1. Historical framework

After emperor Romanos IV Diogenes was defeated and arrested by Sultan Alp Arslan at Manzikert, Byzantine power in Asia Minor collapsed and the road was open for the Seljuks to advance into Byzantine territories. Following an agreement with Romanos, which provided that the Byzantines had to pay ransom, give subsidiary troops and release Seljuk captives, Alp Arslan liberated the captive, who attempted to claim the throne that had been occupied by Michael VII Doukas (1071-1078). The civil conflict that broke out between the new and the deposed emperor made things worse in Asia Minor, as the Seljuks took advantage of the situation in order to advance towards the interior of the peninsula. Their presence, which had already been noticed in the region of northern Syria before the battle of Manzikert,¹ became particularly threatening in the following years.

Under these circumstances, the Byzantines should by all means maintain Antioch in order to control southeastern Asia Minor due to the strategic and fortified position of the city, which dominated the nearby area. However, successive revolts threw the city into disorder in the 1070s. The city troops, under the doux of Antioch, Khačatur, participated actively in the civil war on the side of Romanos IV. Even after the elimination of the emperor the city became the bone of contention between Constantinople and Philaretos Brachamios. The latter, an old strategos of Romanos IV, after defecting from the Byzantine army around 1072, refused to recognise Michael VII Doukas as emperor and established his own rule in the district of Cilicia, at the same time laying claims over Antioch. Τhe conditions in the city were favourable for Philaretos, for a large part of the population was on the side of Patriarch Aimilianos and opposed the representatives of the imperial power, which was not an isolated event.

In the 11th century a middle class, largely consisting of merchants and craftsmen organised in guilds, becomes stronger in the big cities of the Byzantine Empire (mainly Constantinople) and intervenes in political developments.² Members of that class were frequently the instigators of popular revolts. Furthermore, the central administration was a constant burden for the inhabitants of the province because it demanded continuously increasing taxes and was indifferent to their economic distress. It was only natural that the provincial populations were unfriendly to the imperial government, which was always draining the provincial resources. On the other hand, they were not interested in the security of the Empire, which was in the hands of mercenaries. As regards Antioch, the fact that a lot of its citizens were Monophysites was an additional reason for tension and a factor that contributed to the alienation of the local population from the capital, which exerted strong pressure for their conversion to Orthodoxy.

2. The revolt at Antioch

2.1. Khačatur supports Romanos IV Diogenes

The Armenian Khačatur had been appointed doux of Antioch in 1068 by Romanos IV Diogenes. When the latter, after the end of his capture by Sultan Alp Arslan (autumn 1071), attempted to reoccupy the throne, Khačatur took sides with him.³ Accompanied by his troops, he joined the deposed emperor at the fortress of Tyropoios, Cappadocia, where Romanos had escaped after he was defeated at Dokeia by the protoproedros Constantine Doukas. Khačatur returned along with Romanos Diogenes to Cilicia, where he aimed to spend the winter, taking advantage of the safety provided by the Taurus Mountains and the fact that he was quite close to Antioch and could watch over it. He organised his defence by blocking the way of the imperial troops through the mountain passes and expected for reinforcements from Alp Arslan. However, the domestikos ton scholon of the East, Andronikos Doukas, managed to take Khačatur by surprise by choosing a road that led him to Tarsus unobstructed. In the ensuing battle the imperial troops prevailed and Khačatur was killed.

2.2. The revolt of the people of Antioch, 1074-1075

After Michael VII prevailed, Joseph, a member of the Tarchaneiotes family, was sent to Antioch as doux. When the latter died, he was succeeded by his son, magistros Katakalon Tarchaneiotes. Because he did not manage to restore order in Antioch, where the situation was unsettled and followed by a constant reaction against the imperial power,⁴ he was replaced by Isaac Komnenos in 1074. The latter was assigned the task of removing from the city Patriarch Aimilianos,⁵ who opposed the government of Constantinople, as well as the task of getting rid of Philaretos Brachamios, since the establishment of his rule in the district of Cilicia was seriously worrying the capital.⁶

