other Armenian princes. Free
from war, he used all his time and energy to increase the moral and ma-
terial welfare of his people. He enriched the pious foundations that dated
from the time of his brother and father, and appropriated great revenues
to churches and ecclesiastics, taking part himself in religious ceremonies.
In his reign the civilisation of Armenia reached its height. Flourishing
in the unaccustomed air of peace, convents and schools were centres of
light and learning; commercial towns such as Ani, Bitlis, Ardzen, and
Nakhijevan, became wealthy marts for the merchandise of Persia, Arabia,
and the Indies. Agriculture shared in the general prosperity. Goldsmiths,
much influenced by Persian models, were hard at work, and coppersmiths
made the plentiful copper of the country into objects of every description.
Enamelling flourished in neighbouring Georgia, but no Armenian enamel
survives to tell whether the art was practised in Armenia itself.
Armenian culture was pre-eminently ecclesiastical. Its literature did
include chronicles and secular poems, but was overwhelmingly religious
as a whole. Armenian manuscripts, famous alike for their antiquity,
their beauty, and their importance in the history of writing, are nearly
all ecclesiastical. Most interesting of all in many ways (especially for the
comparison of texts and variant readings) are the numerous copies of the
Gospels. The Moscow manuscript (887) is the earliest Armenian manu-
script actually dated, and two very beautiful Gospels of a later date are
those of Queen Melkê and of Trebizond. A collection of theological and
other texts executed between 971 and 981 is their earliest manuscript
written on paper. Other important writings were dogmatic works, com-
mentaries, and sharakans or sacred songs composed in honour of church
festivals. Armenian art, again, was mainly ecclesiastical, and survives, on
the one hand in the illuminations and miniatures which adorn the sacred
texts, and, on the other, in the ruined churches and convents which still
cover the face of the country. Architecture was military as well as eccle-
siastical, but it is hard not to believe that the people of Ani were prouder
of their galaxy of churches than they were of their fortress, their walls,
and their towers.
In the tenth century, especially after a branch of the Bagratuni had
founded an independent State in Vanand (968), the intellectual focus of
Armenia seems to have been Kars, with its crowd of young Armenian
students who came there to study philosophy, belles-lettres, and theology.
But the true centre and most splendid proof of Armenian civilisation was


## p. 163 (#205) ############################################

Civil war between John-Smbat and his brother
163
Ani, city of forty keys and a thousand and one churches. In the eighth
century no more than a village, it slowly grew larger and more populous.
Ashot I and Ashot III were crowned at Ani, and there Ashot III established
the throne of the Bagratuni dynasty. He defended the city with a fortress,
and his queen enriched it with two fine convents, but the most splendid
buildings were added by Smbat II, who also fortified Ani on the north
with a double line of walls and towers and a great ditch of stone. The
citadel was defended on the east and south by the river Akhurian, and
on the west by the Valley of Flowers. Among the magnificent palaces and
temples, richly adorned with mosaics and inscriptions, stood the cathedral,
masterpiece of the famous architect Trdat (Tiridates), built on Persian
and Byzantine lines.
This mixture of architectural styles is typical of the national art of
Armenia, which betrays a subtle mingling of Persian, Arab, and Byzantine
influences. The churches of Sevan, of Digor, of Keghard near Erivan,
even the Armenian church of Paris in the Rue Jean-Goujon', still
symbolise the desperate battle the Armenians had to fight against the
foreigner, and still suggest that the only way of maintaining the unequal
struggle was to turn the encroaching elements to the service of the
Armenian Church, dearest and most inviolable stronghold of Armenian
nationality.
Under Gagik I that nationality seemed safe. His reign proved
Armenia's capacity for quick recovery, and promised the country a fair
future if peace could be kept. But the universal grief at Gagik's death
was unconscious mourning for the end of prosperity. It presaged the slow
declension of Armenia from national pride to servitude, and the gradual
passing of the royal house from kingly power to exile and extinction.
Two generations of misfortune (1020-1079) opened with civil war.
Gagik had left two sons. His successor John-Smbat (1020-1040), timid
and effeminate, was attacked and defeated by his younger and more
militant brother Ashot, who was helped by Senekherim Arcruni, King of
Vaspurakan (Van). Peace was concluded through the mediation of the
Katholikos Petros Getadartz and Giorgi, King of the Georgians, but only
by a division of territory. John-Smbat kept Ani and its dependencies,
while Ashot took the part of the kingdom next to Persia and Georgia
(Iberia). On the death of either brother the country was to be re-united
under the survivor.
But Ashot was discontented. He roused the King of Georgia to
attack and imprison John-Smbat, who escaped only by yielding three
fortresses to Giorgi. Still unsatisfied, Ashot feigned mortal illness and
begged his brother to pay him a last visit. Once by Ashot's bedside,
John-Smbat saw the trap and begged for his life. Ashot, deceitful to
the end, freed him merely to hand him over to Prince Apirat, who
1 A copy of the church (still standing) of Aghthamar.
CH. VI.
11-2


