Aspects of the Saljuq invasions and
domination are dealt with in chapter two of this study. Here we
shall examine features relating directly to the princes in this
period, continuing through to the resurgence of Georgia. Supplementary
information on institutions of the Zak'arid period likewise is
provided. It should be noted, remarkable as it is, that despite
Byzantium's inept and disastrous policies vis-a-vis the Armenians,
the Saljuqs did in fact meet some Armenian armed resistance. In
1042, for example, Xul Xach'i Arcruni of T'orhnawan attempted
a heroic but futile resistance against 15,000 Turkmens in Vaspurakan.
In 1042/43, an unspecified number of Turkmens raiding Bjni in northeastern
Armenia were defeated by king Gagik Bagratuni and Grigor Magistros
Pahlawuni, son of former sparapet Vasak (1). In 1053 the
Armenians of Surmari destroyed an army of 60,000 Turks (2) .
The size of Turkmen detachments going against different parts
of Armenia varied from about 5,000 to perhaps 50,000 troops. While
these armies are not large by modern standards, it must be remembered
that the Saljuqs were a determined[250] "cohesive" fighting
force. The same may not be said of the Armenian and Greek forces
of Asia Minor.
During and after the invasions, some
princes, not wishing to emigrate, or unable to, took to a wandering
life, hiding in caves, in some cases perhaps waiting for opportunities
to avenge themselves (3). Others made accomodation with the Saljuqs
and retained certain limited rights. Furthermore, the benevolent
Saljuq sultan Malik-Shah granted the Armenian churches tax-free
status in 1090, upon the request of the katoghikos. Probably
some of the naxarar families were able to retain control
of their lands through the clergy. In the absence of the naxarar
confederational State, the naxararized Church became the
medium of communication for the families. Indeed Smbat Sparapet
described kat'oghikos Grigor Tgha Pahlawuni (1173-93) as
being "like a king" in wealth. References in other sources
also suggest a partial restoration of lands and privileges under
various Muslim overlords. Matthew of Edessa, for example, describing
the situation in the time of Malik Ismael Ibn Yaqut (1085-93)
wrote "everyone ruled his patrimony in his [Yaqut's] time
(amenayn ok' tireal er hayreneac' iwroc' yawurs nora)".
[251] According to Vardan Arewelc'i, when the Shaddadid Manuchihr
ruled Ani-Shirak, he recalled from exile Grigor Pahlawuni and
restored his holdings (4). Furthermore, Armenians, Greeks and
Georgians serving in the armies of the Shah-Armens and the sultans
of Iconium/Konya also received iqtas --originally conditional
landholds which quickly became hereditary (5).
The situation of shock and confusion
which many cavalrymen or azats, the "gentry",
found themselves in, dispossessed from their lands, was described
by the late 11th century author Aristakes Lastivertc'i: "The
cavalry wanders about lordlessly, some in Persia, some in Greece,
some in Georgia. The sepuh brigade of azats has
left its patrimony and fallen from wealth; they growl wherever
they happen to be, like lion cubs in their lairs" (6). Members
of the azatagundk' hayoc', the cavalry of Armenia, clustered
around successful bandits like Gogh Vasil or Philaretus Varazhnunik'
[252] in lands southwest of Armenia. Others found a very warm
reception in Georgia. During the reign of David the Restorer (1089-1125),
Georgia became a haven for Armenian lords and lordless azats
. Matthew of Edessa says that David "received and loved the
Armenian people. The remnants of the Armenian forces assembled
by him" (7) . He also built a special city, Gori, for the
refugees: "And he [David] established churches and many monasteries.
He named the city Gorha [Gori] and received all the Armenian people
with great joy and gladness" (8). According to the old medieval
Armenian translation of the History of K'art'li ("Juansher"),
David knew Armenian, and had as his father-confessor the Monophysite
vardapet Sarkawag from Haghbat monastery (9).
[253] The emigration of Armenians to
Georgia, Cilicia, and other parts of the Middle East led to a
phenomenon we might call the internationalization of the great
families. There were Georgian Bagratids, Armenian Bagratids, Aghbanian
Bagratids, and Graeco-Saljuq Bagratids, and the same applied to
the Arcrunids and Orbeleans. The Pahlawunids in particular internationalized.
