P'arpec'i expresses Mamikonean equality with the very highest Iranian nobility in a second effective way. He frequently portrays the Iranian nobility as especially solicitous of the Mamikoneans whom they often praise. Thus the death of Vardan was lamented not only by the Zoroastrian hazarapet Mihr Nerseh (176), but by King Yazdgard II himself (177). Vahan supposedly was favored even as a child by the Iranian grandees who praised him before King Peroz (178). Vahan was toasted by Valash's peace-negotiator Nixor, who also praised Vahan's bravery (179). When Vahan travelled to Valashs' court, the king himself was solicitous about his guest's comfort and postponed their meeting until Vahan was rested (180). Vahan's speech at court was praised by the Iranian nobility and his eloquence in speaking at court (atenaxosut`iwn) was said to be divinely granted (181). Finally, after delivering a speech in which Vahan fearlessly denounced the Iranians and Valash agreed that Vahan's revolt had been justified (182), the latter was loaded with honors and sent home triumphantly. Nor are Vardan and Vahan the only Mamikoneans whom imperial Iran took note of. Young Grigor Mamikonean's brilliance at the head of an Armenian detachment fighting the rebel Zareh was watched closely by Valash himself (183). The Mamikoneans are equated with the highest nohility and are the favorites if not the equals of the Iranian kings. Ghazar has marzpan Andekan make the following remarks to Valash about Vahan:

Who has his grace and intelligence besides you (who are god-like and ahove human nature)? Boldly I say that there is no one else. There is scarcely a one to compare with him. (184)

This quotation is interesting because therein Vahan is equated with the king of Iran. It is also noteworthy that the Iranian mcmarch is said to be god-like and above human nature. For Vahan too is represented as a sort of superhuman. Thus, despite his unbearable exhaustion, Vahan arranged his troops at Steo village and tried to raise the men's morale (185). After his soldiers deserted, Vahan made the sign of the Cross and entered battle like a mythological warrior spirit, the k'aj (186). The Iranian soldiers were afraid to look at his face (187). The marzpan Shapuh Mihran noted that he had never heard of a commander pitting ten men against three thousand troops as Vahan did (188). As Vahan is not human; like a k'aj of former times (189), he is fighting his enemy "like an eagle swooping down on a flock of partridge (190)". He can ford a swollen river safely after making the sign of the Cross (191). His work is ahove human deeds, "let the listener think what he will" (192).

Ghazar P'arpec'i's History of Armenia contains references to five sparapets: Theodosius II's sparapet in Antioch named Anatol; Peroz' sparapet Vahram; Hamazasp Mamikonean; his famous son Vardan; and Vahan, the latter's nephew. P'arpec'i has little to say ahout Anatol beyond the information that this sparapet was one of the parties appealed to for aid by the Vardaneanc' and that partly due to Anatol's meddling, Theodosius decided against helping the rehels in 450-451. Information ahout the Iranian ,sparapet is also limited, although it is fuller than what P'arpec'i presents on the Byzantine officer designated by the same title. Peroz' sparapet Vahram is mentioned twice. According to Ghazar, Vahram along with other Iranian grandees unsuccessfully attempted to dissuade Peroz from warring on the Hepthalites. Peroz, however, refused to heed his advice (193). Ghazar's second reference to the Iranian sparapet provides no proper name hut instead deals with the prerogatives of any Iranian sparapet. Prior to being brought back into the service of the Iranian crown, the rebel Vahan rode into the camp of King Valash's peace-negotiator Nixor with his trumpets sounding. Nixor, alarmed, sent a message to Vahan, saying that he was not observing Aryan custom and that he should. Nixor says that only the Aryan sparapet has the right to such a prestigious entry. Vahan haughtily replied that he is already familiar with Iranian customs and will obey such customs only when he is the vassal of the Iranian king (194). Until that time Vahan obviously considered himself the equal of the Iranian sparapet, one of whose prerogatives the Armenian sparapet temporarily appropriated.

P'arpec`i's specific information on the Armenian sparapetut'iwn concerns not traditional rights, but the new rights which sparapet Vahan asserted. During the Vahaneanc' uprising, a separate Mamikonean administration was set up in Armenia under Vahan's ultimate direction. Thus at the outset of his revolt, having "received his sparapetut'iwn first from God and second from the will of the Armenian people", Vahan appointed as marzpan Sahak Bagratuni, who is presented as the Mamikonid counterpart to Yozmandean Atrvshnasp, the Iranian-appointed marzpan of Armenia (195). Sparapet Vahan also directed his administration by naming pro-Mamikoneans as lords of certain districts held during the struggles by pro-Iranian apostate naxarars. Most likely this circumstance explains the statement that on the eve of the Vahaneanc', Vahan's comrade-in-arms Babgen Siwnik' was appointed prince of the Siwnik' terut'iwn despite the fact that Gdihon Siwnik was still alive and apparently ruling Siwnik' as lord, like Vasak and Varazvaghan before him, with the complete support of Iran (196).

The highly sensitive and unstable situation in which many naxarar houses found themselves during the fifth century made activities of the generalissimo, such as arranging the wings of his army or en- couraging the soldiers, very difficult. Not only was desertion frequent as seen already, but the deliberate dissemination of misinformation by thc enemy made things more complicated yet. Thus Vargos Gnt'uni and Vasak Saharuni reported to Catholicos Yovhan, marzpan Sahak, and sparapet Vahan that Vasak Mamikonean and the flower of the country's military had heen defeated, when in fact they had been the victors (197). Later, false messages were sent to Vahan from Iberia claiming that after a disastrous hattle there many knights were alive and safe, when the opposite was true. This message was sent with the ex- pectation that Vahan immediately would dispatch half his army to rescue the survivors, thereby reducing his ability to resist the Iranians in Armenia (198). Under such conditions of disunity among the naxarars, because of the terrain and the overwhelming numerical superiority of the enemy, resistance usually took the form of guerilla warfare (199).

Footnotes 176-199



Continue

Return to Selected Writings Menu

Return to Main Menu