## p. 164 (#206) ############################################

164
Armenia threatened by Greeks and Turks
promised to kill him at a secret spot. But, visited by sudden remorse,
Apirat restored the king to Ani and his throne, and fled himself to
Abū’l-Aswār, governor of Dwin, to escape the wrath of Ashot.
While Ashot schemed against his brother, Armenia was threatened
on both sides by different enemies, one old, the other new. The new
assailants were the Seljūq Turks, led against Vaspurakan at the opening
of John-Smbat's reign by Țughril Beg, whose precursor Hasan had
already wasted Mesopotamia. When they had overcome the resistance
of Vaspurakan, they advanced into John-Smbat's territory. At the
beginning of his reign John-Smbat had had an army of 60,000, but the
Armenian generalissimo, Vasak Pahlavuni, had to meet the Turks with
a bare five hundred men. Climbing Mount Serkevil to rest, he died
there, whether by his own hand, or by treason, or by a rock falling from
the mountain while he prayed, is unknown. Meanwhile, Țughril Beg
left Armenia for the time and conquered the whole of Persia.
On the west, Armenia was threatened once again by the Byzantine
Empire. The Turkish advance, instead of inducing the Greeks to help
Armenia, revived in them their old ambition of conquest, with fatal
results not only to the Armenians but to themselves. During the reign
of John-Smbat this ambition was twice fed by Armenian policy.
Conquered and then left by Țughril Beg, Senekherim of Vaspurakan
gave up his kingdom to Basil II (1021) in exchange for the town of
Sebastea (Sīwās) rather than wait to offer a second vain resistance to the
Turks on their inevitable return? . Two years later Basil entered Georgia
to repress a revolt in which John-Smbat had been secretly implicated.
In fear of the Emperor's wrath John-Smbat violated the treaty he had
made with his brother, and through the agency of the Katholikos Petros
Getadartz he gave in writing a promise that after his own death Basil
should inherit Ani. Basil was well pleased. But some years later his
successor Constantine VIII summoned to his death-bed an Armenian
priest named Kirakos, and handed him the inequitable document, saying:
“ Bear this letter to thy king and tell him from me that like other
mortals I find myself on the threshold of Eternity, and I would not
extort the possession of another. Let him take back his kingdom and
give it to his sons. " The mischief might have ended here but for the
treachery of the priest, who kept the letter in his own possession and
finally sold it for a large sum to Michael IV (1034). Much as his dis-
honesty cost the Emperor, it was to cost Armenia more.
As soon as John-Smbat was dead, Michael sent an embassy to claim
Ani and its dependencies. His chance of success was good, because Ani
was divided by two factions. One, led by the generalissimo Vahram
Pahlavuni, wished to crown Gagik, the fourteen-year-old nephew and
heir of John-Smbat; the other intended to give the crown to Vest Sarkis
1 See Macler, F. , Rapport sur une mission scientifique en Arménie russe et en
Arménie turque. . . , Paris 1911, p. 46.
ܕ•


