The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire:Conflict and Alliance under lustinian and MauriceUntil recently in the majority of history books on the RomanEmpire there appears to have been an acceptance that thestudy of the Persian Empire, either làrthian or Sasanid, wassecondary to the study of Rome. In the last twenty years orso, a number of mil itary historians have demonstrated thatthe Persians were admirable opponents of Rome and just asworthy of study in their own right.

In this context it is unsurprising that the military historyof Armenia, the third military power in the region, is usu-ally relegated to footnotes. In many respects this is due tothe paucity of sources. The main Armenian historians of theperiod - làvstos Buzand (fifth century), Movses Khorenatzi(f ifth century), and Chazar hrperzi (f ifth-sixth century) - arelitt le known in the West, and unti l recently none have beentranslated into English.

Armenia is sti l l l i t t le known to Western historians. EvenArmenian scholars have only recently begun to investi-gate their own military history, as underlined by ArmenAyvazyan, the author of the book under review, when hestates: "Armenian historiography both in the homeland andabroad has so far failed to develop a distinct national schoolof military historians."

In some respects this is understandable. Armenia hasonly iust emerged from a long period of foreign domination,and most of the translations of the primary sources, and themajority of the analysis undertaken in the twentieth century,were conducted either when Armenia was affi l iated to theUSSR, ot more recently, involved in local wars. In bothcases Western historians may have been discouraged fromtravell ing to the country and investigating Armenian history.Sadly, those who did travel were classicists with l itt le or nointerest in Armenian military history. As a result, the majorityof modern analysis ofArmenian history is in either Armenianor Russian, languages of which many Western scholars havelitt le or no knowledge.

Despite the title, readers expecting The Armenian Militaryin the Byzantine Empirc to be the long-awaited in-depthanalysis of ancient Armenian military history wil l be a l itt ledisappointed. As the author notes: "The tit le of this bookshould in no way be taken as an application for a compre-hensive coverage of the numerous and diverse relationshipsbetween the Armenian military and the Byzantine empire inthe age of Emperors Justinian and Maurice. The present studystrives to bring to l ight only one of the least known, yet mostturbulent periods in the history of the Armenian military (...).It is my hope that this book wil l act as a catalyst for a longoverdue rigorous scholarly research into the military historyo f Armen id" rp . l6 r .

With this caveat in mind, it is possible to turn to the bookitself. In Part I of the book Ayvazyan focuses on the Armenianrebell ion of 538-539. (For those who are not fully cognizantwith Armenian history, this is a period when Armenja wasdivided between Byzantium and Persia, and the rebell ion inquestion was against Byzantine rule of the western areas of

ISBNr97 8291 7 329399Author:Armen AyvazyanFages:128Publisher:SigestAddress of publisher:www.stgest.netReviewer:lan Hughes

Armenia). By concentrating on a narrow period, Ayvazyan isable to devote a large amount of close analysis to his chosenarea, so giving clear insights rather than being forced intothe generalizations that might have been the case in a bookcoverinS a wider period.

The text includes an investigation into the Armenianmilitary organization for, and conduct during, the ensuingcampaign, when the Armenian commanderVasak (Bassaces)Mamikonean faced the Byzantine general Sittas, who hadpreviously commanded alongside Belisarius.

The high point of the campaign was the Battle of Avnik,which is gjven its own chapter- In a closely detailed scrutinyof the battle, Ayvazyan suggests that Vasak Mamikoneanused the nature of the terrain and his knowledge ofByzantine tactics to lure Sittas into a series of disjointedcombats where the Armenian army was able to uti l ise itsstrengths to kil l Sittas and defeat the Byzantines. In orderto suggest a continuity of strategy, in the following chapterAyvazyan compares the 'Mamikonean tactics' used in thebattle with the tactics used ar the Battle ofAkori in 48t, afterwhich he details events surrounding the end of the ArmenianRebell ion of 538-539.

All of the aforementioned description and analysis takesplace jn 60 pages (pp. 26-85). Part I is concluded withtwo short Appendices, the Assassination operation against

-5-

Contharis' (Procopius, De Bello Vandalico 2.28.1t 5-43),and 'The Armenian Rebell ion' (ProcoDius, De Bello Pesico2.3.4-31).

In hrt ll, Ayvazyan analyses the possible reasons for theomission of the Armenians from Mauricel Strategikon (seealso Medieval Waiare magazine ll-4). Although extremelyinteresting and insightful, there is a need to read the entiresection through in its entirety before forming any judge-ments, as the conclusions are left to the end.

Finally, echoing the short nature of the book, Ayvazyan'sconclusion is understandably less than two pages in length.

One of my main problems with books on ancient historyis that sometimes these only include the most basic of maps,which often fail to locate the position of many places namedin the text. This book has two maps. One of these is on page70, and at least in my edition is too dark to read with ease.Furthermore, being isolated from any easily-identif iable

landmark - such as a coastl ine - it is hard to decioher theinformation it contains. The other is a full-colour fold-outmap at the back of the book. Once the reader has identifiedthat the main map is the eastern boundary of the'CreaterArmenia'found in the inset map everything falls into placeand the map comes into its own. lt is to be hoped that suchmaps become a commonplace in all books on Armenia andits neighbours: as I know from personal experience, it isextremely diff icult to define specific polit ical boundaries atany given time.

My own conclusion is that the book has one overwhelm-ing flaw: it is far too short. Apart from that sole caveat, Iheartily recommend this book to all readers interested inArmenian military history or Late Antiquity. At last, l ightis being shed on ancient Armenia. lt is to be hoped thatboth the author and other historians are spurred on by thisexample and take up the challenge of writ ing more. ) ,

\