201 The ramiks are presented
as an almost ungovernable force at the start of the Vardananc'
uprising and the group which initially destroyed the fire-temples
without awaiting orders (II.32, p. 127). After the Vahaneanc'
the ramiks were honored especially by the peace negotiator
Nixor who admitted a group of them into his tent (III.94, p. 366).
202 GHP, III.83, p. 330.
203 GHP, II.35, p. 135.
204 GHP, III.65, p. 250.
205 GHP, III.66, p. 253.
206 GHP, III.73, pp. 284-85.
207 GHP, III.70, p. 271.
208 GHP, II..33, p. 128.
209 GHP, II.34, p. 131.
210 GHP, II.45, p. 173.
211 GHP, III.68, p. 260.
212 GHP, III.68, p. 263.
213 GHP, III.88, p. 344.
214 GHP, III.79, p. 313.
215 GHP, III.88, p. 344.
216 GHP, III.71, p. 275.
217 GHP, II.26, p. 96.
218 GHP, III.96, p. 379.
219 Readers may now consult R.W. Thomson's
English translation of Xorenac'i (Cambridge, Mass., 1978) which
appeared after the present study was completed.
On the dating of Movses Xorenac'i
(MX) see H. Lewy, "The Date and Purpose of Moses of Chorene's
History" Byzantion, XI ( 1936) and his "Additional
Note on the Date of Moses of Chorene" in the same volume
N. Adontz, "A propos de la note de M. Lewy sur Moise de Chorene"
in the same volume C. Toumanoff, "On the Date of the Pseudo-Moses
of Chorene", Handes Amsoreay, (1961). Both Adontz
and Toumanoff accept a late eighth century date, albeit for different
reasons.
Xorenac'i does not describe any
single individual as sparapet prior to the time of Tiran.
However, even in the days of thc semi-legendary King Vagharshak,
Xorenac'i does note several officials with military charges. One
such was Smbat Bagratuni. Another was a descendant of Sisak, made
biwrapet kusakal (Ten Thousander Officer) over Albania
(MX, II.7l). A tendency which runs throughout Xorenac'i's narration
is to divide the command of thc forces into four parts. The quadripartite
division of the army, is projected back even before Vagharshak
to the legendary King Aram (I.14).
In the time of Tigran, control
of thc forces was taken from the Bagratids and presumably given
to Barzap'ran Rshtuni, who is called sparapet and leads
an Armeno-Iranian army (II.19) against three Roman sparapets:
Skavros (II. 15), Gabianus (II. 16), and Bendidos (II.20)
Four sparapets are mentioned
again during the reign of Artashes. Each of this king's sons is
given an office: Mazan was made chief priest, another son became
hazarapet, while Zareh, Tiran, and Artawazd were made sparapets
of the north, west, and east. SmBat Bagratuni was appointed sparapet
of the south (II.53).
From the end of Artashes' reign
until the beginning of the rule of Trdat the Great (313-330)
Xorenac'i has little to say about who led the armies, noting only
that control of the eastern troops was given by a King Tiran to
a certain Anjewac'i naxarar (II.62). It is under King Trdat
the Great that the army was divided once again. When Trdat's sole
sparapet Artawazd Mandakuni was killed fighting the Basil
king, four lords replaced him: (N) Mihran, the bdesx of
Gugark', (S) Manachir Rshtuni, (E) nahapet Vahan Amatuni,
and (W) aspet Bagarat Bagratuni (II.85). The same sparapets
functioned under Trdat's son Xosrov II (330-339) with two exceptions:
Garjuyl Malxaz Xorxoruni replaced the slain Mihran in the north
(III.9) and a Zora Rshtuni was sparapet in thc south in
place of Manachir (III.15). Under Tiran (339-350) the Rshtuni
clan was almost exterminated by the king for alleged pro-Byzantine
sympathies, and the sparapetut'iwn of the south was transferred
from the Rshtunis to a lord Salamut' of Ancit (III.15).
Beginning with Arshak's time (350-367)
foreign sparapets make their appearance, leading foreign
and Armenian armies. Thus a Persian sparapet entered Armenia
with an Armenian army in order to capture the fugitive King Arshak.
This same sparapet seized Ani, despoiled the royal treasures
there, and scattered the bones of Arsacid kings buried in the
royal mausoleum (III.27). Yet Xorenac'i continucs to list changes
in the Armenian sparapets. Thus under Arshak, the sparapetut'iwn
of the east passed from Vahan Amatuni to Vaghinak Siwnik (III.18).
Another foreign sparapet this time the Byzantine stratelat
Terentianos accompanied Pap to Armenia with a large army and maintained
him on the throne for awhile, fighting with his Byzantine troops
against the Persians. Armenian naxarars, for their part,
fought Persians under their own sparapet, aspet
Smbat Bagratuni (III.37). Xorenac'i calls Gnel Anjewac'i King
Pap's sparapet of the east (III.39).
Following Armenia's partition in
387, each king, Arshak and Xosrov, had his sparapet. Arshak's
commander was Dara Siwnik' (III.45) while Sahak aspet Bagratuni
became Xosrov's sparapet (III.44). After Arshak's death
in 390 the stratelat Gazavon Kamsarakan led the western
naxarars (III.48) while the Mamikoneans were installed
as sparapets in the east through foreign intervention.
220 Ammianus Marcellinus' narration
of important events taking place in the reign of Pap differs from
the record found in P'awstos in many ways. Here shall be examined
only those divergences affecting the reputations of members of
the Mamikonean family. In this category the first important discrepancy
between the two authors concerns the capture of Artogerassa fortress.