## p. 165 (#207) ############################################

Constantine Monomachus betrays Gagik II
165
Siwni, the regent, or failing him to the Emperor Michael. For the
moment, party differences were sunk in unanimous denial of Byzantine
claims, but Vest Sarkis destroyed this short-lived amity by seizing the
State treasure and several strongholds. Vahram's party won a fairer re-
nown by defeating the Greeks, who were sent by the Emperor to take by
force what his embassy had failed to win by persuasion. One after
another three Greek armies invaded Armenia; each spread desolation far
and wide without conquering Ani. Michael then sent a fourth army
to besiege Ani while the King of the Albanians (Aluans) invaded the
north-east province of Armenia on behalf of the Greeks. Vahram broke
up the invading army by a bold attack. The Greeks, terrified by the fury
of the Armenians, fled in disorder, leaving twenty thousand dead and
wounded beneath the walls of the town. This victory enabled Vahram to
crown Gagik II (1042-1046). With a mere handful of men the boy-
king recovered the State treasure and the citadel of Ani from Vest
Sarkis, whom he cast into prison. Unhindered for the moment by Greek
interference or Armenian treachery, Gagik drove out the Turks and
began to restore order in the country. But unfortunately for himself and
for his people, he was generous enough to forgive Vest Sarkis and to
raise him to honour. Posing as the king's friend, this traitor worked to
alienate the Armenian princes from Gagik and to encourage the hostile
intention of Constantine Monomachus, successor to Michael V.
Constantine copied the Armenian policy of Michael. Failing to secure
Ani by negotiation, he sent an army to seize it.
Gagik defeated the
Greeks and forced them to retire. Like Michael, Constantine then sent
a larger army, and at the same time urged Abū’l-Aswār, governor of Dwin,
to harass the Armenians on the east. But Gagik disarmed Abū’l-Aswār
by gifts, and after a short battle put to flight the confident Greeks.
Still Constantine would not give up hope. Where peace and war had
failed, trickery might succeed. Inspired by Vest Sarkis, he asked Gagik
to come to Constantinople to sign a treaty of perpetual peace, swearing
on the cross and the gospels in the presence of Gagik's delegate that he
would be true to his word. Unwilling to go himself, and discouraged by
the Vahramians, the king ultimately yielded to the evil counsel of Vest
Sarkis and passed out of Armenia to his ruin. Before he had spent many
days in Constantinople, the Emperor demanded Ani of him, and, when
he refused it, imprisoned him on an island in the Bosphorus.
When the Armenians heard of this disaster, there was much division
among them. Some wanted to deliver Ani to David Anholin of Albania,
others to Bagarat, King of Georgia and Abasgia, but the Katholikos
Petros, to whom Gagik had entrusted the keys, informed the Emperor
that Ani should be his for a consideration. Once assured of a good price
for his shameful merchandise, Petros sent the forty keys of the bartered
city to Constantine.
Gagik rebelled against the accomplished fact, but finally abdicated
CA. VI.


