No More Learning

The peace lasted about
twenty years. In connexion with the Bulgarian war, for the first time the
Hungarians enter into the history of Byzantium, and towards the end of
the reign of Leo the Russians appeared before Constantinople. Armenia,
which was in alliance with Byzantium, during the whole of Leo's reign was
subjected to Arabian invasions, and the Emperor of Byzantium had not
the strength to help the Armenian King Sempad (Smbat); it was only at
the end of his reign that Leo went to the aid of Armenia, but he died
during the campaign. The question about the fourth marriage of the
Emperor caused great division in the Empire. It was thus evident that
the conditions of the struggle between the Byzantine Empire and the
Saracens were becoming more difficult.
During the first fourteen years of the reign of Leo VI, from 886
to 900, the Greeks suffered frequent defeats in the east, at the Cilician
Gates and in the west of Cilicia, where the Saracens successfully advanced
along the coast as well as into the interior of the country. The failures
1 The grandfather of the future Emperor of the same name. See supra, Chapter
III, p. 69.


## p. 141 (#183) ############################################

Disasters under Leo VI
141
on land and the naval defeat of Rāghib in 898 off the coast of Asia Minor
compelled the Byzantine government to recall the energetic Nicephorus
Phocas from Italy, and about 900 he arrived in Asia Minor. Affairs in
Sicily grew worse and worse with every year. In 888 the imperial fleet
suffered a severe defeat at Mylae (now Milazzo); but the Byzantines were
somewhat helped by the fact that the Saracens were at that time occupied
with their own internal dissensions and in conflicts with the African
Aghlabids. Some successes gained by the Byzantine arms in Italy had no
influence on the general conditions of the struggle between Leo VI and
the Saracens. In the east, Nicephorus Phocas by his victory at Adana in
900 justified the hopes that had been placed in him; but the success of
the Byzantines came with this nearly to a standstill.
The first years of the tenth century were signalised by a whole series
of misfortunes for the Byzantine Empire, in the west as well as in the east.
In the west, the Saracen chief Abū’l-'Abbās took possession of Reggio in
Calabria on 10 June 901, and the Aghlabid Emir Ibrāhīm captured
on 1 August 902 Taormina, the last fortified place of the Greeks in
Sicily.
With the fall of Taormina, Sicily was entirely in the power of the
Saracens. It is true that several unimportant points, as for instance
Demona, still remained in the hands of the Greeks, but this had no im-
portance whatever for the future history of Byzantium. From 902 onwards
Sicilian events do not exercise any influence on the course of Byzantine
political affairs. In the second half of Leo's reign, the eastern policy of the
Empire is quite independent of his relations with the Sicilian Saracens.
The first years of the tenth century were also signalised by important
events on sea. At the end of the ninth century the Saracens of Crete
had already begun their devastating attacks on the coast of the Pelopon-
nesus ; indeed, they held in their power the whole of the Aegean Sea.
We
possess information about their attacks on the islands of Naxos,
Patmos, Paros, Aegina, and Samos. But it was during the first years
of the tenth century that these maritime invasions of the Saracens became
especially threatening. Their two strong fleets—the Syrian and the Cretan
–frequently acted together. In 902 the Saracen fleet laid waste the islands
of the Aegean Sea, and destroyed the rich and populous town of Deme-
trias on the coast of Thessaly. In the summer of 904, another Saracen
fleet, under the command of the Greek renegade, Leo of Tripolis, made
an attack on the south coast of Asia Minor, and, in the month of July
of the same year, took possession of the important town of Attalia.
Leo then had the intention of going towards Constantinople, the town
“preserved by God. ” But having entered the Hellespont and captured
Abydos, the chief custom-house port for ships going to Byzantium, he
suddenly departed, and then, coasting round the peninsula of Chalcidice,
approached Thessalonica. Himerius, who was sent against him, did not
dare to engage the Saracen fleet in battle.
CH. V.


## p. 142 (#184) ############################################

142
Naval disasters
The Saracen ships approached Thessalonica on 29 July 904, and made
an unexpected assault upon it. The story of the siege, which lasted from
29 to 31 July, is well known to us from a work of John Cameniates.
Thessalonica passed into the power of the Saracens on 31 July 904, but
they shortly afterwards departed for Syria with many prisoners and rich
booty. It was only after this misfortune that the Byzantine government
began to fortify Attalia and Thessalonica.
The naval failures of 902–904 induced the Emperor Leo to give
greater attention to the fleet, which was so quickly and greatly im-
proved that in 906 Himerius was enabled to gain a brilliant victory over
the Saracens, and in the summer of 910 he was therefore placed at the
head of a large naval expedition, directed against the allied Eastern and
Cretan Arabs. Detailed accounts of the composition of this expedition
are preserved in the Ceremonies of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
However, the result of the expedition did not correspond to all
these great preparations, for after some success at Cyprus Himerius
suffered a severe defeat near the isle of Samos in October 911 and lost
the greater part of his fleet. On the death of Leo VI, Himerius returned
to Constantinople, and was shut up in a monastery by the Emperor
Alexander.
In the east, on land, from 900, the usual military operations were
carried on with varying success.
Byzantine policy, in its relation to the Saracens, proved a complete
failure under Leo VI: in the west, Sicily was definitely lost; in the south
of Italy, after Nicephorus Phocas had been recalled, the success of the
Byzantine arms was brought to a close; on the eastern frontier, the
Saracens were still steadily, if slowly, advancing, especially in Cilicia ; on
sea, Byzantium met with a whole series of most ruinous disasters.
The reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus is divided into three
periods: 1. From 913 to 919—the government of his mother Zoë, who
acted as regent during his minority. 2. From 919 to 944—the government
of Romanus Lecapenus. 3. From 945 to 959—the absolute government
of Constantine himself.
The period down to 927 was occupied with the obstinate and unhappy
war with the Bulgarian King Simeon, during which Byzantium was obliged
to concentrate all its efforts against this terrible enemy. At this time
it was impossible even to think of any regular organised action against the
Saracens. It was a happy circumstance for Byzantium that the Caliphate
itself was passing at the same time through the epoch of its dissolution,
which was caused by internal dissensions and the rise of separate inde-
pendent dynasties. Consequently, down to 927 the encounters with the
Saracens were of the usual harassing and monotonous character, and
generally resulted to the advantage of the Saracen arms. It was only in
921 or 922 that the Byzantine fleet gained a great naval victory near


