Breaking Down Barriers: Eunuchs in Italy, 400-620 (November 30 AABS 18) Eunuchs are one of the most recognizable and remarkable features of Byzantine civilisation. The Byzantine period is marked by the essential roles that castrates played at all levels of court society. Though their primary function throughout the Byzantine era remained service within the imperial palace, eunuchs served as diplomats, assassins, and political leaders, led armies and played essential roles within the Church as well. For many non- 1
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Breaking Down Barriers: Eunuchs in Italy, 400-620
(November 30 AABS 18)
Eunuchs are one of the most recognizable and remarkable
features of Byzantine civilisation. The Byzantine period is
marked by the essential roles that castrates played at all levels
of court society. Though their primary function throughout the
Byzantine era remained service within the imperial palace,
eunuchs served as diplomats, assassins, and political leaders,
led armies and played essential roles within the Church as
well. For many non-Byzantine peoples throughout the Middle
Ages, eunuchs came to symbolize both the allure and the
otherness of Byzantium.
1
Today’s paper has two primary objectives. First, by
concentrating attention on evidence from Italy, it will show
more congruent attitudes towards eunuchs within the Eastern
and Western halves of the Roman Empire than some scholars
allow. Second, I intend to demonstrate that a lessoning of
hostility towards eunuchs from the fifth century can help to
explain both the rise of Byzantine military eunuchs and the
respect for the Byzantine eunuch-general Narses found in
Byzantine and non-Byzantine sources.
Let us begin by tracing briefly the prominent and diverse roles
that eunuchs were playing at the opening of the fifth century.
2
Modifying older views, recent scholarship has convincingly
shown that eunuchs had become prominent within the entire
Roman Empire from at least the third century, not the fourth
as previously argued. Although castration in the early
Byzantine period remained illegal within the boundaries of the
Empire, at the dawn of the fifth century, Eunuchs were an
everyday sight on the streets of Rome and Constantinople. To
borrow the words of Shaun Tougher, “court eunuchs were an
imperial phenomenon, not an oriental one.”1
Yet the seeming gender ambiguity of eunuchs could be
troubling.2 One finds this sentiment expressed in a late fourth-
century Eastern source describing eunuchs as “exiles from the
society of the human race, belonging to neither one sex nor
the other.”3 The very ease by which a man could quite literally
be cut off from the “source” of his sexual identity troubled
many Late Roman writers. At the opening of the fifth century
the poet Claudian quipped that the knife makes “males
womanish.”4
1 Shaun Tougher, The Eunuch in Byzantine History and Society (New York: Routledge, 2008), 42.2 Mathew Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late
Antiquity (Chicago: 2001), 31-36, 61-69, 96-102, 245-282.3 Claudius Mamertinus, Speech of Thanks to Julian 19.4.4 Claudian, In Eutropium 1.48.
3
These sentiments help to explain some of the hostility towards
eunuchs found in the ancient literature. One recent scholar
has gone so far as to suggest that the indefinite gender status
of eunuchs symbolised to some Late Roman men the frailties
and “instabilities of the Late Roman gender system.”5
A frequently gendered and negative view of eunuchs appears
to have been particularly prevalent at the close of the fourth
century; a time when relations between the Western and
Eastern halves of the Empire dramatically broke down.
Claudian (ca. 370 – 404 AD), a native Greek-speaker from
Alexandria based in Italy, crafted a famously hostile portrait of
the Eastern eunuch-general and consul, Eutropius. The poet’s
gendered invective In Eutropium (Against Eutropius)
lambasted the Eastern Romans for allowing an “unmanly”
eunuch to take on the hyper-masculine duties of a military
commander and consul. When describing the shame of having
a eunuch leading Roman armies the poet lamented, “Sister
shall we ever have the power to cure the East of effeminacy”,
“Will this corrupt age never stiffen up?” 6 To those in
possumus Eoae? numquam corrupta rigescent saecula? (trans. Kuefler)”.
4
Constantinople who had ‘allowed’ a eunuch to fight, he scolded
“To leave arms to men”.7
Of course, as a propagandist for Stilicho and the Western
regime, Claudian naturally went a bit over the top in
denigrating a rival from a then hostile Eastern court.8
However, several Eastern sources criticized Eutropius with
similar hostile rhetoric.9 Easterners too could be critical of
what they saw as Western Romans’ over-dependence on
eunuchs. For example, Eastern writers complained about the
abundance of “scheming eunuchs” at the court of the Western
emperor Honorius.10
So too did Claudian’s contemporary, and fellow Eastern
émigré to Rome, the ex-soldier and historian, Ammianus
Marcellinus, decry the large number of eunuchs in the city.11
Ammianus lamented that whereas their Roman forefathers had
acted “as skilful directors of battles” leading their brave and
7 Claudian, In Eutropium : 1 281: “arma relinque viris” (trans. Platnauer).8 For this rivalry see, Alan Cameron, Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970).9 See, e.g. Eunapius frag. 64, 65. 1-7, Zosimus, New History 5.38-18, Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle 396.