## p. 166 (#208) ############################################

166
Greater Armenia conquered by the Seljūqs
his throne, receiving in exchange the town of Bizou in Cappadocia. Here
he married the daughter of David, King of Sebastea, and led the wandering
life of an exile. After many years, he learnt one day that the Metro-
politan, Mark of Caesarea, had named his dog Armên in mockery of the
Armenians. Gagik could not stomach the insult, steep it as he must in
the bitterness of exile, in hatred of a rival Church, in contempt for
a people he had never encountered but as conqueror until they overcame
him by guile. To avenge the honour of his country's name, he caused
the dog and the ecclesiastic to be tied up together in a sack, and had
the animal beaten until it bit its master to death. For this crime against
their metropolitan, three Greek brothers seized Gagik by treachery and
hanged him in the castle of Cyzistra (1079). He left two sons and
a grandson, but they did not long survive him. When the last of them
had died in prison, the Bagratuni line was extinct.
During the exile of their king, the Armenians fell a prey to Greek
and Turk. At first, not knowing of his abdication, they resisted the
Greeks and dispersed the army sent under the command of the eunuch
Paracamus to take possession of Ani. But on hearing that Gagik was
never again to enter the country, the Armenians lost all heart, and
allowed Paracamus to possess the city. Once masters of Armenia, the
Greeks committed atrocious cruelties. They exiled or poisoned the
princes, replaced Armenian troops by Greek garrisons, and worked for
the utter destruction of the country.
But they had reckoned without the Turk. Learning of Armenia's
weakness, Țughril Beg returned, and spread ruin and desolation far and
wide for several years. He sacked the fortified town of Smbataberd and
tortured the inhabitants. The rich commercial town of Ardzen shared
the same fate (1049). The Greeks at last determined to make an end of
his savagery. Together with Liparid, King of Georgia, their general
Comnenus offered battle to the Turks near Bayber. But owing to dis-
agreement among the Christians, the Turks were victorious and carried
the King of Georgia into captivity. With no one now to oppose him,
Țughril overran most of Armenia except Ani. Vanand resisted in vain,
but their failure in the siege of Manzikert forced the Turks to retire.
ľughril fell back, only to wreak his vengeance upon Ardskê. His death,
like that of the Arab Afshin long before, brought no relief to Armenia,
for like Afshin, he left a brother, Alp Arslān, to complete his work of
destruction. Alp Arslān besieged Ani unsuccessfully for a time, but
finally overcame its resistance and sacked the city with unimaginable
fury. The river Akhurian ran red with blood; palaces and temples were
set on fire and covered thousands of corpses with their ruins (1064). The
Turks then invited Vanand to submit. Gagik, the king, feigned friend-
ship and made an alliance with Alp Arslān. But like Senekherim of Van
before him, he gave his kingdom to the Eastern Empire in exchange for
a stronghold farther west. In 1065 he transported his family to the


## p. 167 (#209) ############################################

Character of Armeno-Cilician kingdom
167
castle of Dzmndav in Little Armenia. The Greeks, however, could not
save Vanand from the Turks, who pushed their conquests as far as Little
Armenia. Kars, Karin, Bayber, Sebastea, and Caesarea had submitted to
Alp Arslān, when the Emperor Romanus Diogenes opposed him at
Manzikert in 1071. The Greeks were defeated, and the Turks led the
Emperor into captivity.
By the end of the eleventh century not a vestige remained of
Byzantine dominion over Armenia. The Greeks saw too late the fatal
consequences of their selfish hostility towards a country which on south
and east might have served them as a rampart against their most
dangerous foe.
The national history of Greater Armenia ended with the Turkish
conquest and with the extinction of the Bagratuni line. Little by little,
numbers of Armenians withdrew into the Taurus mountains and the
plateau below, but though their country rose again from ruin, it was
only as a small principality in Cilicia. The fruits of Armenian civilisation-
the architectural splendour of Ani, the military strength of Van, the
intellectual life of Kars, the commercial pride of Bitlis and Ardzen-were
no more.
Greater Armenia had been eastern rather than western, coming into
contact with race after race from the east; with Byzantium alone, half
eastern itself, on the west. But the civilisation of Armeno-Cilicia was
western rather than eastern: its political interests were divided between
Europe and Asia, and its history was overshadowed by that of the
Crusades. To the Crusades the change was pre-eminently due. Crusading
leaders stood in every kind of relationship to the new Armenian kingdom.
They befriended and fought it by turns. They used its roads, borrowed
its troops, received its embassies, fought its enemies, and established
feudal governments near it. For a time their influence made it a Euro-
pean State, built on feudal lines, seeking agreement with the Church of
Rome, and sending envoys to the principal courts of Christendom.
But the Armenian Church, which had been the inspiration and main-
stay of the old civilisation, and the family ambitions, which had helped
to destroy it, lived on to prove the continuity of the little State of
Armeno-Cilicia with the old Bagratid kingdom. Nationalist feeling,
stirred to life by fear of religious compromise and by the growth of Latin
influence at court, was to provoke a crisis more than once in centuries
to come.
Among the Armenian migrants to the Taurus mountains, during the
invasions that followed the abdication of Gagik II, was Prince Ruben
(Rupen). He had seen the assassination of Gagik to whom he was related,
and he determined to avenge his kinsman's death on the Greeks.
Collecting a band of companions, whose numbers increased from day to
CH. VI.