## p. 143 (#185) ############################################

Constantine VII: the decline of the Caliphate
143
the island of Lemnos over the renowned hero of 904, Leo of Tripolis. In
927 Byzantium concluded peace with the Bulgarian King Peter, who had
succeeded Simeon, and was thus free to turn her attention towards the
Saracens.
In the time of Romanus Lecapenus, eminent leaders arose in the armies
of both adversaries; in that of the Greeks, the Domestic John Curcuas,
who, after some defeats in Saracen Armenia, fought with success in the
frontier province of Mesopotamia, and in 934 captured Melitene (Mala-
tīyah). The new Saracen leader was Saif-ad-Daulah, sovereign of Aleppo
and chief of the independent dynasty of the Hamdānids. He strengthened
himself at the expense of the Caliph of Baghdad, and began successful mili-
tary operations in the regions of the Upper Euphrates. This induced the
Emperor to enter into friendly negotiations with the Caliph of Baghdad
and with the Egyptian sovereigns, the Ikhshīdids. But disturbances in
the Eastern Caliphate and other difficulties drew the attention of Saif-
ad-Daulah away from the Byzantine frontier, and this explains why John
Curcuas, in the fourth decade, gained a series of easy victories in Armenia
and Upper Mesopotamia, and in 942–3 captured the towns of Mayyā-
farīqīn (Martyropolis), Dara, and Nisibis. In 944 Edessa, after a severe
siege, succumbed to the Greeks, and was obliged to deliver up her
precious relic, the miraculous image of the Saviour (T) uavdíniov, or
pavonacov), which was with great solemnity transferred to Constantinople.
In 945 Constantine Porphyrogenitus became absolute ruler of the
Byzantine Empire. Down to the very year of his death (959) military
operations did not cease in the east, where hischief adversary was the already
famous Saif-ad-Daulah, who, having settled in 947 his difficulties with
the Egyptian Ikhshīdids, turned against Byzantium. In the beginning the
advantage was with the Greeks. In 949 they seized Marʻash (Germanicea);
in 950 they totally defeated Saif-ad-Daulah in the narrow passage near the
town of Hadath; and in 952 they crossed the Euphrates and took the
Mesopotamian town of Sarūj. But in 952 and 953 Saif-ad-Daulah defeated
the Greeks not far from Marash and took the son of the Domestic prisoner.
In 954 Saif-ad-Daulah gained a fresh victory over the Domestic Bardas
Phocas near Hadath, and in 956 the future Emperor John Tzimisces was
defeated by him in the province of the Upper Euphrates near the fortress
of Tall-Baţrīq. Only in 957 did success turn to the side of the Greeks.
In this year Hadath surrendered to them. In 958 John Tzimisces defeated
the Arabs in Northern Mesopotamia and took Samosata. During the life
of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Saif-ad-Daulah was unable to avenge
himself upon the Greeks for these last failures.
If the fighting on the eastern frontier was difficult for Byzantium and
was far from being always successful, the maritime operations of the
Byzantine fleet ended in total disaster. In 949 a great naval expedition
was undertaken against the Cretan Arabs, who, as was always the case,
were greatly feared, and were desolating the coast of Greece and the
CH. V.


## p. 144 (#186) ############################################

144
War on the Euphrates
islands of the Aegean Sea. To further the success of the enterprise, the
Emperor entered into friendly relations with their enemies the Spanish
Saracens. The Emperor has left in his Ceremonies a detailed account of
the composition and equipment of this expedition'. The incompetent
patrician Constantine Gongylas, who had been given the chief command
of the Byzantine fleet, landed troops at Crete, but suffered a terrible
defeat and lost the greater part of his vessels.
The monotonous conflicts of the Greeks with the Saracens in the
west, in Italy and in Sicily, did not have any influence on the general
course of events.
It is true that the military operations in the east, during the reign of
Constantine, were not always successful for the Byzantine Empire ; but
the advance of the last years in removing the frontier beyond the Euphrates
laid the foundation for the brilliant triumphs of his successors.
The reign of the weak Emperor Romanus II is distinguished by great
victories of the Byzantine arms over the Saracens, thanks to the talents
and energy of Nicephorus Phocas, the future Emperor.
This great general captured the island of Crete in March 961, and thus
destroyed the nest of pirates who had struck terror into the inhabitants
of the islands and of the always open shores of the Mediterranean Sea.
After having enjoyed a triumph in Constantinople, Nicephorus Phocas
was removed to the eastern frontier and he began there also a successful
war with Saif-ad-Daulah. At the end of 961 or in the beginning of 962
he seized Anazarbus; in 962 he captured Maríash, Ra'bān, and Dulūk
(Doliche); in the vicinity of Manbij he took prisoner the famous poet Abú-
Firās, the governor of the town; and, at last, in December of the same
year, he took possession of Aleppo, the capital of the Hamdānid Emirs,
after a difficult siege. All these places, however, did not remain in the
hands of the Greeks, for Nicephorus Phocas retired to the Byzantine
territory.
Less successful were the military operations of the Byzantine troops
in the west, and especially in Sicily. Taormina, as it is well known, was
taken by the Saracens in 902, but was again lost by them. And now, on
24 December 962, after a siege of seven months, the Saracens captured it
once more; and there remained in the hands of the Greeks only the inac-
cessible Rametta, situated in the eastern part of the island.
The reigns of Nicephorus Phocas, John Tzimisces, and Basil II
Bulgaroctonus, the three next successors of Romanus II, when viewed
from the side of the military successes of the Empire in its fight with the
Saracens, form the most glorious and successful period of Byzantine history.
After the death of Romanus, 15 March 963, his brilliant general
| De Ceremoniis, 11. 45, pp. 664-678.


