Al-Dinawari and al-Tabari, Arabic-Speaking Historians in the 9th — Early 10th Century, on the Armenian Troops at the Byzantine Military Service in 590-591: Towards the Participation of the Armenian Noble Families (Nakharars)

About the author:

Evgeniy A. Mekhamadiev, Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Senior Lecturer, Medieval History Department, Saint-Petersburg State University; e.mehamadiev@spbu.ru; ORCID: 0000-0003-1823-4588

Abstract:

This article covers the legal status, condition, and functions of the Armenian troops, which fought within the Byzantine army on behalf of the Persian king Khosrow II Parwiz in 591 during his clash with a Persian usurper Bakhram Chobin. The author turns his attention to the sources, which had been neglected in previous historiographic studies. The sources ate the accounts of Arabic-speaking historians al-Dinawari and al-Tabari, who lived in the 9^th — early 10^th century. Having compared their evidence and the narratives of the Greek (Theophylactus Symocatta) and Armenian (Sebeos) historical chronicles, the author has discovered a social origin of the Armenian troops, which were a part of the Byzantine army. In addition, the author has traced the way of their territorial movements and studied in succession how the functions and status of these Armenian units changed over the time.

In regards to the methods, the author highlights the usage of the historical-chronological narrative, i. e. the analysis of event history, when events are arranged and presented in strict chronological order. This method has allowed seeing the events in consecutive manner: how the status and functions of Armenian ethnic units within the Byzantine army changed before and after 590-591.

The main conclusion of this contribution is that the Armenian units, which fought for the sake of Khosrow II Parwiz within the Byzantine troops, represented the retinues of nakharars, who were the chiefs of Armenian noble families, but first these nakharars located on a territory of Persia, not Byzantium. The supreme and general leader of such retinues was a powerful nakharar Moushel Mamikonean, who refused to accept Bakhram and as a result joined the Byzantine troops, which came to Persia at the request of Khosrow in order to destroy Bakhram. After Bakhram was defeated, Moushel and the nakharars subordinated to him, moved and resettled in Byzantium. However, because of the mistaken policy the Byzantine Emperor Mauricius led towards the Armenian noble, Moushel and his nakharars left Byzantium and fled back to Persia.

The departure of the Armenian nakharars generated a serious weakening of Byzantine troops, which stood in Armenian provinces of Byzantium, and this process, in turn, caused the hard defeats of Byzantines from the Persians during 603-607, when Mauricius was already murdered as a result of the internal Byzantine military unrest.

References:

1. Malkhasyants St. (transl.). 1939. The History of Bishop Sebeos. Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences Publishing. 184 pp. [In Russian]

2. Shaginyan A. K. 2018. Arabic-Islamic Historiography of the 9^th C. about Countries and People of Caucasus, Armenian Highlands, and Adjacent Regions. Saint Petersburg: Dmitriy Bulanin Publishing. 416 pp. [In Russian]

3. Booth Ph. 2019. “The ghost of Maurice at the court of Heraclius”. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 781-826.

4. Börm H. 2008. “Das Königtum der Sasaniden — Strukturen und Probleme”. Bemerkungen aus althistorischer Sicht. Klio, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 423-443.

5. Garsoïan N. 2012. “Esquisse de l’évolution du naxararut‛iwn arménien durant l’interrègne (VII^e — IX^e siècle)”. Revue des Études Arméniennes. New Series, vol. 34, pp. 41‑71.

6. Gignoux Ph. 1984. “L’organisation administrative sasanide: le cas du marzbān”. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol. 4, pp. 1-30.

7. Koehn Cl. 2018. Justinian und die Armee des frühen Byzanz. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 309 pp.

8. Martindale J. R. 1992. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. IIIA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 760 pp.

9. Martindale J. R. 1992. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. IIIB. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 814 pp.

10. Meier M. 2014. “Kaiser Phokas (602-610) als Erinnerungsproblem”. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 139-174.

11. Olster D. M. 1993. The Politics of Usurpation in the Seventh Century: Rhetoric and Revolution in Byzantium. Amsterdam: Hakkert. 209 pp.

12. Preiser-Kappeler J. 2004. “Magister militum per armeniam (Ο των αρμενιακων στρατηγοσ). Überlegungen zum armenischen Kommando im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert”. In: Hörandner W., Koder J. (eds.). Wiener Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik. Beiträge zum Symposion „Vierzig Jahre Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik der Universität Wien“, pp. 348-365. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

13. Bosworth C. E. (transl.). 1999. The History of al-Tabari. Vol. V: The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen. New York: State University of New York Press. 458 pp.

14. Boor C. de (ed.). 1887. Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae. Lipsiae: Teubner. 437 pp.

15. Tyler-Smith S. 2004. “Calendars and coronations: the literary and numismatic evidence for the accession of Khusrau II”. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, vol. 28, pp. 33‑66.

16. Vleeschouwer A. de. 2019. “The foreign policy of Phocas (602-610): a neorealist reassessment”. Byzantion, vol. 89, pp. 153-200.