« PrethodnaNastavi »
Antioch to Tarsus, he passed through the Cilician gates in July, while his son Abbas, at the head of another force, advanced at the same time from Melitene to cross the eastern frontier. Theophilus himself had again taken the field with Manuel, the most eminent of his generals, and Theophobos, but we have no intelligible account of the military operations, which seem to have been chiefly in Cappadocia. Several Greek fortresses were captured, including Koron, from which Manuel was expelled, and a battle was subsequently fought, in which Theophilus was defeated and barely escaped with his life.3
In the spring of the following year (A.D. 831), Theophilus anticipated his enemies by invading Cilicia, where he gained a victory over an army of frontier troops, collected from the fortresses of Tarsus, Adana, Mopsuestia, and Anazarbus. This success he celebrated by a triumph.
If Theophilus was flushed with triumph at the success of his raid, he may bave desired that his own victory should terminate the military operations of the year; it is said that he sent an envoy with five hundred captives as a peace-offering to the Caliph. Mamun was already at Adana, preparing to retaliate, and the embassy did not check his advance.5 The ensuing campaign (from the beginning of July till end of September), like that of the year before, seems to have been chiefly confined to Cappadocia. Heraclea-Cybistra surrendered to the invaders without resistance, and then the Caliph divided his army. His son Abbas, commanding one of the divisions, captured some important forts, and won a
1 These are named only in the Arabic Archelais), on theoutskirts of Hassan Dagh sources (Vasilev, 85-86): Majid (perhaps (Mt. Argaios, the beacon station): Ramsay, near Lulon ; ib. 85, n. 2), Kurru (see Asia Minor, 355. Kurru was taken on next note), Sundus, and Sinan. Vasil'ev July 21 (Yakubi, whose text gives Ancyra, would identify Sundus with Soandos but must be corrected from Ibn Kutaiba (Nev Sheher). These may be the “four 2 and Tabari 23). fortresses mentioned by Michael Syr. 3 Vasil’ev (Pril. ii. 133) places this in ib. But Ibn-Kutaiba (2) mentions two the early part of the year. others, Harshan and Shemal, evidently 4 The Saracen army was 20,000 strong ; Charsianon and Semalouos. Yakubi (7) the men of Irenopolis are also mentioned. also mentions Shemal. Semalouos was See Constantine, IIepi rač. 503. About taken by Harun after a long siege in 1600 Moslems were slain according to A.D. 780; it was in the Armeniac Theme Tabari; 2000 according to the anonymous -a vague indication. The fort of Char- author of the Kitab al-Uyun (Vasil'ev, sianon is placed by Ramsay at Alaja on Pril. 108). This Moslem defeat is ignored the road between Euchaita and Tavion. by Michael. It was taken by the Saracens in 730. We Tabari, 24 (but he does not relate the see that the Romans had been successful story with confidence), and Kitab alin recovering positions east of the Halys Uyun, 108. which they had lost in the eighth century. 6 Kitab al-Uyun, ib. Cp. Vasil'ev, 93.
2 Kurru in the Arab sources. Vasil'ev's Among the forts mentioned was Antigûs, identification with το Κόρον εν τή Καππα- which Ramsay identifies with Tyriaion dokla mentioned in Simeon (Cont. Georg.) (Asia Minor, 141), south-west of Caeis acceptable. Cp. Constantine, Them. sarea. It was called by the Greeks to TV 21. It is supposed to be Viran Sheher, Tupávvwv káorpov (Leo. Diac. 122), and ruins south-east of Ak-serai (Colonia Vasil’ev suggests that Antigûs may be an If we are to reconcile the statement of Yakubi with the Greek sources, Manuel must have fled after the capture of Koron (July 830 : Tabari, 23). Arabic translation (thaghiye, 'tyrant'). was taken in A.D. 831 (Tabari, 24). It Another of the forts taken by Abbas was was fortified by Abbas in 833 (ib. 27 ; Kasin, an underground stronghold, in cp. Michael, 76). For the embassy to the plain which stretches south of Soandos Adana see Tabari, 24, and Kitab alto Sasima. The road through this plain Uyun, 108. passes Malakopaia. Underground habi
battle in which Theophilus himself was at the head of the Roman forces.