## p. 145 (#187) ############################################

Advance under Nicephorus Phocas
145
Nicephorus Phocas, who was adored by his troops, was proclaimed Emperor
by them on 2 July of that year, at Caesarea in Cappadocia. Upon arriving
at Constantinople he quickly overthrew Joseph Bringas, who had been
all-powerful at court, and was then crowned on 16 August. To consolidate
his power he married Theophano, the late Emperor's widow, who had
been regent of the Empire.
The new Emperor turned his chief attention to the east, although he
was drawn away at times by his hostile relations with the Bulgarians.
His policy towards Bulgaria brought about the intervention of the
Russian Prince Svyatoslav, and caused conflicts in Italy with the Western
Emperor Otto the Great.
In the summer of 964 Nicephorus Phocas arrived in Cilicia, and since
Adana had been abandoned by its inhabitants, he concentrated his energies
upon Mamistra (Mopsuestia) and Tarsus. While his armies were besieging
these towns, the lighter detachments devastated the north and south of
Cilicia, took Anazarbus, and even advanced to the boundaries of Syria,
where they took possession of the seaport town of Rhosus. In the mean-
time the sieges of Mamistra and Tarsus were so unsuccessful that the Em-
peror returned to Cappadocia for the winter, leaving a detachment of
sufficient strength to watch the besieged towns. At the renewal of military
operations in 965,Mamistra and Tarsus were so greatly exhausted by famine
and disease that they were incapable of holding out any longer; on
13 June 965 Mamistra was taken, and on 16 August Tarsus surrendered.
In this year, 965, in connexion with the campaign on land, we may
mention the conquest of Cyprus by the patrician Nicetas Chalcutzes,
about which only very meagre accounts have been preserved. The Egyp-
tian fleet, which was ordered to convey provisions to the besieged Tarsus
and to recover Cyprus from the Greeks, appeared in August 965 off
the southern coast of Asia Minor and suffered defeat. The conquest of
Cyprus gave into the hands of Byzantium dominion over the north-eastern
shore of the Mediterranean Sea, and the general results of the cainpaign
of 965 were such that the possession of Cilicia and the island of Cyprus
opened for Nicephorus the road to Syria.
On 23 June 966, near Samosata on the Euphrates, an exchange of
prisoners took place, and the Arab poet Abū-Firās, already known to
us, obtained his freedom. Fighting, however, was renewed in the autumn,
when Nicephorus Phocas appeared in the east and invaded the districts
surrounding Amida and Dara, and besieged Manbij (Hierapolis) in north-
east Syria, from whose inhabitants he demanded and received one of
the Christian relics belonging to the town, a brick on which the image of
the Saviour was impressed. Advancing far over the borders of Syria, he
drew near to the accomplishment of his chief design, the conquest of
Antioch. He began to besiege the city in October 966, but it was so well
fortified that Nicephorus Phocas could not at this time capture it, and so,
raising the siege, he returned to Constantinople by way of Tarsus.
C. VED, H. VOL. IV. CH, V.
10


## p. 146 (#188) ############################################

146
Capture of Antioch and Aleppo
In January 967 the chief antagonist of Nicephorus Phocas in the
east, Saif-ad-Daulah, died after a prolonged illness, and was succeeded by
his son Sa'd-ad-Daulah. The war with Bulgaria and disturbances inside
the Empire did not allow Nicephorus to profit by the difficulties arising
from the succession to the throne of the Hamdānids, and consequently
the year 967 is only marked by insignificant conflicts with the Saracens,
which did not always end to the advantage of the Byzantine troops. Only
in the latter half of 968 was the Emperor free to depart again to the
east. The chief aim of this campaign was the conquest of the two most
important towns of Syria, Antioch and Aleppo. Before beginning a
regular siege of these towns, he made devastating incursions into Syria;
towns one after another succumbed to his attacks. Emesa, Tripolis, Arca,
Țarațūs (Tortosa), Marāqīyah, Jiblah (Byblus), Laodicea also, suffered
much from the Byzantine troops.
Nicephorus began now to besiege Antioch in earnest, but was again
unsuccessful. Leaving Peter Phocas, the stratopedarch, with the army at
Antioch, the Emperor returned to the capital. During his stay there
important events were happening near Antioch. Dissensions and dis-
turbances broke out there, and profiting by these quarrels Peter Phocas
and Michael Burtzes, the commander of the garrison of the fortress of
Baghras, took possession of Antioch on 28 October 969. The chief object
was now obtained; the city was in the hands of the Byzantine Emperor.
An enormous booty fell to the share of the conquerors. Soon after this
the Byzantine troops advanced against the Syrian town of Aleppo, which,
at the end of 969 or in the beginning of January 970, after a siege of
twenty-seven days, also passed into their hands.
The curious text of the treaty concluded by Peter Phocas with
Qarghūyah, who was at that time in possession of Aleppo, is still preserved.
By this treaty the boundaries in Syria were accurately fixed and a list of
localities was drawn up, some of which passed into the possession of the
Greek Emperor and others into feudal dependence. Antioch, the most
important of the conquered towns, was annexed to the Empire; but
Aleppo only became a vassal. The population was subjected to taxation
for the benefit of Byzantium; the Christians living under Muslim rule
were, however, freed from all imposts. The Emir of Aleppo was obliged
to assist the Emperor in case of war with the non-Musulman inhabitants
of these provinces. The restoration of the destroyed churches was guaran-
teed to the Christians. The Emir of Aleppo was also obliged to give pro-
tection to the Byzantine commercial caravans when entering his territory.
It was agreed that, after the deaths of the ruler of Aleppo, Qarghūyah, and
his successor Bakjūr, the new governor of Aleppo could only be appointed
by the Emperor from the nobility of Aleppo. Rules were even prescribed
about the surrender of run-away slaves, and so on. This treaty was only
ratified after the death of Nicephorus Phocas, who fell by the hands of
assassins on the night of 10–11 December 969. We can say that never