10 Ammianus, Res gestae 31.11.1; Eunapius, frag. 47;Zosimus, New History 4.22.
11 For the close association of the term mollitia ‘softness’ with ‘effeminacy’, see Craig Williams, ‘Some Remarks
on the Semantics of mollitia Eugesta’, 3 (2013): 240-63.
5
manly soldiers, many of the nobility of his day instead spent
their time arranging banquets and assembling bands of
eunuchs, whom he disparaged as “troops of mutilated men”.
Having abandoned the political and military offices that had
helped them to both hone and express their own manliness,
these aristocrats could no longer be expected to lead real
soldiers into battle, but merely command eunuchs.12
So we can see that belittling eunuchs was not purely a
Western phenomenon. Neither was hostility towards eunuchs
universal. Even the renowned persecutor of castrates, the
fourth-century emperor Julian, had admitted that he owed his
manly deportment and love of classical literature largely to his
eunuch childhood tutor—who was probably a Goth. Ammianus
provides several examples of “good” eunuchs. Though
admittedly, if I was a eunuch I may not have been all that
flattered by his backhanded compliment that, “Among the
brambles roses spring up, and among the savage beasts some
are tamed”. 13
12 Ammianus, Res gestae 14.6.17 (trans. Hamilton).
13 Ammianus Res gestae 16.7.4-8.
6
Unfortunately eunuchs have not left us their own views.
Moreover, similar to ancient women, much of the hostile
rhetoric hurled at eunuchs served as literary devices whereby
the ancient authors could attack their main targets. For
example, Claudian used Eutropius to attack the Eastern Court,
whilst Ammianus set his sights on certain members of the
upper stratum of the Roman aristocracy. Not coincidently
“bad” eunuchs are generally found in the reigns of “bad”
emperors or serving evil men or women.14 Certainly one should
be careful not to overstate the negative and gendered attitude
toward eunuchs in this period—and much counter evidence
could be provided to show a general level of acceptance for
eunuchs. Nevertheless no other eunuch after Eutropius would
be named consul, and as far as we know, it would not be until
the reign of Justinian in the sixth century that another eunuch-
general would lead a large Roman army.
The use of eunuchs, however, only accelerated in the fifth
century. Eunuchs played essential, and at times, dominate
roles in the fifth century politics that reshaped the Empire.
They planned internal and external affairs, brought about the
14 Tougher, Eunuch, 126.
7
rise and fall of great men and women, and sought to play a
part in the Christological disputes that rocked the fifth-century
Church. For these nuanced roles they could face both criticism
and praise.15
One also finds eunuchs performing what can be described as
martial duties. Unable to procreate, eunuchs had originally
been utilised to perform duties within the intimate regions of
the palace. This quite naturally had over time seen them being
pressed into service as imperial guards. Emperors and their
eunuchs often had a symbiotic relationship. Fifth-century
emperors had grown to depend upon their eunuchs for their
protection. Largely dependent upon the reigning emperor for
their survival, eunuchs were naturally quite loyal and
protective servants. Eunuchs trusted role in the emperor’s
entourage saw them perform the ultimate act of devotion, the
elimination of the emperor’s enemies.
15For depictions of Theodosius II’s heavy reliance on court eunuchs, and in particular, the dominance of his spatharius Chrysaphius in internal and external politics and Christological controversies, see e.g., Priscus, frag. 3, 11, 13, 15.2; Theodoret, Ep. 110; Vita of Daniel the Stylite, 31; Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle s.a. 450; Malalas, Chronicle, 363, 368; Evagrius, HE 1.10, 2.2; Theophanes, A M 5738, 5740, 5943.
