The Armenians do not seem to have taken any definite steps to repudiate
the Byzantine return to Chalcedonian orthodoxy until they were prompted
to do so by another Syrian delegation from Persia, which appeared at
another council held in Dvin in 555, again requesting consecration for one
of their company. These Syrians were members of a splinter group within
the monophysite church, the Julianists, who held that Christ’s body had
remained ‘incorruptible’.24 The Armenian catholicosNerses II (548–57) and
his bishops found the Syrians’ profession of faith orthodox and consecrated
Abdisho. The impact of Julianist ideas was not the most important result of
this encounter in 555; in later years there was no unanimity among Armenian
theologians on that issue. The significant fact was that the Armenians
not only rejected Chalcedon again; they also, for the first time, specifically
anathematised the imperial church for upholding that council – which to
Armenian eyes had approved the ideas of Nestorius.25
Despite these important developments, whose significance was perhaps
not obvious at the time, Armenian historians have remarkably little to
say about Armenian affairs during the reigns of Justin and Justinian (527–
65). The first Persian war, which ended in 532, brought no change to the
frontiers or the status of the divided country. Even the reorganisation of
the Armenian territories within the empire by Justinian is passed over by
Armenian sources. In 528 the right of Armenian princes to maintain their
private military forces was abrogated when the office of magister militum
per Armeniam was created. The civil standing of the princes was diminished
when their traditional rights of inheritance were brought into line
with imperial practice. In 536 Armenian territory was reorganised into
First, Second, Third and Fourth Armenia at the expense of neighbouring
land in Cappadocia. The use of the name ‘Armenia’ is an indication of the
strongly Armenian presence west of the Euphrates, which had been increasing
rather than diminishing. Now, not only were the Armenians inside the
imperial borders deprived of their long-standing rights and governance by
traditional princely families (which had been guaranteed in the original
treaty), but this significant portion of the total Armenian population was
lost to Armenia proper. Imperial authorities did not speak Armenian or
encourage allegiance to the Armenian church, as Justinian attempted to
impose imperial orthodoxy on his realms. Armenians were useful to the
empire in many ways, especially in the army. But an individual Armenian
culture flourished henceforth only on the Persian side of the frontier.
Justinian’s treatment of his Armenian nobles led to complaints to the
shah26 and Armenian involvement in war plans against the emperor.27
In 540 hostilities between Byzantium and Persia reopened. Antioch was
captured, but Dara resisted the invading Persians.Military operations were
confined toMesopotamia and Lazica during the war, save for an encounter
at Dvin in 543. The peace of 545 was one of many made during the long
confrontation, which continued into the following century (see above,
pp. 120, 135–6).
There was no overt sign of unrest in Persian Armenia until the latter part
of the sixth century. When trouble did break out, it seems to have been
caused by the attitude of the Persian marzban of the time, Suren, not by
the official policy of the shah. In 571 Suren set up a fire-temple in Dvin
and attempted to impose Zoroastrianism on the country. The reaction was
parallel to that of 450. Led by Vardan, prince of the Mamikoneans (not
to be confused with the leader of the fifth-century revolt), the Armenians
rebelled. When Suren returned the following year with reinforcements,
he perished in the encounter. However, the Persians retook Dvin, and
Vardan fled to Constantinople. Now, for the first time, the consequences
of the religious differences became clear. Vardan had to accept communion
with the imperial church, while Catholicos John II (557–74), who had fled
with him, remained at Constantinople under the cloud of submission to
Chalcedon until his death in 574.28
Justin II (565–78) gave Vardan military forces, and Dvin was retaken.
But Byzantine success was not lasting. In 576 Persian forces under Khusro
I (531–79) crossed Armenia but failed to capture Theodosioupolis. After
advancing as far as Sebasteia, Khusro withdrew and sacked Melitene, but
after a confrontation there, he fled back to Persia in confusion. During
negotiations the following year, the Byzantine general Justinian was
defeated by Khusro in Basean and Bagrevand,29 and the Persians retained
the frontier fortress of Dara, which they had captured in 573.30
Imperial fortunes revived in 590 when the general Bahram Chobin seized
the Sasanian throne upon the murder of Shah Hormizd IV (579–90). The
legitimate heir, Hormizd’s son Khusro II, appealed to Emperor Maurice
for help, promising in return to cede to the empire all Armenia as far as
Lake Van and Dvin, plus part of Georgia. The offer was accepted, and
the Armenians under Mushegh Mamikonean sided with Khusro and the
Byzantines. Their combined forces defeated Bahram the following year at
Gandzak in eastern Armenia. Installed as ruler of Persia, Khusro II (591–
628) fulfilled his promise: Armenia west of the Hrazdan and Azat rivers
passed to Byzantium (see above, pp. 127, 136).