According to Ammianus, the wife of imprisoned King Arshak took
refuge in this fortress which was besieged twice by the Persians.
The Persian King Sapor entrusted the taking of Artogerassa and
control of the country to two Armenian deserters: Cyclaces, a
eunuch; and Arrabannes, a commander-in-chief (Ammianus Marcellinus,
History, J. Rolfe tr. (London, 1939), vol. III. XXVII,
12, 5). Unsuccessful in their siege, the two traitors entered
the fortress where, pitying the queen's plight and encouraged
by the hope of greater rewards from the Romans, they decided to
turn from the Persians. They were able to bring the besiegers
to inaction by saying that the besieged had asked for two days
grace. Then, when the Persian camp was asleep, by prearranged
plan Armenian warriors streamed out of Artogerassa and massacred
the unsuspecting soldiers (ibid., XXVII 12, 6-8).
The second, final,. and successful
besieging of Artogerassa took place under Sapor's personal direction.
Furious over the massacre of his sleeping soldiers and over the
return from Byzantine lands of Arshak's son Pap, Sapor invaded
Armenia with a huge force destroying castles and burning the vegetation.
Terrified, Pap, Cylaces, and Arrabannes fled north to inaccessible
mountains and remained there in hiding for five months. Meanwhile
Sapor had seized and burned Artogerassa, dragging from it Arsak's
wife and treasures (ibid., XXVII 12, 11-12).
Markwart observed that P'awstos
has merged these two distinct besiegements into one (J. Markwart,
"P'awstos Buzand", Handes Amsoreay, ( 1897):5-9).
P'awstos named as the generals in charge of taking Artogerassa
(Artagers) two Persian princes, Zik and Karen. After thirteen
months the Persians still were unable to capture the fortress.
Meanwhile, Mushegh Mamikonean had gone in company of other princes
to negotiate with the Byzantine emperor for the return of Pap.
In the fourteenth month an epidemic broke out at Artogerassa killing
the 11,000 men and 6,000 women with the queen. Only Queen P'aranjem
and her two maids survived. Then the eunuch Hayr mardpet
secretly entered the fortress, denounced the Arsacid family, and
fled. Finding herself alone, P'aranjem opened the gates and let
the Persian soldiers in (PB, IV.55).
Now in Ammianus' version (1) the
commander-in-chief Arrabannes is originally on the Persian side;
(2) in the expectation of greater rewards from the Byzantines,
he abandons his allies; (3) he treacherously massacres defenseless
Persian soldiers;(4) terrified of Sapor, he, Pap, and Cylaces
flee and hide in the mountains while Artogerassa is stormed.
Remembering some of P'awstos' biases
it is easy to understand why Ammianus version could never have
been acceptable to him. For the Mamikoneans are the defenders
of Armenia militarily and the defenders of the legitimate Arsacid
line. They are loyal to their allies and fight fearlessly against
the enemy. That is why in P'awstos the sordid story of Mushegh
Mamikonean's duplicity has been supressed or, as this writer believes
P'awstos has assigned to the apostates Vahan Mamikonean and Meruzhan
Arcruni some of the traitorous deeds of Ammianus' Arrabannes--spreading
the responsibility and clearing Mushegh's name. This hypothesis
suggests itself from the fact that just such a splitting has occurred
in the case of the eunuch Cyla- ces/Hayr. As Markwart pointed
out, confused over the orientation of the mardpet during
this eriod, P'awstos created a second mardpet (Dghak) and
gave two varying accounts of the death of one and the same figure
(Markwart, p.5). Thus Ammianus' statement that Shapor "entrusted
Armenia to Cylaces a eunuch and to Arrabannes both of whom he
had long before received as deserters..." (Ammianus, XXVII
12, 5) is similar to the notice found in P'awstos (IV.58) that
Shapuhr left Zik and Karen in charge of some parts of the country
with Vahan and Meruzhan in charge of other parts. Apparently Arrabannes
is sometimes Vahan and Meruzhan, as well as Mushegh.
According to P'awstos Mushegh Mamikonean
was outside the borders of Armenia on the nohle mission of arranging
for Pap's return during the taking of Artogerassa. Nor is Mushegh
associated with "either" mardpet. P'awstos knows
that even though Mushegh is out of the country, he is the legitimate
sparapet. Therefore, despite Mushegh's absence, in P'awstos
the Armenian soldiers at Artogerassa cannot be defeated. Only
an epidemic--an act of God--could defeat them. That is why Ammianus'
story of the storming and capture of the fortress would have been
unacceptable to P'awstos, and why instead the author has Queen
P'aranjem herself open the gates to the enemy.
P'awstos' Mamikonean bias explains
a second discrepancy between our two authors. According to Ammianus,
Arrabannes (Mushegh) was killed during the reign of Pap (Ammianus,
XXVII 12, 14), while P'awstos has Mushegh murdered at Varazdat's
command (PB, V.35). Knowing P'awstos' antipathy toward Pap, it
would be natural to expect him to place this murder during the
reign of Pap whom, of all kings P`awstos hates the most. Such
an expectation is unwarranted, however, if we recall P'awstos'
assumption that the Mamikoneans are the equals of the Arsacids.
For just as the Mamikoneans cannot kill royalty, so true Arsacid
kings cannot kill sparapets. Pap, despite his sins, was
nonetheless a legitimate Arsacid. Varazdat on the other hand as
Manuel himself noted, was "illegitimate". That is why
he could murder his trustworthy Mamikonean sparapet and
also why Manuel in his turn was justified in battling with and
expelling the false King Varazdat from Armenia.