8
(Valentinian III)
Eunuchs took part in two of the fifth centuries’ most infamous
political assassinations. The first occurred in 454 when the
thirty-six year old Western Emperor Valentinan III and his
grand Chamberlin Heraclius ambushed the seminal Western
9
generalissimo Aetius at a financial meeting in Ravenna.16
Having slain the famous ‘conqueror’ of Attila, neither
Valentinan nor Heraclius had much time to bask in their
victory, and Aetius’ supporters murdered the pair shortly
afterwards. Valentinian’s assassination of a war hero and
reliance on his eunuch advisor to perform the deed provoked
an almost universally hostile response, and it is probably no
coincidence that Sidonius writing in the years shortly after the
infamous assassination described the emperor as a ‘mad
eunuch’ [semivir amens].17
In 470, the Eastern Emperor Leo I utilised similar tactics when
his armed eunuchs hijacked the long-serving Alan general and
senior consul in Costantinople, Aspar and his sons, at a
16 Priscus, frag 30.1.13-27.
17 Sidonius Carmina 7.359 (trans. Anderson).
10
meeting of the Eastern senate. Unlike, his Western
counterpart—though a close call—Leo and his eunuchs
emerged unscathed, though the emperor earned from his
critics the disparaging nickname ‘the butcher’ for the killings.
Their role in the successful purge of Aspar, probably explains
why during the reign of Leo’s successor, Zeno, we find a
eunuch leading a small military expedition against the
emperor’s rivals.18
So too does one find eunuchs performing their familiar roles
in some post-Roman kingdoms. Eunuchs served in Vandalic
North Africa and in Ostrogothic Italy.19 This image of the
sarcophagus of one of Theoderic’s eunuch-chamberlains, Seda,
adds credence to Jonathan Arnold’s recent contention that
Theoderic sought to present himself as a “new” Western
Roman emperor, and not just a barbarian rex.20 By this period
nothing said imperial Roman so much as a contingent of
eunuchs. Therefore, Theoderic’s reliance on eunuchs may have
18John of Antioch, 211.1.
19 For the fascination with North African eunuchs found in Vandalic literature, see A. Merrills and R. Miles, The
Vandals (Oxford: Blackwell. 2010), 108.
20 Jonathan Arnold’s Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2014), 90.
11
served as one way to proclaim his imperial Romanitas. The
presence of eunuchs in Otrogothic Italy may also provide an
explanation for why in the wide array of gendered invective
hurled at the Eastern Romans by the Ostrogothic supporters
during Justinian’s Gothic war, none of it, as far as we know,
mentions the emperor’s reliance on eunuch commanders.21 It
is to the most famous of these eunuch generals, Narses that
we now turn.
21 A full account of this gendered propaganda is found in, Walter Kaegi, “Procopius the Military Historian”, BF 15
(1990): 79-81; M.E. Stewart, ‘Contests of Andreia in Procopius’ Gothic Wars’, Παρεκβολαι 4 (2014), pp. 21-54.
12
Narses (478-573) has long earned historians’ respect.22 This
acclaim is deserved since his major victories over the Goths in
552 and versus the Franks in 554, secured Justinian’s (ruled
527-565) retaking of Italy from the Goths.23 So too did Narses
perform admirably for twelve years as prefect of Italy. Narses
was a eunuch of Pers-Armenian descent born around 478-480.
He had first served Justinian and Theodora as a chamberlain
(cubicularius); ultimately, attaining the top post available to a
court eunuch, the position of grand chamberlain (praepositus
sacri cubiculi). He also was a treasurer (a favourite position
for Byzantine eunuchs) and later served as bodyguard
(spatharius). He also served as an assassin for the Empress
Theodora.24
Narses was one of three eunuchs to command Byzantine
armies during Justinian’s reign. The first, Solomon, served as
22 See e.g., Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London: Penguin
Classics,1994),4.36; J.B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian (London Macmillan, 1958), pp. 267-80; Lawrence Fauber, Narses the Hammer of the Goths (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), p. 135; John Martyn, ‘The Eunuch Narses’, in Text and Transmission in Medieval Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholarly Publishing, 2007), pp. 46-56.
23 Modern military historians, for example, have rated Narses as a better general than his rival Belisarius. See e.g.,
Bevin Alexander, How Wars are Won: The 13 Rules of War from Ancient Greece to the War on Terror (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002), pp.49-52.
24 Procopius revealed that in 541, the Empress Theodora had sent Narses to assassinate the praetorian prefect John
the Cappadocian Procopius, Wars 1.25.24-30.
13
magister militum and praetorian prefect of Africa.25 Another
eunuch, Scholasticus, commanded an army sent against the
Slavs.26 Though never as high as some suppose, the number of
eunuch-generals expanded in subsequent centuries.27
Importantly, in contrast to the gendered vitriol that had
accompanied Eutropius’ military command against the Huns at
the close of the fourth century, Narses’ and these other
eunuchs’ prominent military commands, as far as we know,
provoked little or no hostile response.28
One finds in the sixth-century histories of Procopius and
Agathias, for instance, that Narses’ status as a castrate did
little to hinder his military prowess. Agathias, in fact, took
seeming pleasure in rejecting this trope by depicting two
warriors in a Frankish army assuming foolishly that they would
best the Romans in battle because ‘a eunuch of the
bedchamber’ commanded their army. Guided magnificently by
Narses, the Roman army annihilated the Franks.29 Agathias
attributed this and other Roman victories to Narses’ ‘excellent
25 See e.g. Procopius, Wars 4.11.47-56.26 Procopius, Wars 7.40.5.27 For a select prosopography of eunuchs in Byzantine civilisation, see Tougher, Eunuch, pp. 133-7128
29 Agathias, Histories 1.6.8, 1.22.6.
14
generalship’.30The lesson? Non-Romans who underestimated
eunuchs and their role in the Roman military machine were in
for a big surprise.