Mamun was at Kasin in September, where the Patriarch Dionysios met him, and he retired for the winter to Damascus. Early in A.D. 832 he proceeded to Egypt to quell an insurrection, and was there from February 16 to April 4.1 He returned rapidly to renew the warfare in Asia Minor, and must have reached Adana early in May. The important event of this campaign was the capture of Lulon. Mamun besieged it in vain for one hundred days; then he instituted a blockade, and entrusted the conduct of the operations to Ujaif ibn Anbas. The Romans had the luck to capture this general, but Theophilus, who came to relieve the fortress, was compelled to retire, without a battle, by a Saracen force, and the commander of Lulon negotiated its surrender with the captive Ujaif.?
The capture of Lulon is placed both by the Arabic historians and by Michael (who does not give the details) in A.D. 832. But Michael also says that Mamun laid siege to Lulon in May, Ann. Sel. 1142 = A.D. 831. From his narrative we might infer that the siege lasted a year. This is out of the question, in view of the other evidence. We must therefore infer that in 831 Mamun, who was in the neighbourhood of Lulon, since he took HeracleaCybistra, attacked Lulon unsuccessfully.3
The dates of the flight and return of Manuel and of the Emperor's overtures for peace remain to be considered. The references of the Arabic authorities to Manuel are as follows :
1. Yakubi, 7, says that in A.D. 830 Mamun took “Ancyra (error for Kurru = Koron) and “the patrician Manuel escaped from it."
2. Tabari, 24, says that in A.D. 830 Manuel and Mamun's son Abbas met Mamun at Resaina, before the campaign. There seems to be an error here, for, as Brooks has pointed out, Mamun did not go near Resaina (B.Z. x. 297).
1 Yakubi, 7. tations are a feature of the district. See
2 Ib. 8; Tabari, 25 ; Kitab al-Uyun, Ramsay, ib. 356 ; he has pointed out that
108. Kasin is the same name as Kases, a Turma in the Cappadocian Theme.
3 Michael, 74. The Kitab al-Uyun Yakubi (p. 7) says that twelve strong describes the capture of Lulon before places and many subterranean abodes the expedition to Egypt, misdating the (podzemnie-metamir) were taken. Tyana
latter by a year.
The dates given by Michael Syr. would go to support this conclusion. He places (74) the flight in the Seleucid year 1141 = October 1, 829, to September 30, 830. This is consistent with the date of the Arabic chroniclers, since A.H. 215 and Ann. Sel. 1141 overlap; and thus the flight would be fixed to July-September 830.
Manuel's return to Theophilus is placed by Michael in 1143 = October 1, 831, to September 30, 832. The Arabic chroniclers do
, not mention it; the Greek bring it into connexion with the embassy of John the Grammarian. This embassy was prior to April 21, A.D. 832, the date of John's elevation to the Patriarchal throne; and it must have been prior to February, as Mamun had left Syria and reached Egypt by February 16. It would follow that it belongs to October 831-January 832.
Another solution of the difficulties, which has a great deal to be said for it, has been propounded by E. W. Brooks, in B.Z. x. 297 sq. He suggests that Manuel fled before the accession of Theophilus; that he prompted Mamun (as Michael states) to invade Romania in 830; that he was with the Caliph's son at Resaina (Tabari) and then escaped (the Greek sources say that he was with Abbas when he escaped ; so that his defence of Koron was subsequent to his return). Brooks argues that, having been stratêgos of the Armeniacs under Leo V., he seems to have held no post under Michael II., and suggests that “his recall should be connected with the execution of Leo's assassins by Theophilus ; it is, in fact, hardly credible that he should trust to the good faith of an Emperor from whose jealousy he had fled." In supposing that he held no post under Michael II., Brooks overlooks the words of Gen. 68 rîs po tîs pvyîs otpatnyýews, which naturally suggest that Manuel was a stratégos when he fled.
