The importance which Iran attached
to both the Vardananc' and Vahaneanc' rebellions is seen clearly
from the ranks of Iranian officers sent against the sparapets.
Vardan was pursued by the famous hazarapet Mihr Nerseh
himself (208). Likewise the Iranian Vehshapuh, who had been chamberlain
(senekapan) and chancellor (atenadpir), participated
in the campaign against Vardan (209), as did of course Armenia's
marzpan Vasak Siwnik' who had previously been marzpan
of Iberia (210). Vahan was opposed by the marzpan of Atrpatakan
(211), the Iranian marzpan Atrvshnasp (2l2), the marzpan
of Armenia Shapuh Mihran (213) and the generals Zarmihr (214)
and Nixor Vshnaspdat (2l5). One detachment of Iranians planning
to attack Vahan from the districts of Her and Zarewand, included
Suren Pahlaw, Atrvshnasp (overseer of the bodyguards), Vin-i Xorean,
Itapean Atrvshnasp, and the Siwnik' Prince Gdihon. Ghazar writes:
"Although there was one of greater authority [ishxanut'iwn)
among them, nonetheless, the commandant and head of the troops
was the overseer of the bodyguards (216)".
This last comment is particularly interesting
since a very similar remark was made before Yazdgard II by sparapet
Vardan himself. The capable Vardan admitted that some of the lords
of Armenia, Iberia, and Alhania surpassed him in authority and
yet he, not they, was the sparapet (217). Thirty years
later Valash's nobility made Vardan's nephew sparapet "according
to the law of his ancestors (218)". Tradition here, it seems,
is invoked by Ghazar for reasons already mentioned. During the
fifth century, the Mamikoneans were sparapets not so much
because of tradition, but because of their own organizational
and military genius--to say nothing of their ambition. In a century
of concerted Iranian efforts to assimilate Armenia forcibly or
through subtle means, Armenian Arsacid tradition had little importance
to Sasanian Iran. After unsuccessfully trying to destroy the Mamikonean
family by killing senior members in war and trying to splinter
the family inheritance, Iran finally was forced to recognize the
reality it had helped to create in Armenia and was obliged to
adopt for the moment a more conciliatory policy toward the Mamikonean
family and Armenia in general.
1. Authentic fifth century sources aIl
indicate that the sparapetut'iwn as an office held by the
Mamikonean family. However, these sources are not explicit on
the nature of the transmission of the office. Although there was
no requirement for direct patrilineal inheritance in a tun,
ordinarily the sparapetut'iwn passed from father to son.
Thus Artawazd was the father of sparapet Vach' e, who
was the father of Artawazd. But it is not known if Arshak's sparapet
Vasak was Artawazd's son. Pap's sparapet Mushegh was the
son of Vasak, but it is not known in what relationship Manuel
Marnikonean stood to Mushegh. The relationship between Manuel's
son Artashir and sparapet Hamazasp Mamikonean (St. Sahak's
son-in-law) is not clear. Sparapet Vahan was the nephew,
not son, of Vardan.
Apparently the sparapetut'iwn
belonged to the head or tanuter of the family, although
as a consequence of Arshak's restoration of the Mamikoneans, Vasak
was given the sparapetut'iwn while Vardan was "appointed"
tanuter (PB. IV.2). The sources record only one instance
during the reign of the "false king" Varazdat--when
the sparapetut'iwn was held by a non-Mamikonean. The office
soon was seized by Manuel, however, who killed sparapet
Bat Saharuni and expelled Varazdat.
The sources frequently dwell on the loyalty of the Mamikonean sparapets to their bnik ters, the kings of Armenia, during the period of the Arsacid dynasty. According to P'awstos Buzand, the Mamikoneans are the only legitimate defenders of Armenia's kings from internal and external enemies. Their loyalty to king and country achieves a supernatural quality as do the sparapets themselves. However, following the murder of sparapet Mushegh by King Varazdat, an act subtly compared by P'awstos to the betrayal of Christ, the situation changes. At this time, though, the Arsacids become unworthy of the Armenian throne. Manuel was obliged to seize the sparapetut'iwn and expel the king. P'awstos follows these developments by advancing the theory of Mamikonean equality with the Arsacids. Apparently, throughout the fifth century following the deposition of the Arsacids, the equation of the Mamikoneans with royalty formed a part of the propaganda of the Mamikonean family. For Ghazar P'arpec'i, the Mamikoneans epitomize resistance to Zoroastrianizing enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus are not only outstanding military leaders, but zealous defenders of the Church. In the absence of Arsacid royalty, P'arpec'i equates the Mamikoneans with royalty and, like P'awstos, makes the sparapets the equals of kings anywhere and occasionally supernatural beings.
3. The sources present no information on the traditional prerogatives of the Armenian sparapet. To a large degree this is the result of the nature of the sources themselves, which tend to be epic and eulogistic and the creations of biased clerics directly patronized by the Mamikonean family. For this reason it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the similarities or dissimilarities between the Armenian sparapet and the Iranian Eran-Spahbad.