They were hereditary archbishops of Ani from the 11-13th centuries,
and also owned property in Mesopotamia and Cilicia, where in the
12th century they became kat'oghikoi. In the 12th century,
another branch of the Pahlawunids settled in Egypt and acquired
so much influence as veziers, that anti-Armenian riots took place
in several Egyptian cities (10). It should be noted, however,
that while the internationalization of the great families could
and did lead to new trading opportunities and the accumulation
of great wealth, such was not always the case. Often the different
branches of a given family were in bitter rivalry with each other.
In dealing with the Georgian nobility,
the Bagratid kings of Georgia utilized many of the same methods
as did foreign rulers: circumvention of the dynasts whenever possible,
[254] manipulation of the nobles' precedence, and "de-naxararization"--removal
of the lords. During the 10-12th centuries, Georgian monarchs
attempted to circumvent the autochtonous dynastic nobility by
elevating to official positions, persons of non-noble origin.
So many non-nobles (uaznoni) were thus elevated to noble
status (aznauroba) that in the 11th century Georgian sources
a new term, aghzeebulni ("the raised") appeared
to designate this growing body (11). 0n the military front, the
monarchs attempted to circumvent powerful Georgian dynasts by
relying on foreign mercenaries (Caucasian mountaineers, Qipchaq
Turks, Russians), the lesser nobility, and the increasingly influential
Armenian emigre element. The availability of non-noble and foreign
elements probably gave the Georgian Bagratids more leverage in
dealing with dynasts than had been the case in Bagratid Armenia.
Apparently Georgian monarchs also were
able to manuipulate precedence among the nobles more advantageously
than their Armenian cousins. Occupancy of the office of commander-in-chief
of the army (the amirspasalarate) illustrates this. Throughout
much of the 12th century to 1155, the amirspasalars tended
to be chosen from the mighty, rebellious Georgian branch of the
Orbeleans. In the 1120's the Crown tried [255] to counter 0rbelean
influence by advancing the Abulet'isjes; and in the 1130's the
Armenian Kiwrikean Bagratids (13). In 1155 king David V tried
to check the Orbeleans' power by removing them from the amirspasalarate
and giving that office to the Orbeleans' principal Georgian rivals,
the Abulet'isjes, to whom other important duties had been given
(14). Orbeleans, however, poisoned the king and regained the office,
but after amirspasalar Iwane Orbeli's abortive revolt in
1176-77, the office was given to a Qipchaq Turk named Qubasar.
In 1184, the Gamrekelis were eievated to the amirspasalarate,
and several years later the Armenized Kurdish family of Zak'arean/Mxargrceli
(15). Thus prior to the advent of the Zak'arids, the monarch was
able to manipulate precedence by rewarding of office, although
from the above it should be clear that the struggle against the
dynasts was a continuous ongoing contest. The monarch could never
rest or relax vigilance.
[256] In the 12th century the Georgian
Crown also attempted de-naxararization. This was aimed
primarily at the Bagratids' most powerful rivals, the Orbeleans.
In 1176-77, the Orbeleans, hoping to seize the throne, rebelled
with the support of many Armenian princes (including the Zakareans,
who were Orbelid vassals at the time) (16). When the rebellion
was put down, the entire Orbelean family (excepting two or three
males) was exterminated, and the family assets were confiscated
(17). The Georgian Bagratids also practiced a less drastic form
of de-naxararization, namely the forcible exile of opponents.
In the 11th century, the Georgian Bagratids fought their Armenian
Kiwrikean counsins, the "kings" of Lorhi, According
to Kirakos Ganjakec'i:
Kiwrike Bagratuni, who was from the town of Lori, having opposed the Georgians all his life, kept his patrimony (hayrenik') intact. But after his death [ca. 1090] his sons Dawit' and Abas were deceived by the Georgians and rose and went and received from them as a heritage Tawush and Macnaberd and other places; then, after some days, the Persians took back Tawush, and they dwelt in Macnaberd (18).
[257] The Armenophile David III who
ruled Georgia for less than a year (1155/56-1156/57) "showed
such benevolence as to send for the King Kiwrike, son of King
Dawit' Bagratuni, and promise to return to him his patrimony which
his ancestors had taken away from him; and thus he sent him back
with presents, and arranged a meeting" (19). According to
indications in the Aghbanian Chronicle of Mxit'ar Gosh,
the Arcrunids who held the position of mayor ( amirapet,
shahap) of Tiflis and also owned lands at Kayean and Mahkanaberd,
were expelled from the kingdom under king Giorgi III (1156/57-1184),
though Giorgi's successor, T'amar, restored them in their holdings
(20).