The details of the intrigue which led to Manuel's flight, as given in the Greek sources, might easily be transferred to Michael's reign. The chief objection to the solution of Brooks is that Michael Syr. agrees with the Greek tradition in representing the flight as a revolt against Theophilus. It must be observed, however, that there is a chronological confusion in the passage of Michael (cp. above, p. 473, n. 1).
Brooks would also transfer the embassy of John the Grammarian to A.D. 829-830, just after the accession of Theophilus. This dating would save the statement of Cont. Th. that John went to Baghdad. In support of this Brooks cites the words of Cont. Τh. 95, that Τheophilus παλαιο έθει επόμενος έβούλετο τοίς της "Αγαρ τα της αυτοκρατορίας ποιήσαι κατάδηλα (and therefore sent John), interpreting the sentence to mean, “in accordance with old usage wished to announce his accession to the Saracens.” It appears to me that this explanation is unquestionably right, and as it is probable there is some foundation for the story that John
helped to prepare for the return of Manuel, it supplies a considerable support for the view of Brooks as to the date of that officer's flight and return. John may have afterwards acted as envoy to Mamun when he was in Syria, and the two missions may have been confounded.
I have assumed throughout that this Manuel is identical with the uncle of Theodora, though some modern writers distinguish them. Manuel the general was protostrator under Michael I., and stratêgos of the Armeniacs under Leo V. (Cont. Th. 24). He was of Armenian race (ib. 110), and so was Manuel, Theodora's uncle (ib. 148). The latter, at the death of Theophilus, had the rank of magister; and Simeon, Cont. Georg. 798, states that the former was created magister and Domestic of the Schools after his return. These coincidences point clearly to identification. The difficulty lies in another statement of Simeon (803), that Manuel was wounded in saving the life of Theophilus and died. This must be rejected, and we may set against it the statement of Michael Syr. (113) that after the death of Theophilus Manuel was appointed general-in-chief of the army. Brooks also contends for the identity (B.Z. x. 543, n. 4).
Three other embassies from Theophilus to Mamun in A.D. 831-832 are mentioned by the Arabic historians. (1) The embassy, referred to above, which found Mamun at Adana, before his summer campaign in A.D. 831. (2) An embassy towards the close of this campaign, while Mamun was still in Cappadocia; see above, p. 473. The envoy was a bishop. Vasil'ey thinks he was John the Grammarian (who was not a bishop yet), and that this embassy to Mamun’s camp was the historical basis for the Greek tradition. This cannot be the complete explanation ; but it is possible that John was the envoy, and a confusion between this and his former embassy might have helped to lead to the chronological errors in the Greek sources. (3) The third embassy was in A.H. 217 = February 7, 832, to January 26, 833, according to Tabari, and this harmonises with the date of Michael, who, clearly meaning the same negotiation, refers it to 1143 = October 831 to September 832. It was after the fall of Lulon, probably a consequence of that event; and if Vasil'ev is right in calculating that Lulon did not surrender before September 1,3 the embassy must fall in September.
1 των 'Ανατολικών, ιδ. 110, in the text, is a mistake for των 'Αρμενιακών.
2 Michael, if we take the order of his narrative as chronological here, would imply that it was earlier than September, for after noticing the embassy he records that Mamun took several fortresses and in September retired to Kasin. But the
order cannot be pressed.
3 Mamun, leaving Egypt in April, can hardly have reached the Cilician gates before May 1; Mamun’s siege lasted one hundred days, which brings us to c. August 1, and the blockade at least a month (according to Yakubi and Kitab al-Uyun; but otherwise Tabari).
I must finally notice a clear contradiction between Michael and the Arabic chronicles as to the beginning of Mamun's campaign in 831. Michael says that he invaded Romania in the month of May; Tabari says that he entered Roman territory on July 4. As Michael's source is of higher authority, we should accept it. We must therefore infer that the invasion of Cilicia by Theophilus was in April and early part of May.