This success for the Roman empire was fraught with a number of consequences
for the Armenians.Maurice attempted to integrate Armenia more
securely into the empire.He deported significant numbers of Armenians to
the Balkans to strengthen his borders there and weaken resistance to imperial
rule among Armenians now incorporated into the empire. The Armenian
general Mushegh Mamikonean was killed in Thrace.31 But Maurice
sometimes encountered resistance by Armenian soldiers. The Bagratuni
prince Smbat rebelled and was condemned to the arena. Saved by his
strength, according to the Armenian historian (by the clemency of the
empress, according to a Greek source), he was exiled to Africa.32 But it was
not long before he was back east, serving the shah.
The plight of the Armenians between shah and emperor is well expressed
in an apocryphal letter which the Armenian historian known as Sebeos
claims was sent by Maurice to Khusro:
They are a perverse and disobedient nation, who stand between us and disturb us.
I shall gather mine and send them off to Thrace. You gather yours and order them
to be sent to the east. If they die, it is our enemies who die. If they kill, they kill
our enemies. Then we shall live in peace. For if they remain in their own land,
there will be no repose for us.33
But the most significant aspect of his policy was the attempt to enforce imperial
orthodoxy in the newly acquired territories. The Armenian catholicos
was summoned to a synod where the union of the churches might be
effected – that is, where the Armenians would accept Chalcedon and take
communion with the Byzantines. Catholicos Moses II (574–604) refused
to go and remained in Dvin, just across the border. On this occasion he is
credited with a riposte that clearly expressed Armenian resistance to assimilation.
It is preserved in a rare pro-Chalcedonian document of Armenian
origin: ‘I shall not cross the Azat; I shall not eat bread baked [in the oven];
I shall not drink warm water.’ The Azat was the river marking the border
and is a pun, the word meaning ‘free’. The other two comments refer to the
differing practices of the liturgy, since Armenians used unleavened bread
and did not mix warm water with the wine.34 Matters of doctrine may figure
more prominently in the written records of historians and theologians,
but the development of different rituals was no less potent a factor in the
estrangement of the churches.
Nevertheless, the Armenian bishops inByzantine territory did go to Constantinople
and accept communion, thus causing a schism in the Armenian
church. But once Byzantine forces withdrew, then Armenian unity
was restored. This pattern recurred in the time of Heraclius (610–41) and
again under Justinian II (685–95), but proved no more lasting than under
Maurice. Despite the fact that many sympathised with the position of
the imperial church – and significant groups of Chalcedonian Armenians
existed in the succeeding centuries35 – reunion between the Byzantine and
Armenian churches was never achieved.
Yet the time ofMaurice was remembered as a time of peace. The curious
text known as ‘Pseudo-Shapuh’ – a medley of tales dating from the ninth to
the twelfth century, and not the lost work of the ninth-century historian –
refers to the proverb: ‘as in the time ofMaurice, when one lived untroubled’.
It also reports that when Maurice summoned his father David, who lived
in Armenia, the latter said: ‘I cannot come. I prefer my small garden to the
Roman empire.’ But by cutting off the heads of the largest beetroots in his
garden, he indicated to his son’s messengers how Maurice should treat his
magnates.36
Just as Maurice used Armenian arms in the Balkans, so did those Armenian
princes on the Persian side of the border continue to provide military
service to the shah. The most notable example is the career of Smbat,
prince of the Bagratuni, who served at different times both emperor and
shah – Armenian loyalties being rarely unequivocal and permanent. Just
as Maurice settled colonies of Armenians in the west, so did Smbat find
Armenians, Greeks and Syrians deported to Hyrcania when he was serving
as governor there for Khusro II. Sebeos notes that the Armenians had even
forgotten their own language, and that Smbat remedied this by arranging
for the ministry of a priest.37 The role of language and religion as a means of
preserving Armenian identity in colonies outside the homeland was already
clear.
At the same time, the Armenians were estranged from their northern
neighbours. The Georgians under their catholicos Kyrion disavowed the
Armenian rejection of Chalcedon and henceforth remained firmly committed
to the orthodoxy of Constantinople. The final rupture occurred after a
series of bitter exchanges. At another council held in Dvin in 608, the
Armenians excommunicated the Georgians.38 But contacts between
the two peoples could not be stopped by fiat, not least because of the
extensive bonds of consanguinity linking noble families on both sides of
the frontier. Pro-Chalcedonian Armenians were particularly numerous in
Tao and Gugark‘, where the two peoples mingled. Maurice’s downfall in
602 gave Khusro II an opportunity to recover the Armenian lands ceded to
his earlier supporter. The reign of Heraclius would see the final defeat of
Sasanian Persia and the rise of a new power in theMiddle East. But already
by the turn of the sixth century the building-blocks of an independent
Armenian culture had been formed.
World History