## p. 147 (#189) ############################################

John Tzimisces in Syria
147
before were the Saracens subjected to such humiliation as during the reign
of Nicephorus Phocas. Cilicia and a part of Syria were taken away from
them, and a great part of their territory acknowledged itself as being in
vassal dependence upon the Empire.
The military operations of the troops of Nicephorus in Sicily did not
correspond with his successes in the east. In Sicily, as we have said, only
one town, Rametta, remained in the hands of the Greeks, and this was
besieged by the Saracens in 964. To help the besieged town, a great fleet
was despatched under the command of Manuel. But the troops which
had been landed were defeated, and in 965 Rametta was taken by assault.
The whole of Sicily thus passed into the hands of the Saracens. In 967 a
durable peace was concluded between Nicephorus Phocas and the Fāțimite
Caliph Mu'izz, to whom Sicily was in subjection.
During the first years of his reign, John Tzimisces was unable personally
to take part in the military operations on the eastern frontier. The wars
with the Russian Prince Svyatoslav and with Bulgaria, and the revolt of
Bardas Phocas, required his unremitting attention. But the wars finished
successfully and the revolt of Bardas Phocas was crushed. The dissensions
which had broken out in Italy found a happy solution in the marriage of
the Byzantine Princess Theophano with the heir to the German throne,
the future Emperor Otto II. It was only when these questions had been
settled that John Tzimisces was able to turn to the east.
In the meantime, a difficult problem arose there, namely, how to retain
all the new acquisitions which Nicephorus Phocas had won in Cilicia and
Syria. In 971 the Egyptian Fāțimite Mu'izz despatched one of his com-
manders into Syria for the purpose of conquering Antioch. The city was
subjected to a severe siege, and was only saved by an unexpected attack
by the Carmathians on the Egyptian troops, who were compelled to raise
the siege and to retire hurriedly to the south. At the news Tzimisces,
who was at that time in Bulgaria, immediately sent Michael Burtzes to
the assistance of Antioch; and he at once rebuilt the town-wall, which had
suffered much. In 973 Mleh (Melchi) an Armenian, who commanded
the Greek troops, invaded the north of Mesopotamia, devastated the
provinces of Nisibis, Mayyāfarīqin, and Edessa, and captured Malațīyah,
but he suffered a severe defeat near Amida and died in captivity.
These successes of the Greeks angered the Saracens to such an extent
that a revolution broke out in Baghdad, and the people demanded an
immediate declaration of a holy war (jihād) against the victorious Em-
pire. So far as we can judge from the fragmentary and confused accounts
of the sources, in 974 John Tzimisces himself set out to the east. He
there concluded an alliance with Armenia and victoriously passed along
the route of the campaign of 973, i. e. through Amida, Mayyāfariqin, and
Nisibis. Special significance attached to his campaign in the east in 975,
concerning which a very valuable document in the form of a letter by the
ca. V.
1042


## p. 148 (#190) ############################################

148
Basil II
Emperor to his ally, the Armenian King Ashot III, has been preserved
by the Armenian historian, Matthew of Edessa. The plan of this campaign
is striking owing to its very audacity: the Emperor aimed at freeing
Jerusalem from the power of the Saracens, and thus he undertook an
actual crusade.
On leaving Antioch, the Emperor passed Emesa and turned to Baalbek,
which was taken after a vain resistance. Damascus also voluntarily sur-
rendered, and promised to pay tribute and to fight for the Byzantines.
Turning to the south, the Emperor entered north Palestine, and the
towns of Tiberias and Nazareth as well as Caesarea on the coast voluntarily
surrendered to him ; from Jerusalem itself came a petition to be spared
a sack. But apparently he was not in sufficient strength to advance
further, and he directed his march along the sea-coast to the north,
capturing a whole series of towns: Beyrout (Berytus), Sidon, Jiblah
(Byblus), Balanea, Gabala, Barzūyah (Borzo); but at Tripolis the troops
of the Emperor were defeated. “To-day all Phoenicia, Palestine, and
Syria,” says the Emperor with some exaggeration in his letter to Ashot,
“are freed from the Saracen yoke and acknowledge the dominion of the
Romans, and in addition the great mountain of Lebanon has become
subject to our authority. ” In September 975 the imperial troops retired
to Antioch, and the Emperor himself returned to his capital, where he
died on 10 January 976.
לל
After the death of John Tzimisces, the two young sons of Romanus II,
Basil and Constantine, succeeded. Basil became the head of the govern-
ment. The first three years of their reign were occupied with quelling
the rebellion of Bardas Sclerus on the eastern frontier, among whose troops
were not a few Saracens. This revolt was suppressed by the Greek com-
mander Bardas Phocas in 979, but only with much difficulty. Bardas
Sclerus escaped to the Caliph of Baghdad, who welcomed a useful prisoner.
Bardas Phocas remained in the east and fought the Saracens, especially
the weakened Hamdānids, with alternating success, and he endeavoured
to counteract the rapidly increasing influence of the Egyptian Fățimites
in Syria.
In 986 began the famous Bulgarian war, which lasted for more than
thirty years and ended in 1019 with the destruction of the Bulgarian
kingdom of Samuel. Such an arduous and prolonged war might naturally
have turned the attention of Basil II completely away from the eastern
frontier of the Empire, but in fact he was compelled to intervene, through
serious complications which were taking place there. Bardas Phocas, the
victor over Bardas Sclerus, having fallen into disgrace at court, was
proclaimed Emperor by his troops in 987, and Bardas Sclerus, having
escaped from captivity in Baghdad, also appeared in Asia Minor. Bardas
Phocas, however, captured him by a stratagem, and then crossed Asia
Minor to the Hellespont. The condition of Byzantium was at this time


