General John (IV)

In 926 the Roman offensive in the East got properly underway. Released from the threat of the Bulgars, Emperor Romanos I was able to concentrate all his military resources against the Arab caliphates. 

The situation was complicated by a civil war in Armenia, effectively a 'buffer state' between the Romans in Anatolia and their Arab enemies. This was fought between two claimants of the Bagratid dynasty, both named Ashot. One of the claimants was supported by the Romans, the other by the Arabs.

After several years of heavy fighting, the Roman-backed claimant, Ashot Yerkat (the Iron), triumphed over his rival. He was then recognised by the Caliph of Baghdad, who awarded him the title 'King of Kings'. This upset his former Roman allies, who had wanted to use Ashot to enforce their own power in Armenia, not that of the Islamic Caliphate.

As a result, the emperor sent his Domestic, John Curcuras, to support the Armenian rebels and bring the country under Roman influence. At first Curcuras did well, and briefly captured the city of Samasota (now Samsat in southeast Turkey). Here, his soldiers scandalised the local Muslims by banging a gong in the mosque during the prayer hour. The arrival of Arab reinforcements obliged the Romans to evacuate the town and withdraw.

The Arabs in turn counter-attacked with a raid from Tarsus, but were defeated. Later in the year Curcuras re-entered Armenia and attacked the city of Dvin, defended by Ashot and his Arab allies. 

Curcuras was unable to take the city, but returned for a second bite at the cherry. This time he used Greek Fire against the defenders, and managed to breach the walls and occupy part of the city. However, his troops were forced out by the civilian populace, as well as the combined Arab and Armenian garrison. After taking heavy losses, the Domestic was forced to retreat a second time. 

Curcuras switched to attacking Muslim towns in southern Armenia. He captured Khelat on Lake Van, in the far east of modern Turkey, where the inhabitants were ordered to place a cross over their mosques and destroy the minarets. The Muslims of the neighbouring towns repeatedly begged the Caliph at Baghdad for aid, but none came. As a result many of them abandoned the province. The Domestic was then forced to retreat (again) before an Arab relief army, led by a ruler of Azerbaijan. 

For all his military skill, Curcuras encountered serious problems in Armenia. He took a number of cities, but was unable to hold onto them for very long. This was, apparently, because the mixed population of Christian Armenians and Muslim Arabs didn't want to be governed by the Romans. In the face of such determined resistance, there wasn't much the Domestic could hope to achieve.

His master, Romanos I, was wise enough to realise this. When the Caliphate in Azerbaijan collapsed into civil war, the emperor took the opportunity to evacuate his troops from Armenia. This in turn meant he could focus on his far greater interest: the former Roman provinces in Syria. 

(Attached is an image of the use of Greek Fire in a naval battle)

General John (III)

The first task of John Curcuas, as Domestic or commander-in-chief, was to suppress the revolt of Bardas Boilas, who was governor of Chaldia, a strategically important region of the Empire's northeast Anatolian frontier. 

Bardas, along with his allies Adrian the Chaldian and Tatzaces, a rich Armenian, revolted against the emperor and held out in the fortress of Paiperte (now Bayburt in northeast Turkey). Curcuas marched into Chaldia, stormed the citadel and took the rebels prisoner. They were not treated severely: Bardas, once the emperor's friend, was packed off to a monastery. He was replaced as governor by Curcuas's younger brother, Theophilus. 

After this excitement, Curcuas was involved in a much more serious conflict with the powerful Muslim cities beyond the Euphrates. In 925 his master, Emperor Romanos, felt strong enough to demand tribute from these cities. When they refused, Curcuas was sent in to exercise a bit of sledgehammer diplomacy. 

The Domestic targeted Melitene, now Malatya in eastern Turkey. He was accompanied by an Armenian captain, Melias, who became something of a folk-hero. The citizens of Melitene, seriously alarmed, sent to the Caliph at Baghdad for help, but none was sent. 

Curcuas stormed the town, but the citadel held out. After ten days he agreed to withdraw, in exchange for hostages and a promise of peace and tribute. 

(Attached is an image of the Roman attack on Melitene)

General John (II)

Apart from his birthplace and religious education, nothing is known of the early life of John Curcuas. He first came to notice during the regency of Empress Zoe Karbonopsina ('with the coal-black eyes'), which lasted from 913-919. Curcuas was appointed commander of the Vigla or 'guard watch', an elite unit employed as the palace guard at Constantinople. 