As soon as he arrived in the city, the newly appointed Isaacios Komnenos quickly realised that it was difficult to effectively deal with the opposition and immediately remove the patriarch, who was the main obstacle to the restoration of the order, because Aimilianos’ circle would react. Thus, he decided to postpone the fulfillment of the imperial orders and establish friendly relations with the patriarch.⁷ At some moment he pretended that he fell sick and the doctors advised that he be taken to a place with better climatic conditions. Patriarch Aimilianos was willing to offer his summer house to the allegedly sick doux. When a few days later the patriarch went to visit him, Isaac had escaped and returned to Antioch, closed the gates of the city and sent a message to the patriarch informing him that by imperial order he should go directly to Constantinople.

Immediately after Aimilianos was expelled, riots broke out and the crowd forced the doux and the nobles into the citadel of Antioch and plundered the houses of the nobles.⁸ The revolt was backed by Philaretos Brachamios, who aspired to control the city. In order to deal with the infuriated mob, Isaac Komnenos had to ask for reinforcements from the guards of nearby cities. When a sizeable army was gathered, the doux attacked the rebels, while the inhabitants were massacred. The properties of aristocrats, plundered by the enraged crowd, prove that there was a deep displeasure in the city with the upper class, reflecting the contrasts in late-11th c. society. On the other hand, the fact that a considerable part of the population of Antioch was gathered around a side that reacted immediately as soon as their leader was injured clearly indicates the bourgeois character of local society – an advanced social form that had appeared only in the people of Constantinople until then.

2.3. The surrender of Antioch to Philaretos Brachamios

Doux Isaac Komnenos left Antioch in the first half of 1078 in order to return to Constantinople by order of the new emperor, Nikephoros III Botaneiates. He left behind the Armenian prince Vasak Pahlawuni, an enemy of Philaretos, who was capable of defending the city against the expansionary aspirations of Philaretos. However, Vasak was murdered by local Byzantines in late 1078. The vacuum of power created by his death made his troops summon Philaretos to Antioch, thus fulfilling the wish of a large part of the population that belonged to the opposition. Philaretos took advantage of the opportunity and entered the city. Immediately he punished the culprits of the murder. Under the pretence of a military operation, he gathered the dissident Byzantines in a nearby village and ordered his soldiers to kill them. Nikephoros III did not hesitate to officially recognise Brachamios’ control over southeastern Asia Minor, on condition that he, in turn, would recognise the dominion of Constantinople. Towards the late 1078 Antioch was incorporated in the realm of Brachamios, which extended from Tarsus in Cilicia as far as Harput to the north and Mesopotamia to the east, including Edessa (occupied by Philaretos in 1077).

3. Consequences

The revolts that broke out in Antioch in 1071-1078 affected both the defence of the area and the territorial integrity of the Byzantine Empire. On the one hand, the central administration was in the difficult position of trying to impose its power on the city and maintain the region of N. Syria in its sphere of influence. For this reason, the government sacrificed battle-worthy troops in order to succeed, thus neglecting the defence against the Seljuks. On the other hand, when Antioch came under Philaretos in 1078 and Nikephoros Botaneiates recognised the autonomy of his realm, the empire lost permanently a city of great strategic importance for the defence of the empire in SE Asia Minor and, what is more, when it was necessary more than ever. Antioch was the most important base of the empire, securing defence on the eastern border and protecting Asia Minor regions against Turkish raids. As regards the people who were involved in the revolts, there is little information about Khačatur, while the antagonistic activities of Patriarch Aimilianos were not suspended after he was removed from Constantinople. Even when he was in the capital, Aimilianos acted against Michael VII Doukas and led the party that helped Nikephoros III Botaneiates assume power in March 1078. Finally, the suppression of the 1074-1075 revolt and the subsequent predominance of Brachamios caused heavy casualties, since in both cases the order was restored after bloody conflicts and massive executions of Antiochean citizens.