One of the most important offices in
Arsacid Armenia belonged to the sparapet or commander-in-chief
of the armies. Like many other offices in the Armenian kingdom
such as those of the coronant, the chamberlain, and the master
of the hunt, the sparapetut'iwn was a hereditary
charge held traditionally by the senior member of one family,
the Mamikoneans. Exactly when the sparapetut'iwn was
instituted in Armenia is not known, since the earliest relevant
Armenian sources (fifth century) give a confused picture of the
establishment of Arsacid offices in the country. Likewise the
time of the abolition of the office is unclear since one meets
Mamikonean sparapets after the fall of the Armenian
Arsacid kingdom (A.D. 428) and during the seventh and eighth centuries.
In the medieval Bagratid and Arcrunid kingdoms as well as in Cilician
Armenia, the sparapetut'iwn was still an important
office, although with the removal of the Mamikoneans to the Byzantine
empire in the late eighth century, its occupants were drawn from
other lordly (naxarar) families.
Because of Armenia's strategic geographical
position between two mighty and inimical powers, Rome-Byzantium
on the west and Iran on the east, the country was often forced
to participate in the campaigns launched by one empire against
the other. As an ally of the one and a border state of both, Armenia
was subjected to devastation by the armies of both empires. The
almost perpetual state of war which was endemic between Armenia
and its neighbors, as well as warfare within the country between
the Arsacid kings of Armenia and their naxarars, made
the sparapetut'iwn an institution capable of rivaling
the country's bnik ters ("native lords"), that
is, the Arsacid kings themselves .
Etymologically the word sparapet
derives from Ihe Parthian spadapet (spad-army,
pat-leader) which in turn derives from the Old
Persian spadapaitis (1) . The Iranian origin of this
word and of other Armenian Arsacid official terminology is a reflection
of Armenia's long cultural and political ties with Iran which
date from Achaemenid times (2).
Although there exists no separate study
of the sparapetut'iwn, both Iranists and Armenists
perforce have commented on the importance of this office and its
occupants in their works on Iranian and Armenian soclety. Among
Iranists treating the Sasanian Eran-spahbad the
most detailed information is found in the writings ot A. Christensen
and G. Widengren. Christensen, in L'Iran sous les Sassanides,
wrote that in the Sasanian hierarchy each of the four social
groupings, the clergy (asravan), soldiers (arteshtaran),
bureaucracy (dibheran), as well as the commoners (vastryoshan)
and artisans (hutukhshan), had a supreme head. The chief
of the military was the Eran-spahbad, and until
the time of Xosrov I (531 579), the Iranian army was under the
command of a single Eran-spahbad who performed
the threefold functions of minister of war, commander-in-chief,
and negotiator of the peace (3).
As a result of Xosrov l's military reforms,
four spahbads were created in place of a single
leader. The spahbad of the east controlled the armies
of Khurasan, Sacastan, and Kerman; the spahbad of
the south, the armies of Pars and Susiana; the spahbad
of the west, the armies of Iraq to the Byzantine frontier;
and the spahbad of the north, the armies of Media
and Azerbaijan (4). Since the rarely-encountered officer known
as the arteshtaransalar (chief of the warriors)
is not mentioned after Kavadh and the Eran- spahbad
was abolished during the reign of Kavadh's successor Xosrov
I, Christensen equates the two terms (5).
In L'Iran sous les Sassanides. Christensen expressed doubt that an of iice as important as that of the Eran- spahbad could be hereditary in one family. G. Widengren cites the transmission of the Armenian sparapetut'iwn in the Mamikonean family as an example of such a tendency and believes that the Iranian Eran- Spahbad was also a hereditary position (6).
Among Armenists, the sparapetut'iwn
has been examined most notably by N. Adontz and C. Toumanoff.
Adontz placed the consolidation of the Mamikonean holdings in
the southern district of Taron during the reign of king Trdat
the Great's son Xosrov II Kotak (ca. 330-339). While noting
the existence of sparapets prior to the accession
of king Arsak II, Adontz seems to place the real establishment
of the sparapet as a court official (gorcakal)
during Arsak Il's reign (350-367) (7).
In Armenia in the Period of Justinian,
Adontz wrote:
The Mamikonean as sparapets, were said to stand above all thc zoravark' or military commanders Thc Armenian army was made up of many contingents furnished by the princely houses. Each of these detachments was commanded by its own prince, but the supreme command belonged to the hereditary sparapets, the Mamlkonean house, who, in this sense stood "above all the princes and their armies"(8).