## p. 168 (#210) ############################################

168
The foundation of Armeno-Cilicia
day, he took up his stand in the village of Goromozol near the fortress
of Bardsrberd, drove the Greeks out of the Taurus region, and established
his dominion there. The other Armenian princes recognised his supremacy
and helped him to strengthen his power, though many years were to pass
before the Greeks were driven out of all the Cilician towns and strongholds
which they occupied.
Cilicia was divided into two well-marked districts: the plain, rich and
fertile but difficult to defend, and the mountains, covered with forests
and full of defiles. The wealth of the country was in its towns: Adana,
Mamistra, and Anazarbus, for long the chief centres of hostility between
Greeks and Armenians; Ayas with its maritime trade; Tarsus and Sis,
each in turn the capital of the new Armenian State; Germanicea or Marʻash,
and Ulnia or Zeithun. The mountainous region, difficult of approach,
and sprinkled with Syrian, Greek, and Armenian monasteries, easily con-
verted into strongholds, was the surest defence of the province, though
in addition the countryside was protected by strong fortresses such as
Vahka, Bardsrberd, Kapan, and Lambron.
When Ruben died, after fifteen years of wise rule (1080-1095), he was
able to hand on the lordship of Cilicia to his son Constantine (1095-1100),
who first brought Armeno-Cilicia into close contact with Europe. Con-
stantine continued his father's work by capturing Vahka and other for-
tresses from the Greeks and thus increasing his patrimony. But he broke
new ground by making an alliance with the Crusaders, who in return for
his services in pointing out roads and in furnishing supplies, especially
during the siege of Antioch, gave him the title of Marquess.
If the principality thus founded in hostile territory owed its existence
to the energy of an Armenian prince, it owed its survival largely to ex-
ternal causes. In the first place, the Turks were divided. After 1092,
when the Seljūq monarchy split into rival powers, Persia alone was
governed by the direct Seljūq line; other sultans of Seljūq blood ruled
parts of Syria and Asia Minor. Although the Sultans of Iconium or
Rūm were to be a perpetual danger to Cilicia from the beginning of
the twelfth century onwards, the division of the Turks at the close of the
eleventh century broke for a time the force of their original advance, and
gave the first Rubenians a chance to recreate the Armenian State. In
the second place, the Crusades began. The Latin States founded in the East
during the First Crusade checked the Turks, and also prevented the Greeks,
occupied as they were with internal and external difficulties, from making
a permanent reconquest of Cilicia. The Latins did not aim at protecting
the Armenians, with whom indeed they often quarrelled. But as a close
neighbour to a number of small states, nominally friendly but really
inimical to Byzantium, Armenia was no longer isolated. Instead of being
a lonely upstart principality, it became one of many recognised kingdoms,
all hostile to the Greek recovery of the Levant, allentitled to the moral sanc-
tion and expecting the armed support of the mightiest kings of Europe.