## p. 149 (#191) ############################################

War with the Faţimites
149
very difficult: from the east the troops of Bardas Phocas were advancing
to the capital, and from the north the Bulgarians were pressing on. To
this time we must refer the negotiations of Basil II with the Russian
Prince Vladímir and the consequent appearance at Byzantium of a Russian
contingent of 6000 men. Basil II did not lose his presence of mind. With
fresh forces he fought Bardas Phocas in 989, and in this battle the latter
was slain. The Empire was thus freed from one of its dangers. In the
same year a new insurrection of Bardas Sclerus was crushed.
During this time Syria was subjected to attacks by the troops of the
Egyptian Fāțimites, who several times assaulted Aleppo. Aleppo begged
the Greeks for help and the Emperor sent Michael Burtzes, the governor
of Antioch, to its assistance; but he suffered a severe defeat on the river
Orontes in 994. This petition for help from Aleppo and the news of the
defeat of Michael Burtzes reached Basil II when campaigning in Bulgaria.
Notwithstanding the Bulgarian war, which was fraught with so much
danger to the Empire, the Emperor decided to go personally to the east
in the winter of 994-995, especially as danger was threatening Antioch.
He unexpectedly appeared under the walls of Aleppo, which was being
besieged by the Egyptian troops, and was successful in freeing the former
capital of the Hamdānids from the enemy; he also captured Raphanea
and Emesa ; but having fought unsuccessfully under the walls of the
strongly-fortified Tripolis, he returned to Bulgaria. In 998 the Greek
troops under Damianus Dalassenus were severely defeated near Apamea.
In 999 we meet Basil II again in Syria, at the towns of Shaizar and
Emesa ; but he was once more unsuccessful at Tripolis.
Having spent
some time in arranging affairs in Armenia and Georgia (Iberia), the Em-
peror returned to Constantinople in 1001.
In the same year a peace for ten years was concluded between the
Emperor and the Egyptian Fāțimite Hākim. Down to the very year of
his death, there were no more encounters between him and the Eastern
Muslims.
In the west, the Sicilian Saracens made yearly attacks on South
Italy, and the imperial government, being occupied in other places, could
not undertake expeditions against them. Its forced inactivity gave a
welcome opportunity to the Western Emperor Otto II to attempt the
expulsion of the Saracens from Sicily. Desiring to obtain a firm point
of support in South Italy, he occupied some fortified Byzantine places,
as for instance Taranto. But his chief aim was not reached, for in 982
the Saracens severely defeated him at Stilo. After his death in 983, the
authority of the Greeks was somewhat restored, and the Byzantine
governor occupied Bari, which had revolted. But the attacks of the
Saracens on Southern Italy continued, and Bari was only saved by the
intervention of the Venetian fleet. At the end of his reign Basil planned
a vast expedition for the purpose of winning back Sicily, but during its
preparation he died in 1025.
CH. V.


## p. 150 (#192) ############################################

150
The Successors of Basil II
The death of Basil II, that terrible scourge of the Eastern Saracens,
gave fresh heart to these enemies of the Empire. The Saracens, with
great success, availed themselves of the weakness of the successors of
Basil II and of the disturbances which broke out in the Empire, and they
quickly took the offensive. Under Romanus III Argyrus (1028–1034),
the Emir of Aleppo defeated the governor of Antioch, and the campaign,
undertaken in 1030 after long preparation under the personal command
of the Emperor, ended in a signal defeat near Aleppo, after which the
Emperor quickly returned to Constantinople. In this campaign the young
George Maniaces, who later on played a very important part in Byzantine
history, distinguished himself for the first time.
The defeat of 1030 was to some degree mitigated by the capture of
the important town of Edessa by George Maniaces in 1031, and by his
seizing there the second relic of the town', the famous letter of Jesus
Christ to Abgar, King of Edessa. This letter was sent to Constantinople
and solemnly received by the Emperor and the people.
During the reign of the next Emperor, Michael IV the Paphlagonian
(1034-1041), the usual collisions went on in the east, sometimes at
Antioch, sometimes at Aleppo, whilst at the same time the Saracen
corsairs devastated the southern coast of Asia Minor and destroyed
Myra in Lycia.
In the west, the object of the imperial government was to recapture
Sicily from the Saracens. The internal quarrels among the Sicilian Muslims
made the intervention of the Greeks easy, and during the reign of
Michael IV they undertook two expeditions. The first, under the command
of Constantine Opus in 1037, was unsuccessful, but the second, in which
the army was composed of different races, such as the “Varangian-Russian
Druzhina” (detachment), and in which the Norse prince Harold Fairhair
distinguished himself, was despatched in 1038 under the chief command
of the brilliant young Maniaces. The beginning of the expedition was
fortunate. Messina, Syracuse, and the whole eastern coast of the island
passed into the hands of the imperial troops. But George Maniaces fell
into disgrace, and being recalled to Constantinople was put into prison.
With his removal, all the Byzantine conquests, with the exception of
Messina, passed again into the power of the Saracens.
During the reign of Constantine IX Monomachus (1042-1054),
almost complete peace reigned on the frontier of Syria and Mesopotamia;
but on the other hand, from 1048 the Byzantine troops were obliged to
fight, especially in Armenia, with the Seljūq Turks, who from this time
forward appear as a new and formidable enemy on the eastern frontier.
1 For the first relic of the town, the miraculous image of the Saviour, see supra,
p. 143.