Thus the sparapet stood
at the head of the princely class just as the hazarapet
stood at the head of the peasant population (9). According
to Adontz, the division of command of the army under four sparapets
found in the history attributed to Movses Xorenac'i does not
correspond to historical reality. Finally Adontz observed the
important position which the bishop of the Mamikoneans occupied
in ecclesiastical affairs:
The bishop of the Mamikonean held the
leading position in the Church after the patriarch or Catholicos,
the influence of the naxarar system is obvious in this
case. Just as the hereditary Mamikancan sparapets stood
at the head of the nararars under the Arsacids and even
later, so in ecclesiastical affairs, the chief administrator found
at thc side of the Catholicos was the representative of the same
house (10).
Toumanoff believes that the Mamikoneans
were the "immemorial dynasts" of Tayk', a district
on the Armeno-Georgian border, and were possibly of Georgian
origin. Although he mentions Mancaeus, defender of Tigranocerta
against the Romans (B.C. 69), as the first historically visible
member of the dynasty, Toumanoff does not specify when the sparapetut'iwn
was entrusted to the Mamikoneans. He notes that by the fourth
century this family had acquired half of Taron centered in the
castle of Oghakan on the Arsanias river. By 439, as a result of
the will of St Sahak, the last descendant of St. Gregory, the
Mamikoneans acquired the other half of Taron centered in the city
of Ashtishat as well as the principalities of Bagravande and Acilisene
--making them "the greatest territorial princes of the Monarchy,
ruling a State that nearly sundered it into two halves" (11).
Toumanoff compares the sparapet
with the Iberian (Georgian) spaspet (12) who,
unlike the sparapet held an apparently non-inheritable
office (13) which included civil as well as military functions (14).
Finally, Toumanoff suggests that while in Sasanian Iran both
an Eran- spahbad and an Aspahbad
(master of the horse, i.e., head of the cavalry)
coexisted, in Armenia this could not have been the case since
the Armenian army was primarily cavalry. He concludes therefore
that the term aspet which the Armenian sources apply
to the Bagratid princes was not an official, administrative, but
merely a family title (15).
Before turning to an examination of
the relevant Armenian sources on the sparapetut'iwn,
some general observations on these sources are in order. First,
none of the sources considered in this study was written while
the Arsacid dynasty ruled Armenia. The Arsacids were deposed in
the Byzantine-controlled portion of the country in 390 and
in the Iranian-controlled portion in 428. The earliest example
of classical Armenian writing to survive, the Bible, was not finally
translated until after 431 (16). The historical sources with which
we are concerned describe a kingdom which had long since lost
its glory. Thus, although the sparapetut'iwn outlived the
kingdom which created it and existed throughout the fifth century,
one has no guarantees that the sources faithfully describe this
institution in the heyday of the state (i.e. as an Arsacid
institution). Second, the sources which have survived even from
the post-428 period are few and belong to different genres.
Koriwn's Life of Mashtoc' is a biography; " Agat'angeghos''
is a short epic account of Armenia's conversion to Christianity;
the History by P'awstos Buzand is more a collection of
episodes than a history; and Ghazar P'arpec'i's work is a eulogy
of the Mamikonean family. Third, although some of these books
contain the word "history" in their titles, not one
of them is a history of Armenia. Instead they are, for the most
part, the products of House historians who have written about
the role of a particular family in Armenian affairs. P'awstos
Buzand and Ghazar P'arpec'i were both historians of the Mamikonean
House. Thus their works contain few disparaging remarks about
their patrons and most likely numerous half truths and outright
distortions. Finally, one is obliged to eliminate from consideration
two works traditionally accepted as fifth century compositions:
Eghishe's On Vardan and the Armenian War, and the History
of Armenia attributed to Movses Xorenac'i. Serious doubt was
raised about the dating of Eghishe's history by N. Akinean who
believed that rather than describing the Vardananc' (450), the
work might instead be an account of the late sixth century rebellion
also led by a Vardan Mamikonean (17). Eghishe, a Mamikonean sympathizer,
is unknown to the definitely late fifth century P'arpec'i who
most certainly would have used the former's work had it existed
when he was writing. In any case, Eghishe's history does not contain
any information on the sparapetut'iwn which differs from
what is found in P'arpec'i. As regards Xorenac'i, this enigmatic
writer and/or editor seems to have operated in the last part of
the eighth century. He is violently anti-Mamikonean and provides
much information on the sparapetut'iwn which contradicts
the sources which will he examined here. For this reason Xorenac'i's
history cannot be ignored, but neither can it be classed with
authentic fifth century sources. A discussion of Xorenac'i's information
on the sparapetut'iwn therefore is confined to the
notes (18).