Curcuas owed his rise to the influence of a fellow Armenian, Romanos Lekapenos, admiral or 'droungarious' of the Roman fleet. Romanos had his eyes on the imperial throne, and in 919 had himself appointed regent at Zoe's expense. His crony, Curcuas, helped smooth the way by arresting several high officials who had opposed Romanos's ambition. 

Over the next few months, Romanos assumed more powers until he was able to take the final step, and have himself declared senior emperor in December 920. This was at the expense of Zoe's son, Constantine, the rightful heir since he had been born 'of the purple'. That is, he was born in the purple chamber of the palace, decorated with porphyry, where the legitimate children of reigning emperors were traditionally born. Romanos, by contrast, was just another usurper. 

To do him justice, Romanos was not bloodthirsty. Most Roman usurpers would have blinded and gelded Constantine, then packed him off to a monastery for a life of quiet contemplation. Instead he refused to lay a finger on the boy and allowed him to live at the palace, where Constantine developed a taste for art and music.

In 923, as a reward for his support, Curcuras was promoted to Domestic of the Schools, effective commander-in-chief of all the imperial armies in Anatolia. Now his career really began. 

(Attached is an image of the baptism of Constantine) 

General John (1)

John Curcuras (otherwise spelled Gungan or Curcuras) is a forgotten military hero of the so-called 'Byzantine' empire, or that part of the Roman empire that survived the fall of the West. In his own day Curcuras was celebrated by Roman chroniclers as the equal of Trajan and Flavius Belisarius, so I thought it worth taking a closer look at his career. 

Curcuras belonged to a family of Armenian descent with a strong military tradition. He was born in the village of Dokeia Darbidoun (now Tokat in modern Turkey) and educated in the Scriptures by his kinsman, Christopher, the bishop or metropolitan of Gangrai. His grandfather, also John, had been commander of the Hikanatoi, one of the Roman tagmata or elite guard units stationed near the capital, Constantinople.

This earlier John had taken part in a conspiracy against the Emperor Basil I the Macedonian (reigned 867-86). Although widespread, including no less than sixty-six Roman senators, the conspiracy was a failure. Basil, one of the strongest of Eastern emperors, conducted a public trial of the conspirators in the Hippodrome of Constantinpole. The rebels were condemned to beatings and forcible tonsure, then made to walk naked behind the emperor in a festive procession. Afterwards they were banished and their possessions confiscated. Fortunately for our John Curcuras, the family managed to claw their way back into favour.

His father, probably named Romanos, was a wealthy official in the imperial palace. Thus, the disgrace of the grandfather was not passed down the generations, and the Curcuras remained an important part of the landed Roman aristocracy.  

Attached is an image of Basil I and his son and successor, Leo 'the Wise'. 

World domination

Pierre Dubois was a lawyer and polemicist from Coutances in Normandy, who wrote a string of political tracts in the early fourteenth century. His major work, De recuperatione Terre Sancte, written between 1305-1307, was a plan for the recovery of the Holy Land. It is, essentially, a plan for French world domination. 

The first part of the text is dedicated to Edward I of England, because he was the only Christian king of the time with direct crusading experience. However, Dubois was really using Edward as an example to provoke his own king, Philip the Fair, into summoning a new crusade. This crusade, if it had ever taken place, would have been on a colossal scale. Dubois suggested that Philip should first re-conquer the Roman empire, and install his brother Charles of Valois as the new Latin emperor at Constantinople. 

Next, Philip would organise the mass migration of the people of Western Europe into the Holy Land. This would be done via the French conquest of northern Italy and Hungary, so the passage of millions of people could proceed smoothly. The French, the English and the Italians would travel by sea, the Germans, Hungarians and Greeks by land. 

Men and women from all walks of life would be forced to join this grand crusade or 'passagium'. Every female would be instructed in Latin grammar, natural science, surgery and medicine, so they could work as missionary theologians in the Holy Land. Women were the chief instrument of conquest: they would all be required to learn Arabic, marry the conquered Saracens and breed a new race of Christian super-crusaders, who would colonise the Holy Land and keep it forever. 

All of this sounds like an insane fantasy, and so it was. Yet Dubois was not some random eccentric, spouting nonsense on street corners. He was a distinguished attorney at law and a respected and prominent figure at the French court. While his plan for the Holy Land was unworkable, it is an example of the ideology of Capetian France, driven by Philip's university-trained legists. What this amounted to was expand and conquer in all directions. 

War against the earl (1)

In October 1293 Earl Gilbert de Clare, lord of Glamorgan and Kilkenny, went to Ireland to deal with a revolt on his estates. The rebellion was serious, and he was obliged to spend the next twelve months putting it down. Clare took his family with him and stripped his garrisons in Glamorgan for the Irish campaign. 