## p. 169 (#211) ############################################

Armeno-Cilicia attacked by Greeks and Turks
169
For about twenty-five years after Constantine's death, his two sons,
Thoros I (1100–1123) and Leo I (1123-1135), ruled the Armenians with
great success. As an able administrator Thoros organised the country,
and would have given his time to building churches and palaces if his
enemies had left him in peace. But he had to fight both Greeks and
Turks. He took Anazarbus from the Greeks and repulsed an invasion of
Seljūqs and Turkomans. In his reign the death of Gagik II was at last
avenged: Armenian troops seized the castle of Cyzistra and put to death
the three Greek brothers who had hanged the exiled king. Leo I, who
succeeded Thoros, had not the administrative gifts of his predecessors,
but like them he was a brave soldier. He captured Mamistra and Tarsus,
the chief towns still in Greek hands, and was for a time unquestioned
master of all Cilicia.
But the Greeks were not permanently ousted from Cilicia until 1168.
Leo's dominion was short-lived, owing to the failure of his diplomacy.
He wore his political designs round the Christian principality of Antioch.
At first he joined with Roger of Antioch against the Turks; then, quar-
relling with Roger, he joined the Turks against Antioch (1130). In revenge,
Roger's successor Bohemond II allied with Baldwin, Count of Maríash,
seized Leo by a trick (1131), and as the price of freedom extorted from
him the towns of Mamistra and Adana, a sum of 60,000 piastres, and
one of his sons as hostage. Leo paid the price demanded, but afterwards
re-took by force what he had been compelled to yield to treachery.
Meanwhile Antioch attracted the envious eye of the Emperor John
Comnenus. First, he tried to gain it for the Empire by a marriage project.
Failing in this, he fought for it. This time Leo joined with Antioch
against the Greeks, but again he suffered for his choice. While he was
encamped before Seleucia at the head of Latin and Armenian troops, the
Emperor invaded Cilicia, took Tarsus, Mamistra, and Adana, and had
already begun to attack Anazarbus when Leo hurried back to relieve the
city. The Emperor despaired of capturing it until his son Isaac advised
him to cover his engines of war with clay to prevent them from being
broken. This device succeeded. Leo retired to the castle of Vahka, and
in spite of help from Antioch was forced to surrender (1135). Antioch
recognised the Emperor's supremacy, and Leo was put into chains and
sent to a Byzantine prison, where he died six years later (1141). Two of
his sons were imprisoned with him. The elder was tortured and put to
death, but Thoros, the younger, survived to deliver his country.
Before deliverance came, the Armenians were tormented for nine long
years by their old enemies, the Greeks and the Turks. Leo's misfortune
gave Cilicia to the Greeks, who pillaged and destroyed strongholds and
towns, convents and churches. The Turks and even the Latins joined in
demolishing the laborious work of the first Rubenians. But when the
Turkish Emir Ahmad Malik had seized Vahka and Kapan, the Emperor
returned to Cilicia, bringing with him Thoros, son of Leo I. In this
CH, VI.


## p. 170 (#212) ############################################

170
Thoros II successful against the Greeks
campaign, however, the Emperor was killed while hunting, and the Greek
army retreated, while Thoros managed to escape and disclosed his identity
to an Armenian priest.
Thoros II (1145–1168) had to reconquer his kingdom from the Greeks
before he could rule it. At the head of ten thousand Armenians and with
the help of his brothers, Stephanê (Sdephanê) and Mleh, who had been at
the court of Nūr-ad-Din, Sultan of Aleppo, he recaptured the fortresses
of Vahka, Simanakla, and Arindz. One by one all the great cities of the
plain opened their gates. Manuel Comnenus hastened to bring his Hun-
garian war to a close and to send his cousin the Caesar Andronicus to
oppose Thoros, who retired to Mamistra on the approach of the Greek
army. The town was without ammunition, and Thoros undertook to re-
cognise the supremacy of the Greeks if they would respect his paternal
rights. Andronicus refused, and threatened to bind Thoros with his
father's fetters. But on a dark, rainy night Thoros breached the walls
of the town and surprised the enemy at their revels. Andronicus escaped
with a handful of men, but Thoros pursued him as far as Antioch, and
then returned to Mamistra. He held to ransom the Greek nobles he had
captured, and divided the money among his soldiers, telling the wonder-
ing Greeks that he did so in order that his men might one day recapture
them. Among the prisoners was Oshin, Lord of Lambron, father of the
famous Nerses Lambronatsi. Oshin paid twenty thousand pieces of gold
as half his ransom, and for the second half left his son Hethum (Hayton)
as hostage. Thoros had later so great an affection for Hethum that he
gave him his daughter in marriage, and regarding the payment of Oshin's
debt as the girl's dowry he sent them both to Lambron, hoping thus to
win the friendship of Oshin and his family. This hope was not fulfilled,
for Lambron, with its leanings towards Byzantium, was destined to give
much trouble to future rulers of Armenia.
Manuel's next step was to induce other rulers to attack Thoros. First
he bribed Masóūd I, Sultan of Iconium, to oppose him. The Sultan twice
invaded Cilicia, only to be repulsed, once by the sight of Thoros' prepara-
tions, once by plague (1154). The Emperor then turned to the Latins,
and excited Reginald of Chatillon, regent of Antioch, to fight against
Armenia. Thoros and Reginald fought a bloody but doubtful battle at
Alexandretta, but Reginald, not receiving the Emperor's promised help,
made peace with Thoros and marched against the Greeks. He made a
naval attack on Cyprus and inflicted great injury on its defenceless
people. This diversion enabled Thoros to consolidate his power and even
to extend it in the mountainous districts of Phrygia and Isauria.
Manuel was greatly dissatisfied with the unexpected result. He sent
against Thoros another army, which failed like the first, and then came
to Cilicia in person. Warned in time by a Latin monk, Thoros put his
family and his treasure in the stronghold of Tajki-Gar (Rock of Tajik),
and hid himself in the mountains while the Emperor deprived him of his


