In the tumultuous last decades of the eleventh century the Armenian peoples of Cappadocia and Cil... more In the tumultuous last decades of the eleventh century the Armenian peoples of Cappadocia and Cilicia found themselves detached from the crumbling Byzantine Empire and at the mercy of the raiding Turks. At a time when a diasporic people needed internal unity in order to survive their secular and religious leadership disintegrated. Gagik II of Ani, the last Bagratid King of Armenia was murdered in the Taurus Mountains by the Byzantines, leading to numerous claimants to the secular leadership of the Armenians. While at the same time the Catholikos, Gregory II (1066-1105) divided the leadership of the church to an eventual six Catholikoi as a result of the geo-political climate. This paper will explore the internal conflict within the Armenian community between the secular and religious powers, and will help provide the explanation for the fragmentation of the Armenian peoples at the time of the arrival of the First Crusade.
This paper, which was given at the twenty-second International Medieval Conference, is an overvie... more This paper, which was given at the twenty-second International Medieval Conference, is an overview of the Armenian 'exiles' in the eastern provinces of Byzantium. The focus of the paper was to provide an introduction of why the First Crusade encountered various independent Armenian warlords in Cilicia and Northern Syria.
The main theme of the talk was to answer two questions: 'Why did Byzantium became directly involv... more The main theme of the talk was to answer two questions: 'Why did Byzantium became directly involved in Caucasian affairs during Basil II’s reign (976-1025)?' and 'How did the process of annexation develop as imperial policy?'
"The Byzantine annexation of Armenia should not be viewed as one of imperial aggression against a ‘victim’, and that a preordained foreign policy was established from the outset of the Macedonian dynasty’s foundation with the accession of Basil I. The actions of Basil II in Armenia are far more convincingly seen as reactionary to events rather than a planned policy of annexation. The voluntary submission of Senek’erim of Vaspurakan illustrates a far more complex relationship between Armenia and Byzantium than has previously given credit. Despite the religious tensions between the Greek and Armenian churches the adaptability of Armenians to Byzantine society illustrates a strong cultural tie between the two entities; in fact the Georgian (Iberian) realms were far more aggressive in their dealings with Byzantium even though they shared the same Chalcedonian creed in their respective churches."
Angelov, D. et al. eds. 2013. Imperial Geographies in Byzantine and Ottoman Space. Washington, DC... more Angelov, D. et al. eds. 2013. Imperial Geographies in Byzantine and Ottoman Space. Washington, DC: Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies. de Jong, I. 2012. Space in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Lilley, K. ed. 2013. Mapping Medieval Geographies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mangani, G. 2006. Cartografia morale. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini. Nielsson, I. and M. Veikou, M. eds. 2021. From the Human Body to the Universe: Spatialities of Byzantine Culture. Leiden: Brill. Purves, A. 2010. Space and Time in Ancient Greek Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thalmann, W. 2011. Apollonius of Rhodes and the Spaces of Hellenism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
In the tumultuous last decades of the eleventh century the Armenian peoples of Cappadocia and Cil... more In the tumultuous last decades of the eleventh century the Armenian peoples of Cappadocia and Cilicia found themselves detached from the crumbling Byzantine Empire and at the mercy of the raiding Turks. At a time when a diasporic people needed internal unity in order to survive their secular and religious leadership disintegrated. Gagik II of Ani, the last Bagratid King of Armenia was murdered in the Taurus Mountains by the Byzantines, leading to numerous claimants to the secular leadership of the Armenians. While at the same time the Catholikos, Gregory II (1066-1105) divided the leadership of the church to an eventual six Catholikoi as a result of the geo-political climate. This paper will explore the internal conflict within the Armenian community between the secular and religious powers, and will help provide the explanation for the fragmentation of the Armenian peoples at the time of the arrival of the First Crusade.
This paper, which was given at the twenty-second International Medieval Conference, is an overvie... more This paper, which was given at the twenty-second International Medieval Conference, is an overview of the Armenian 'exiles' in the eastern provinces of Byzantium. The focus of the paper was to provide an introduction of why the First Crusade encountered various independent Armenian warlords in Cilicia and Northern Syria.
The main theme of the talk was to answer two questions: 'Why did Byzantium became directly involv... more The main theme of the talk was to answer two questions: 'Why did Byzantium became directly involved in Caucasian affairs during Basil II’s reign (976-1025)?' and 'How did the process of annexation develop as imperial policy?'
"The Byzantine annexation of Armenia should not be viewed as one of imperial aggression against a ‘victim’, and that a preordained foreign policy was established from the outset of the Macedonian dynasty’s foundation with the accession of Basil I. The actions of Basil II in Armenia are far more convincingly seen as reactionary to events rather than a planned policy of annexation. The voluntary submission of Senek’erim of Vaspurakan illustrates a far more complex relationship between Armenia and Byzantium than has previously given credit. Despite the religious tensions between the Greek and Armenian churches the adaptability of Armenians to Byzantine society illustrates a strong cultural tie between the two entities; in fact the Georgian (Iberian) realms were far more aggressive in their dealings with Byzantium even though they shared the same Chalcedonian creed in their respective churches."
Angelov, D. et al. eds. 2013. Imperial Geographies in Byzantine and Ottoman Space. Washington, DC... more Angelov, D. et al. eds. 2013. Imperial Geographies in Byzantine and Ottoman Space. Washington, DC: Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies. de Jong, I. 2012. Space in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Lilley, K. ed. 2013. Mapping Medieval Geographies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mangani, G. 2006. Cartografia morale. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini. Nielsson, I. and M. Veikou, M. eds. 2021. From the Human Body to the Universe: Spatialities of Byzantine Culture. Leiden: Brill. Purves, A. 2010. Space and Time in Ancient Greek Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thalmann, W. 2011. Apollonius of Rhodes and the Spaces of Hellenism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Uploads
Talks
"The Byzantine annexation of Armenia should not be viewed as one of imperial aggression against a ‘victim’, and that a preordained foreign policy was established from the outset of the Macedonian dynasty’s foundation with the accession of Basil I. The actions of Basil II in Armenia are far more convincingly seen as reactionary to events rather than a planned policy of annexation. The voluntary submission of Senek’erim of Vaspurakan illustrates a far more complex relationship between Armenia and Byzantium than has previously given credit. Despite the religious tensions between the Greek and Armenian churches the adaptability of Armenians to Byzantine society illustrates a strong cultural tie between the two entities; in fact the Georgian (Iberian) realms were far more aggressive in their dealings with Byzantium even though they shared the same Chalcedonian creed in their respective churches."
Papers
"The Byzantine annexation of Armenia should not be viewed as one of imperial aggression against a ‘victim’, and that a preordained foreign policy was established from the outset of the Macedonian dynasty’s foundation with the accession of Basil I. The actions of Basil II in Armenia are far more convincingly seen as reactionary to events rather than a planned policy of annexation. The voluntary submission of Senek’erim of Vaspurakan illustrates a far more complex relationship between Armenia and Byzantium than has previously given credit. Despite the religious tensions between the Greek and Armenian churches the adaptability of Armenians to Byzantine society illustrates a strong cultural tie between the two entities; in fact the Georgian (Iberian) realms were far more aggressive in their dealings with Byzantium even though they shared the same Chalcedonian creed in their respective churches."