Ireland and Wales were in a state of flux. In 1294 the long-running feud between the Burghs and the Geraldines erupted into open conflict; as a consequence the Irish rose and devastated Leinster, Newcastle McKynegan and other towns. One of the Irish leaders was Maurice Mac Murrough, who declared himself King of Leinster and united the mountain septs against the English government. 

These events roughly coincided with a widespread revolt in Wales. In the southeast, Clare's absence enabled the Welshry of Glamorgan to rise under their leader, Morgan ap Maredudd. It may be the revolts either side of the Irish Sea were co-ordinated, though evidence of communication between the Welsh and Irish leaders is lacking. 

English and Welsh sources agree the revolt in the southeast started in October 1294. Subsequent events are a matter of conjecture, and it doesn't help that the revolt was split in two. The Welsh in Morgannwg were led by Morgan, while those in Gwent were led by Meurig ap Dafydd, a former royal tax officer. 

 An English chronicle, Annales de Wigornia, records that Abergavenny was under siege by February 1295, and that the Welsh captured the castles of Morlais and Cefnllys. Morlais, a huge rambling place above the Taff Gorge near Merthyr Tydfil, had been the cause of a recent private war between Clare and Earl Humphrey de Bohun. Now it was seized by the Welsh. 

The English response is confusing. About 4000 troops had been sent to Cardiff in November 1294, but these were men of the earl, not the king. An English chronicler, Peter Langtoft, gave an interesting account of Morgan's motives: 

 “The earl of Gloucester, I know not the reason, has lost in South Wales moor and dwelling. Morgan attacks him, and does him destruction. But to King Edward, Morgan means nothing but well.” 

Morgan had every reason to hate Clare, who had disinherited his father. In context, he appears to have exploited Earl Gilbert's absence to get revenge.

Morgan's run (2)

In 1279 the royal justices met at Oswestry to preside over competing claims to the land of Llandovery and commotes of Hirfryn and Perfedd. The rival parties were John Giffard and his wife Matilda on the one side, and Rhys Fychan, Rhys ap Maredudd and Morgan ap Maredudd on the other. Morgan is the subject of these posts, so to avoid migraines let us focus on him. 

 An enquiry held the previous year, 1278, had found that Morgan was ejected from all his lands by Earl Gilbert de Clare and Prince Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. Yet the court hearing of 1279 shows that his last land of Hirfryn, seized by Llywelyn, had found its way into the hands of John Giffard. It is impossible to believe that Llywelyn would have re-granted land held by Welsh barony to an English lord, so therein lies a mystery. 

Morgan came to Oswestry and claimed two parts of his former land of Hirfryn. It seems he took bad advice, because he made the mistake of claiming against Giffard alone. Giffard countered that he had no claim to Hirfryn, except in right of his wife. For this blunder Morgan was amerced (fined) and told he could proceed again by summons if he wished. 

He returned with a new plea at the court of Montgomery on 1 July. This time he claimed to have inherited Hirfryn from his father, and that he ought to hold it by Welsh law and custom as opposed to English. Those were indeed the terms by which Lord Edward had granted the commote to Morgan's father a decade earlier. He was given a day at 'coram rege' (king's court) to plead his case. This came to nothing when the jurors failed to turn up. 

Morgan was also litigating against Gilbert de Clare over lands in Ystrad Tywi and Glamorgan, and one of Clare's tenants, Bartholomew de Mora, over land in Llanwern. The result was another disaster. At the first hearing the justices could not agree if the earl had been reasonably summoned. At the second, Clare's attorney argued that Morgan was claiming lands in Glamorgan, but the writ only mentioned the land of Edlogan. On that basis, variance of writ and pleading, the claim was void. 

In medieval law, a 'good writ' was all. If the spoken plea did not match the text, a case was thrown out or had to start over. Morgan and Clare were summoned to appear again a month later. They did so, but Morgan was unable to deny the faulty writ. Thus he got nothing. He did no better with the Llanwern claim. To defend this, Clare's bailiff came and argued that Morgan should make the claim in the earl's court, not the king's, because he was a tenant of the earl. Morgan countered that he claimed as a baron of the King. At a further hearing, it was shown that his writ only mentioned lands in Glamorgan, while he was pleading for lands in Llanwern. 

So, Morgan had made the same mistake twice. He made one further plea of land at Abergavenny, against his fellow Welshman Rhys Fychan, but failed to attend the court. Well, why bother.