Procopius and Agathias, however, undermine Kathryn
Ringrose’s contention ‘that neither’ historian ‘attributes
Narses’ success to courageous manliness’. Examples from both
demonstrate the opposite. Procopius, for instance, reported
with little sense of irony that Narses’ supporters hoped that
the eunuch would achieve fame through ‘deeds of wisdom and
manliness’ [ἔργα ξυνέσεώς τε καὶ ἀνδρείας].31 Agathias too
described Narses as ‘manly and heroic’ [τὸ δὲ ἀνδρεῑον καὶ
μεγαλουργὸν].32 With his remark, ‘that true nobility of soul
cannot fail to make its mark, no matter what obstacles are put
in its path’, it seems clear that Agathias would have placed
Narses on or near the top of his ladder of human excellence.33
Moreover, martial virtues had never centered solely on ‘courage’ or ‘physicality’ alone. In
the words of Agathias, ‘Brains and not brawn’ represented the primary qualities of an
effective Roman general. Procopius too criticized generals for risking themselves fighting on 30 Agathias, Histories 2.9.1.31 Procopius, Wars 6.18.7. I have changed the translator Dewing’s ‘courage’ for ἀνδρείας to ‘manliness.’
Procopius also described (Wars 3.9.25) the emperor Justinian as ὀξὺς (sharp, clever). Eunuch-commanders after Narses continued to face hostile gendered rhetoric. See e.g., the eleventh-century historian, John Skylitzes (A Synopsis of Byzantine History16.8 [trans. John Wortley]) recording a Byzantine rebel commanders snide remark that facing a non-eunuch rival general, “for the first time the fight would be against a true soldier, one who knew well how to conduct military operations with courage and skill; not, as formerly, against pitiful fellows, eunuchs, fostered in the chamber and raised in the shade.” One suspects that Narses would have faced similar gendered criticism if he had been defeated in battle by the Goths.
the frontline.34 These attitudes need not surprise. Byzantine military handbooks, in fact,
preferred it when military commanders avoided combat.35 Moreover, men with little or no
military background could lead Byzantine armies. The Italian senator Liberius, described by
Procopius as an ‘old man and without experience in deeds of war’, had for a time—albeit
ineffectually— led Justinian’s Italian campaign.36
Procopius’ and Agathias’ showed their readers that it was the
combination of Narses’ ‘brains’ with his soldiers’ ‘brawn’ that
had led to the Byzantine’s final victories over the Goths.
Indeed, one should not suppose that Narses did not put
himself in danger during these battles. Despite the eunuch’s
diminutive stature, Agathias described Narses on horseback
leading his men into a skirmish against the Franks.37 Narses’
age (he was over seventy during the events depicted in book 8
of Procopius’ Wars) more than the fact that he was a former
court eunuch probably represented the primary reason that
Narses did not play a larger role in combat. Procopius
certainly depicted Solomon, leading cavalry charges and
fighting on the frontlines with his men.
So why did Justinian use eunuchs as military commanders?
The emperor’s reasoning for doing so appears multi-faceted.
His break with recent precedent may have been a practical
34 See e.g., Procopius, Wars 5.18.5.35 Maurice’s Strategikon 2.16.36 Procopius, Wars 7.39.737Agathias, Histories 1.21.5. For Narses’ small, frail body, see Histories 1.16.2.
16
decision based on the reality that Solomon and Narses were
the best qualified to lead. Solomon may have set the
precedent. Narses’ loyalty, financial acumen, and ability to
attract the loyalty of his men all served as possible reasons.38
Fear of usurpation appears to have played a role as well. While
Procopius only insinuated, Agathias made it clear that
Justinian felt threatened by the conqueror of the Vandals
Belisarius’ growing popularity.39 The fifth and early sixth
centuries had seen Roman and non-Roman soldiers playing
increasingly important roles in both the making and the
unmaking of Roman emperors.40 By appointing Narses,
Justinian therefore removed the real threat that a charismatic
—and corporeally intact— military man like Belisarius could
present to him.