## p. 151 (#193) ############################################

Summary
151
(C)
SUMMARY
It will be seen from the foregoing pages that, ever since Leo the
Isaurian saved Constantinople from the formidable attack of the Saracens
in A. D. 717, there was continuous warfare between the Empire and the
Caliphate, for three hundred years. Its history is for the most part a
monotonous and barren chronicle of raids to and fro across the Taurus
mountains, truces, interchanges of prisoners, briefly registered in Greek
and Arabic annals. Only occasionally have we a description of events
full enough to excite some interest, like the campaign of the Caliph
Muta`sim (A. D. 838) or the siege of Thessalonica. Successes varied, but
few were decisive until Nicephorus Phocas definitely turned the tide in
favour of the Empire and reconquered long-lost provinces. After his
victories the Abbasid power, which had seen its best days before the end
of the ninth century', declined rapidly till the Caliphate passed under the
control of the Seljūgs. So long as the struggle lasted, the Eastern war
had the first claim on the armies and treasury of the Empire, and these
were not sufficient to enable the Emperors to deal at the same time
effectively with their European enemies, the Slavs and Bulgarians, and to
maintain intact their possessions in Sicily and Southern Italy. It was
only when the Saracen danger in the east had been finally averted by the
army of Nicephorus that his successors were able to recover some of the
European provinces which had been lost.
If the Caliphs had a more extensive territory under their rule than
the Emperors, it is not certain that they had larger revenues even when
they were strongest. Their State was very loosely organised, and it was
always a strain on them to keep its heterogeneous parts together. The
Empire, on the other hand, was kept strictly under central control; it
might be conquered, but it could not dissolve of itself; and the event
proved that it had a much greater staying power.
It is to be observed that throughout the period the hostilities which
were the order of the day do not seem to have interfered very seriously
with the commercial intercourse between the peoples of the two states,
1 The decline is evident, and may be illustrated from the revenue figures which
are recorded. Under Rashid, apart from contributions in kind, the taxes yielded a
sum equivalent to about £21,000,000. In Ma'mūn's reign there was a considerable
decline, and early in the tenth century the revenue was less than a twentieth of
what it had been in Rashid's reign. (See Kremer, Kulturgeschichte 376, and Budget
Haruns in the Verh. des vii intern. Orientalisten-Congresses, semitische Section, Vienna
1888 ; Bury, Eastern Roman Empire, 236-7. ) The Roman treasury was sometimes in
great straits, but there was never any falling-off like this.
CH. V.


## p. 152 (#194) ############################################

152
Summary
and reciprocal influences of culture flowed constantly between them.
Through educated captives, who were often detained for four or five years
and were generally well treated, knowledge of the conditions and features
of the Byzantine world passed to Baghdad, and reversely. The capitals
of the two Empires vied with each other in magnificence, art, and the
cultivation of science. For instance, there cannot be much doubt that
Theophilus was stimulated in his building enterprises by what he had
heard of the splendour of the palaces of Baghdad. Oriental influences
had been affecting the Roman Empire ever since the third century,
through its intercourse with the Sasanid kingdom of Persia; they continued
to operate throughout the Abbasid period, and were one of the ingredients
of Byzantine civilisation.


## p. 153 (#195) ############################################

153
CHAPTER VI.
ARMENIA.
LYING across the chief meeting-place of Europe and Asia, Armenia
suffered immeasurably more from the conflict of two civilisations than it
profited by their exchange of goods and ideas. If the West penetrated
the East under pressure from Rome, Byzantium, or crusading Europe, if
the East moved westwards, under Persian, Arab, Mongol, or Turk, the
roads used were too often the roads of Armenia.
This was not all. East and West claimed and fought for control or
possession of the country. Divided bodily between Rome and Persia in
pre-Christian times, an apple of discord between Persia and the Byzantine
Empire during the early part of the Middle Ages, Armenia for the rest
of its national history was alternately the prey of Eastern and Western
peoples. When the Armenian kingdom was strong enough to choose its
own friends, it turned sometimes to the East, sometimes to the West.
It drew its culture from both. But, belonging wholly neither to West
nor to East, it suffered consistently at the hands of each in turn and of
both together.
The stubborn pride of the Armenians in their national Church pre-
vented them from uniting permanently either with Christendom or with
Islām. Though driven by eastern pressure as far west as Cilicia, where it
was in touch with the Crusaders, Armenia never held more than a doubt-
ful place in the state-system of medieval Europe. Sooner than sink their
identity in Greek or Roman Church, the Armenians more than once
chose the friendship of infidels. On the other hand, whether as neigh-
bours or as enemies, as allies or as conquerors, the races of the East could
never turn the Armenians from their faith. When Armenia ceased to
exist as a State, its people kept alive their nationality in their Church. As
with the Jews, their ecclesiastical obstinacy was at once their danger and
their strength: it left them friendless, but it enabled them to survive
political extinction.
Isolated by religion, Armenia was also perpetually divided against
itself by its rival princes. Like the Church, the numerous princely
houses both preserved and weakened their country. They prevented
the foundation of a unified national State. But a large Power stretching
perhaps from Cappadocia to the Caspian borders, and disabled by ill-
defined frontiers, could never have outfaced the hostility of Europe and
CH. VI.


