Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century
Հունական միջնադարյան արխիվային փաստաթղթեր Բյուզանդական կայսրության տարածքում հայոց ներկայության մասին (XI-XIV դդ.) https://web.archive.org/web/20190906123428/http://hpj.asj-oa.am/4031/1/2003-3(87).pdf
- other emperors
- Alexander Kazhdan, Армяне в составе господствующего класса Византийской империи в XI-XII веках, 1975
No fewer than sixteen emperors and eleven empresses were of Armenian origin, including Mavrikios (Maurice, 582-602), Heraklios (Heraclius, 610-642), John Tzimiskes (969-976), and Basil II (976-1025), and Armenians founded three imperial dynasties: the Heraclids (of royal Arsacid origin, 610-711), the Basilids (876-1056), and the Lekapenoi, who interrupted the Basilids for twenty-five years (920-944).
In addition, there were a number of isolated emperors of Armenian origin: Bardanes (Vardan, 711-713), Artabazdes (Artavazd, 742-743), Leo V “the Armenian” (813-820), and John Tzimiskes (969-976), who, though an emperor, was one of the greatest Byzantine military commanders as well. In addition, there were many Armenians who attempted the throne but failed to achieve it (Mzez Gnuni, his son John, another Bardanes, etc.).
Kaldellis edit
In the absence of firm historical evidence for ethnic claims, aboriginal ethnicities are modern fictions and so debates over them have an unreal quality. Moreover, recent scholarship has “appreciably reduced [the] more enthusiastic earlier estimates” by Adontz and Charanis regarding the number of Roman families of Armenian descent.60 The families of Phokas, Dalassenos, Bourtzes, and Doukas have been removed from that list, on which they had been placed originally for the same flimsy (i.e., nonexistent) reasons.61 Yet we may be skeptical of many who have survived this winnowing process too, for example the Lakapenos, Kourkouas, and Skleros families, whom Byzantinists routinely call “Armenians.”[2]
If we scrutinize the evidence that is cited to prove that other Roman families were “of Armenian descent,” we obtain the same negative results, even if we focus on those cases that have been “chosen very conservatively from families still considered of clear Armenian origin, such as the Skleroi (despite the reservations of Kazhdan), Lakapenoi, Kourkouas-Tzimiskai,” and others.81[3]
The Skleros family is often touted as “Armenian,” but the evidence for this claim is just as tenuous as for the Lakapenoi, in fact more so. It consists of one early ninth-century Skleros said by a highly unreliable text (the Chronicle of Monembasia) to have come from the Roman province of Armenia Minor (not that he was “an Armenian”), and this figure may or may not have been related to the later family with the same surname.82 No source claims that any later Skleros—say, in the later tenth century—was “an Armenian,” though many scholars make that claim.[3]
Jean-Claude Cheynet correctly observes that “after a few generations nostalgic feelings toward a family’s place of origin could gradually vanish. Nothing indicates that the Skleroi of the eleventh century felt the importance of their Armenian roots, or that the Branades of the twelfth–thirteenth centuries remembered their Slavic origins.” Yet in a footnote he adds: “By contrast, during the tenth century, Bardas Skleros’ revolt was largely supported by Armenians,” the implication being that he was drawn to them (or they to him) on the basis of ethnic affinity.85[4]
As we saw, however, the case of Romanos I Lakapenos is hardly self-evident, and, when we follow the trail of footnotes for most of the rest too, to say nothing of Maurikios (582–602), Herakleios (610–641), or Nikephoros I (802–811), it becomes apparent that these confident assertions are built on sand and have become established only through uncritical repetition.[5]
In conclusion, it cannot be doubted that thousands of Armenians lived in the empire, especially between the sixth and the eleventh centuries, served in its armies, and filled its highest offices. “The general consensus continues to be that they were the largest non-Greek unit of that society”156—so long as by “Greek” we mean “Roman.” However, the field of Byzantine Studies harbors a cottage industry that manufactures “Armenians” left and right.[6]
In a study of the Byzantine aristocracy, Alexander Kazhdan concluded, based on nomenclature and biographical information, that some 10–15 percent of these families were of Armenian origin, or, in absolute terms, 30–45 out of 300.59 He realized that many of them were assimilated into Byzantine society, but did not fully make the distinction between (past) ancestral origins and (present) identity. In reality, there were few officeholders who personally had foreign origin; most were two or more generations removed. There were a few Armenians from the “homeland” who rose to high positions in the Roman system, but they are found mostly in the seventh and early eighth centuries,60 not the ninth and early tenth. Indeed, in the Armenian history of Ghewond, covering the seventh and eighth centuries, “fleeing to Byzantium” is presented as a regular option for the Armenian nobility. But we generally do not find ethnic Armenians in the Roman aristocracy of the tenth century.[7]
28. Symeon Logothetes, Chronicle 131.50–52. Though the source explicitly states that the language was Persian, the Armenian nationalist historian N. Adontz tried to twist it into “Persarmenian” in order to claim that it was really “Armenian”: Études, 77; but see Cheynet, “Théophile,” 48.[8]
https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article&id=2017284&journal_code=REA Title: The Heraclids and the Arsacids Author(s): Cyril Toumanoff Journal: Revue des Études Arméniennes Volume: 19 Date: 1985 Pages: 431-434 DOI: 10.2143/REA.19.0.2017284
Aristocrats edit
The imperial general Gregorios Pakourianos was of mixed Georgian-Armenian ancestry and culture but claimed to belong to “the most glorious race of the Georgians.”[9]
Narses Ethnic others fell into three main groups. First, there were elite men at the court who held offices and commanded armies but who were regarded as ethnic foreigners or had an origin that differentiated them from mainstream Romans, for example the Persarmenian Narses under Justinian;[10]
Charanis edit
"Among the various ethnic groups in the Byzantine empire, the Armenians constituted one of the strongest." It was through the army that the Armenian element in the Byzantine empire exerted its greatest influence. It has been said that the Armenian element must have predominated in the Byzantine army from the ninth century to the Crusades (51).[11]
First of all, there is the dynasty, the most brilliant in the history of the empire. The imperial house which ruled the state throughout this period is known as the Macedonian dynasty, but the term Macedonian as used here has no ethnic connotations. It refers rather to the place of the birth of Basil I, the founder of the dynasty. Basil was an Armenian.... [11]
Thus, the dynasty which Basil I founded was Armenian by descent. [11]
The dynasty was, of course, hellenized--Byzantinized is perhaps a more appropriate term -- but the form which this hellenization took was no doubt influenced by its Armenian antecedents, though the extent of this influence is a matter which the historian cannot really determine.[11]
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Hewsenwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Kaldellis 2019, p. 174.
- ^ a b Kaldellis 2019, p. 178.
- ^ Kaldellis 2019, pp. 178–179.
- ^ Kaldellis 2019, p. 180.
- ^ Kaldellis 2019, p. 194.
- ^ Kaldellis 2019, p. 214.
- ^ Kaldellis 2019, p. 299.
- ^ Kaldellis 2019, p. 252.
- ^ Kaldellis 2019, p. 59.
- ^ a b c d Charanis 1963, p. 35.