## p. 171 (#213) ############################################

The Greeks driven from Cilicia
171
hardly-won cities. When peace was finally made through the mediation
of Baldwin III, King of Jerusalem, Thoros was restored to power under
the title of Pansebastos and Manuel kept the two towns of Anazarbus and
Mamistra (1159).
But the barbarity of the Greeks provoked fresh hostilities which re-
sulted in their expulsion from the country. While Thoros helped the
crusaders against the Sultan of Aleppo, his brother Stephanê (Sdephanê)
re-took the towns which the Sultan of Iconium had captured from the
Christians. Jealous of Stephanê's success, the Emperor's lieutenant, An-
dronicus Euphorbenus? , invited him to a feast and cast him into a cauldron
of boiling water (1163). Once more a powerful Greek army was sent to
Cilicia, but Thoros determined to avenge his brother's death, and, by de-
feating the invaders in a great battle near Tarsus, brought to a successful
close his life-long struggle against Byzantium. Greek domination in
Cilicia was at an end.
Thoros died regretted by all, leaving a child, Ruben II, to succeed him,
and a brother to undo his work. This brother, Mleh, had been a Templar
and a Catholic, and then became a leader of Turkoman nomads. He
spread destruction wherever he went. The young king took refuge with
the Katholikos at Romkla, where he soon died. Mleh openly joined the
Sultan Nūr-ad-Dīn, invaded Cilicia, and did great harm to the Armenians.
But he made himself so unpopular by his cruelty that his own soldiers
killed him (1175).
After his death the Armenians filled his place by his nephew
Ruben III (1175-1185), the eldest son of the Stephanê who had been cast
into boiling water by the Greeks. Of peaceful disposition, Ruben none
the less freed his country from external attack; but from his Armenian
enemies he was only saved by his brother Leo.
Although the Greeks had been driven out of Cilicia, some of the
Armenian principalities, Lambron among them, still looked upon the
Emperor as their suzerain. Hethum of Lambron was related to the Ru-
benians by marriage, but he preferred Byzantine to Armenian supremacy,
and asked Bohemond III of Antioch to help him against Ruben III. Bohe-
mond seized Ruben by treachery, imprisoned him at Antioch, and marched
against the Armenians, hoping to conquer Cilicia, not for Hethum or
the Emperor, but for himself. Leo, however, repulsed him, and forced
him and Hethum to make peace with Ruben. On his release, Ruben de-
voted himself to the welfare of his people, who loved him for his liberality
and wise administration. He built towns and convents, and finally retired
into a monastery.
Ruben's successor was his brother Leo II (1185–1219), surnamed the
Great or the Magnificent, already known as his country's defender, and
destined to raise the lordship or barony of Armeno-Cilicia to the status
1 In another view this atrocity is attributed to Andronicus Comnenus. See
infra, Chapter XII, p. 375.
CH. VI.


