200 GHP, II.38, p. 145; III.77, p.312; III.84, p. 331.

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.

Press the Backspace key to return to text of article