## p. 154 (#196) ############################################

154
Periods of Armenian history
Asia. A collection of small principalities, grouped round rocky strong-
holds difficult of access, had always, even after wholesale conquest, a
latent faculty of recovery in the energy of its powerful families. The
Arabs could have destroyed a single royal line, but, slaughter as they
might, Armenia was never leaderless: they could not exterminate its
nobility. The political history of Armenia, especially during the first
half of the Middle Ages, is a history of great families. And this helps to
explain the puzzling movement of Armenian boundaries—a movement
due not only to pressure from outside, but also to the short-lived uprising,
first of one prince, then of another, amidst the ruin, widespread and
repeated, of his country.
During the triumph of Rome and for many generations of Rome's
decline Armenia was ruled by a national dynasty related to the Arsacidae,
kings of Parthia (B. c. 149-A. D. 428). The country had been for many
years a victim to the wars and diplomacy of Persia and Rome when in
A. D. 386–7 it was partitioned by Sapor III and the Emperor Theodosius.
From 387 to 428 the Arsacid kings of Armenia were vassals of Persia,
while the westernmost part of their kingdom was incorporated in the
Roman Empire and ruled by a count.
The history of the thousand years that followed (428-1473) is sketched
in this chapter. It may be divided into five distinct periods. First came
long years of anarchy, during which Armenia had no independent
existence but was the prey of Persians, Greeks, and Arabs (428-885).
Four and a half centuries of foreign domination were then succeeded by
nearly two centuries of autonomy. During this second period Armenia
was ruled from Transcaucasia by the national dynasty of the Bagratuni.
After 1046, when the Bagratid kingdom was conquered by the Greeks,
who were soon dispossessed by the Turks, Greater Armenia never re-
covered its political life.
Meanwhile the third period of Armenia's medieval history had opened
in Asia Minor, where a new Armenian State was founded in Cilicia by
Prince Ruben, a kinsman of the Bagratuni. From 1080–1340 Rubenian
and Hethumian princes ruled Armeno-Cilicia, first as lords or barons
(1080-1198), then as kings (1198–1342). During this period the Ar-
menians engaged in a successful struggle with the Greeks, and in a pro-
longed and losing contest with the Seljūqs and Mamlūks. Throughout
these
years the relations between the Armenian rulers and the Latin king-
doms of Syria were so close that up to a point the history of Armeno-Cilicia
may be considered merely as an episode in the history of the Crusades.
This view is strengthened by the events of the fourth period (1342–1373),
during which Cilicia was ruled by the crusading family of the Lusignans.
When the Lusignan dynasty was overthrown by the Mamlūks in 1375,
the Armenians lost their political existence once more. In the fifth and
last period of their medieval history (1375–1473), they suffered the


## p. 155 (#197) ############################################

Persians and Greeks in Armenia
155
horrors of a Tartar invasion under Tamerlane and finally passed under
the yoke of the Ottoman Turks.
When Ardashes, the last Arsacid vassal-king, was deposed in 428,
Armenia was governed directly by the Persians, who already partly con-
trolled the country. No strict chronology has yet been fixed for the cen-
turies of anarchy which ensued (428-885), but it appears that Persian rule
lasted for about two centuries (428-633). Byzantine rule followed,
spreading eastward from Roman Armenia, and after two generations
(633–693) the Arabs replaced the Greeks and held the Armenians in
subjection until 862.
In this long period of foreign rule, the Armenians invariably found
a change of masters a change for the worse. The Persians ruled the
country though a succession of Marzpans, or military commanders of the
frontiers, who also had to keep order and to collect revenue. With a strong
guard under their own command, they did not destroy the old national
militia nor take away the privileges of the nobility, and at first they
allowed full liberty to the Katholikos and his bishops. As long as the
Persians governed with such tolerance, they might fairly hope to fuse the
Armenian nation with their own. But a change of religious policy under
Yezdegerd II and Piroz roused the Armenians to defend their faith in a
series of religious wars lasting until the end of the sixth century, during
which Vardan with his 1036 companions perished for the Christian faith
in the terrible battle of Avaraïr (454). But, whether defeated or victorious,
the Armenians never exchanged their Christianity for Zoroastrianism,
On the whole, the Marzpans ruled Armenia as well as they could. In
spite of the religious persecution and of a dispute about the Council of
Chalcedon between the Armenians and their fellow-Christians in Georgia,
the Armenian Church more than held its ground, and ruined churches and
monasteries were restored or rebuilt towards the opening of the seventh
century. Of the later Marzpans some bore Armenian names. The last
of them belonged to the Bagratuni family which was destined to sustain
the national existence of Armenia for many generations against untold
odds. But this gleam of hope was extinguished by the fall of the Persian
Empire before the Arabs. For when they conquered Persia, Armenia
turned to Byzantium, and was ruled for sixty years by officials who
received the rank of Curopalates and were appointed by the Emperor
(633-693). The Curopalates, it appears, was entrusted with the civil
administration of the country, while the military command was held by
an Armenian General of the Forces.
Though the Curopalates, too, seems to have been always Armenian,
the despotic yoke of the Greeks was even harder to bear than the burden
of religious wars imposed by the Persians. If the Persians had tried
to make the Armenians worship the Sacred Fire, the Greeks were equally
bent on forcing them to renounce the Eutychian heresy. As usual, the
CH. VI.