## p. 172 (#214) ############################################

172
European connexions of Leo the Great
of a kingdom. His long reign of thirty-four years fully justified his change
of style, for he gave his country a stability and prosperity that were un-
paralleled in its annals.
His first work was to free the Armenians from Muslim pressure. He
conquered Rustam, Sultan of Iconiun, who suddenly invaded Cilicia, and
two years
after his accession he drove back the united forces of the Sultans
of Aleppo and Damascus (1187). When he was once more at peace
he
built fortresses on the frontiers and filled them with well-trained garrisons.
With Cilicia he incorporated Isauria, which had been seized by the Seljūqs
of Rūm.
In diplomacy, his sovereign purpose was to obtain the help of Western
Europe against the Greeks and Muslims. He sought the friendship of the
European princes by means of marriage-alliances. His niece Aliza was
married to Raymond, son of Bohemond of Antioch; and he himself
married Isabella of Austria. Later, he repudiated Isabella and married
Sibylla, daughter of Amaury of Lusignan, King of Cyprus. Long before
his second marriage he had made a friend of Frederick Barbarossa, who
at the outset of his ill-starred Crusade asked for Leo's help in return for
the promise of a crown. Leo quickly sent abundant provisions and am-
munition to the Crusaders, and when the imperial army entered Isauria he
himself went with the Katholikos to greet the Emperor. They never met,
for Barbarossa had been drowned on the way, bathing in the Cali-
cadnus.
After some years, Frederick's son Henry VI and Pope Celestine III
sent the promised crown to Leo, and, at the feast of the Epiphany in 1198,
he was consecrated in the cathedral of Sis? by the Katholikos Grigor VII
Apirat in the presence of the Archbishop of Mayence, Conrad of Wittels-
bach, Papal legate and representative of the Emperor? The Eastern Em-
peror Alexius Angelus also sent Leo a crown in confirmation of Armenian
authority over Cilicia, so long disputed by the Greeks.
Leo was anxious to include the Pope among his European friends.
Many letters passed between the Popes on the one side and the Katholikos
and King of Armenia on the other with a view to uniting the Roman and
Armenian Churches. But the Armenian authorities, willing themselves
to make concessions to Rome, were opposed by the Armenian people,
who strenuously defended their Church against the authority of the
Papacy. In the end, the sole result of attempted reconciliation was an
embitterment of religious feeling.
King by the consent of Europe, Leo made his country a European
State. He chose a new seat for his government, removing it from Tarsus
to Sis, where he entertained German, English, French, and Italian captains,
who came to serve under the Armenian banner. In defining the relations
1 Some historians say Tarsus.
2 A list of the prelates, lords, and ambassadors who attended the ceremony will
be found in the Chronicle of Smbat.


## p. 173 (#215) ############################################

Leo's achievements in peace and war
173
of the princes to the royal house, in establishing military and household
posts, in creating tribunals, and in fixing the quota of taxes and tribute,
he copied to a great extent the organisation of the Latin princes of Syria.
One of the fruits of his alliance with Bohemond of Antioch was the
adoption of the Assises of Antioch as the law of Armeno-Cilicia.
In addition, Leo encouraged industry, navigation, and commerce. He
cultivated commercial relations with the West, and by granting privileges
to Genoese and Venetian merchants he spread Cilician trade throughout
Europe. Mindful, too, of the good works of his forefathers, he founded
orphanages and hospitals and schools, and increased the number of con-
vents, where skilled calligraphists and miniaturists added lustre to the
prosperity of his reign.
Leo's reputation, founded on peaceful achievement, is all the greater
because he attained it in spite of intermittent wars. Of his own will he
entered on a long succession-struggle in Antioch to defend the rights of
his young kinsman, Ruben-Raymond, against the usurpation of an uncle,
Bohemond IV the One-Eyed, Count of Tripolis, who had seized the govern-
ment of Antioch with the help of Templars and Hospitallers. Leo recap-
tured Antioch and restored Ruben-Raymond to power. Bohemond
returned, drove out his nephew a second time, and bribed the Sultan of
Iconium, Rukn-ad-Dīn, to invade Cilicia.