[258] As a result of territorial expansion,especially
southwest into historical Armenia, the Georgian monarchy had at
its disposal an ample fund of land. Choice sites especially in
the Armeno-Georgian borderlands were available for gifts to court
officials as rewards for military or other services, or to guarantee
loyalty. Now the Crown intended such land gifts to be conditional,
that is, they were given to a particular individual for the duration
of his life or of his tenure. Such was the situation with the
district of Lorhe and the amirspasalarate. In 1118, Lorhe
was Orbelean property. After the dispossession of the Georgian
Orbeleans in 1176-77, Lorhe was confiscated and given to the amirspasalar
Xubasar. When Xubasar was removed from office in 1184, T'amar
left him in all of his holdings except
Lorhe, by now considered the property of the amirspasalar
(21). The fact remains, however, that with time, just as appointed
offices (such as the amirspasalarate) tended to become
hereditary, so did those conditional landholds (such as Lorhe)
become hereditary within one family (Zak'areans).
[259] While this study concerns the
13-14th centuries and not merely the Zak'arid restoration, we
feel obliged to make some mention of Zak'arid institutions. These
institutions have been examined thoroughly by Babayan, most recently.
Regrettably, details are lacking concerning the precise workings
of political administration in the immediately pre-Mongol period.
The brothers Zak'are and Iwane, both notable generals, also held
official positions within the Georgian court. Zak'are was the
commander-in-chief of the army (amirspasalar) as of 1191,
and the mandaturt'-uxuc'es from 1203 on; while his brother,
first the msaxurt'-uxuc'es (foremost vezier at court) became
atabeg in 1212, an office which was instituted within the
Georgian court at Iwane's own request (22). [260] In the view
of L. H. Babayan, the nature of the Zak'arid brothers' service
to the Georgian Crown was primarily of a military sort. Armenian
lands recaptured from the Turks, he suggests, did not pay taxes
to Georgia, but to the Zak'arids who sometimes are styled "kings","Caesars",
and "sahnshs" in the Armenian sources, apparently in
recognition of this (23).
Within the vast territories under their
jurisdiction the two Zak'arid brothers apparently established
many of the same offices as existed in the Georgian Court. The
men chosen by them to fill these offices were those same individuals
who had been instrumental as warriors in the reconquest of Armenian
lands. The service (carhayut'iwn) tendered the Zak'arids
by their appointees consisted of military aid and thevpayment
of taxes. Thus, in return for his service, Zak'are titled Vach'e
[Vach'utean] his "prince of princes" (24). Members
of the Xach'en aristocracy served as Zak'arid hejubs, chamberlains,
court directors, and guardians of Zak'arid children (25). Prince
Bubak, Iwane's subordinate, is styled "prince of princes"
and "the great sparapet"
[261] in the sources (26). As Babayan notes, Bubak also was
known by the Georgian title of msaxurt'-uxuc'es-the same
title originally held by Iwane in the Georgian Court (27).
[262] This lends credence to the view
that the Zak'arids created a partial microcosm of the Georgian
Court hierarchy on their own lands.
Other important offices (gorcakalut'iwnk')
fleetingly referred to in the sources are the koghmnakalut'iwnk'
or lieutenancies. In Zak'arid Armenia there were three of them,
held by three major families: in Siwnik', the Orbeleans, in Ayrarat
the Vach'uteans, and in Vayoc' Jor the
Xaghbakean-Prhosheans. Babayan reasonably
suggests that the koghmnakals were endowed with some administrative-judicial
powers (28). The same author believes that the amiras
or emirs were city mayors who stood at the head of an elaborate
but poorly-understood governing body which included clergy and
wealthy laymen. It is clear from inscriptions that at times even
the administrative heads of large villages were appointed directly
from the top, in one case by Iwane himself (29). The sources also
contain a welter of terms such as tanuter, gaherec' ishxan,
patronac' patron and others, some known from the dawn of Armenian
writings, others new. However, the manner in which the real content
of such terms changed over time is not clearly known. Often titles
such as shahnshah or marzban appear as the given
names of individuals who held titled official positions, adding
to the confusion (30). [264] Furthermore, since the political
reality of the time was Armeno-Georgian and not exclusively Armenian,
sometimes Georgian titulary is used alongside the Armenian, increasing
the confusion (31).