## p. 156 (#198) ############################################

156
The Arab Conquest
Armenians refused to yield. The Emperor Constantine came himself
to Armenia in 647, but his visit did nothing to strengthen Byzantine
authority. The advance of the Arabs, who had begun to invade Armenia
ten years earlier under 'Abd-ar-Raḥīm, made stable government im-
possible, for, sooner than merge themselves in the Greek Church, the
Armenians sought Muslim protection. But the Arabs exacted so heavy
a tribute that Armenia turned again to the Eastern Empire. As a result,
the Armenians suffered equally from Greeks and Arabs. When they
paid tribute to the Arabs, the Greeks invaded and devastated their land.
When they turned to the Greeks, the Arabs punished their success and
failure alike by invasion and rapine. Finally, at the close of the seventh
century, the Armenian people submitted absolutely to the Caliphate.
The Curopalates had fled, the General of the Forces and the Patriarch
(Katholikos) Sahak IV were prisoners in Damascus, and some of the
Armenian princes had been tortured and put to death.
A period of unqualified tyranny followed. The Arabs intended to
rivet the chains of abject submission upon Armenia, and to extort from
its helplessness the greatest possible amount of revenue. Ostikans, or
governors, foreigners almost without exception, ruled the country for
Baghdad. These officials commanded an army, and were supposed to
collect the taxes and to keep the people submissive. They loaded Armenia
with heavy imposts, and tried to destroy the princely families by im-
prisoning and killing their men and confiscating their possessions. Under
such treatment the Armenians were occasionally cowed but usually
rebellious. Their national existence, manifest in rebellion, was upheld by
the princes. First one, then another, revolted against the Muslims, made
overtures to the enemies of Baghdad, and aspired to re-found the kingdom
of Armenia.
Shortly after the Arab conquest, the Armenians turned once more to
their old masters, the Greeks. With the help of Leo the Isaurian, Smbat
(Sempad) Bagratuni defeated the Arabs, and was commissioned to rule
Armenia by the Emperor. But after a severe struggle the Muslims re-
gained their dominion, and sent the Arab commander Qāsim to punish
the Armenians (704). He carried out his task with oriental ferocity.
He set fire to the church of Nakhijevan, into which he had driven the
princes and nobles, and then pillaged the country and sent many of the
people into captivity.
These savage reprisals were typical of Arab misrule for the next forty
years, and after a peaceful interval during which a friendly Ostikan,
Marwān, entrusted the government of Armenia to Ashot Bagratuni, the
reign of terror started afresh (758). But, in defiance of extortion and
cruelty, insurrection followed insurrection. Local revolts, led now by one
prince, now by another, broke out. On one occasion Mushegh Mamikonian
drove the Ostikan out of Dwin, but the Armenians paid dear for their
The Arabs marched against them 30,000 strong; Mushegh fell
success.


## p. 157 (#199) ############################################

Armenian Principalities
157
in battle, and the other princes fled into strongholds (780). Though in
786, when Hārūn ar-Rashid was Caliph, the country was for the time
subdued, alliances between Persian and Armenian princes twice ripened
into open rebellion in the first half of the ninth century. The Arabs
punished the second of these unsuccessful rebellions by wholesale pillage
and by torture, captivity, and death (c. 850).
As the long period of gloom, faintly starred by calamitous victories,
passed into the ninth century, the Arab oppression slowly lightened.
The Abbasid Empire was drawing to its fall. While the Arabs were
facing their own troubles, the Armenian nobility were founding princi-
palities. The Mamikonian family, it is true, died out in the middle of
the ninth century without founding a kingdom. Yet, because they had
no wide territories, they served Armenia disinterestedly, and though of
foreign origin could claim many of the national heroes of their adopted
country: Vasak, Mushegh, and Manuel, three generals of the Christian
Arsacidae; Vardan, who died for the faith in the religious wars; Vahan the
Wolf and Vahan Kamsarakan, who fought the Persians; David, Grigor,
and Mushegh, rebels against Arab misrule. The Arcruni and the Siwni,
who had also defended Armenia against the Arabs, founded independent
states in the tenth century. The Arcruni established their kingdom
(Vaspurakan) round the rocky citadel of Van, overlooking Lake Van
(908). Later, two different branches of their family founded the two
states of the Reshtuni and the Antsevatsi. The Siwni kingdom (Siunia)
arose in the latter half of the century (970). Many other principalities
were also formed, each claiming independence, the largest and most
important of them all being the kingdom of the Bagratuni.
Like the Mamikonians, the Bagratuni seem to have come from abroad.
According to Moses of Chorene, they were brought to Armenia from
Judaea by Hratchea, son of Paroïr, in B. c. 600. In the time of the
Parthians, King Valarsaces gave to Bagarat the hereditary honour of
placing the crown upon the head of the Armenian king, and for centuries
afterwards Bagarat's family gave leaders to the Armenians. Varaztirots
Bagratuni was the last Marzpan of the Persian domination, and the third
Curopalates of Armenia under the Byzantine Empire. Ashot (Ashod) Ba-
gratuni seized the government when the Arabs were trying to dislodge the
Greeks in the middle of the seventh century, and foreshadowed the later
policy of his family by his friendliness towards the Caliph, to whom he
paid tribute. He fell in battle, resisting the Greeks sent by Justinian II.
Smbat Bagratuni, made general of the forces by Justinian, favoured the
Greeks. Escaping from captivity in Damascus, it was he who had
defeated the Arabs with the help of Leo the Isaurian, and governed the
Armenians from the fortresses of Taïkh. In the middle of the eighth
century, another Ashot reverted to the policy of his namesake, and was
allowed by Marwān, the friendly Ostikan, to rule Armenia as “Prince of
Princes. ” In consequence he refused to rebel with other Armenian princes
וי
CH. 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.