Later Byzantine historians largely shared Procopius and
Agathias’ respect for Narses.41 In the twelfth century, a
successful eunuch-commander could be described as “a new
38 Shaun Tougher points out this possibility in his paper on Narses that he kindly allowed me to see before publication.
39Procopius, Wars 6.30.1-5; Agathias, Histories 5.20.5. Historians continue to debate just how viable a rival Belisarius was, see e.g. Henning Börm, ‘Justinians Truimph und Belisars Erniedrigung Überiegungen zum Verhältnis Zwischen Reich’,Chiron (2013): 63-91.
40 Justinian’s predecessors Marcian (ruled 450-457), Leo I (ruled 457-474), Zeno (ruled 474-5, 476-91), Basiliscus (ruled 475/6), Justin I (ruled 518-27) all began their careers as humble soldiers (the exception, Anastasius ruled 491-518, served as a palace official before surprisingly being named emperor).
41 See e.g. John Malalas, Chronicle 484, 486, Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History 4.24, John of Ephesus, Church History 3.1.39.
17
Narses”.42 Somewhat more surprisingly, non-Byzantine
Western sources from the sixth to the eighth century have
passed down generally respectful portraits of Narses as well.
Importantly for our purposes, even Western sources that
subscribed to Narses’ anachronistic ‘betrayal’ of Italy to the
Lombards first found in a Western chronicle from 616, portray
Narses’ reasoning for the ‘betrayal’ in a sympathetic light.43
Okay, Narses was just one eunuch and rather exceptional at
that, so to close, let me turn to a final powerful eunuch from
seventh century-Italy.
42 Tougher, Eunuch, 152.43 Indeed, it is the lack of respect on the part of the empress towards Narses symbolised by her gendered
jibe that “because he was a eunuch”, that on his return to Constantinople she would send him back to the women’s chambers “where he could rule over wool-makers not over nations” that drove his revenge
18
(Italy at the opening of the Seventh Century)
By the second decade of the seventh century, Byzantine rule in
Italy was in deep trouble. The imperial government in
Constantinople found itself in the midst of a final fight for
survival with its long-time nemesis from the East, the Persian
Empire. Lombards and native Italians, took advantage of the
disarray, and around 615, the Byzantine exarch and a number
of imperial officials were murdered in Ravenna. Though
embroiled in the fight with Persia, in the spring of 616, the
emperor Heraclius sent the Patrician and chamberlain
19
Eleutherios to exact revenge and restore order. In this task the
eunuch was largely successful. After visiting the Pope in Rome,
Eleutherios led an army to Naples, where, according to a near
contemporary source, “he fought his way against the usurper
and killed the upstart and many others with him.” His further
attack against the Lombards, however, stalled, forcing
Eleutherios to sign a treaty with the Lombard king. Though the
details are murky, Eleutherios’ successes seemed to have gone
to his head, and our Western sources tells us that in 619 he
rebelled against Heraclius, and attempted to have himself
name Western Emperor.44 His reign, if we can call it that, did
not last long, on his way to Rome to rally support, he was
killed by imperial troops and his head sent to Constantinople.
Whether we accept this tale as 100% accurate matters little
for our purposes today. That all three of our Western sources
from the seventh to the eighth centuries find it possible that a
eunuch could aspire to such heights seems significant. This
should not surprise since these writers were probably familiar
with other powerful eunuchs in Italy, some who were far from
perfect servants and sought to carve for themselves a position
44 Liber Pontificallis, Vita Boniface ch. 2.
20
in the political quagmire of early Medieval Italy. Indeed,
Eleutherios would not be the last eunuch exarch to scheme
against his superior in Constantinople.
A colleague suggested to me recently that Eleutherios could
not have been a eunuch. This position, I replied, tells us more
about modern attitudes towards eunuchs, than the nuanced
depictions we find in the early medieval literature.
(A Byzantine eunuch attacks the Arabs: thirteenth-century
Madrid Skylitzes)
Eunuchs had certainly come a long way since Eutropius had
been stripped of his consulship and mocked for his holding of a
21
military command. Eunuchs would continue to serve as
exarchs in Italy until the exarchate fell in 751.45 In Byzantium
they continued until the thirteenth century to wield
considerable power. This is not to claim that eunuchs after the
fifth century were always treated in non-gendered ways.
Eunuch-commanders who experienced defeat on the field of
battle could expect to face gendered and, at times, eunuch-
specific vitriol.46 I suspect that Narses may have faced similar
criticism if he had ever been defeated in battle.
Yet, I hope that I have shown today that eunuchs like Solomon,
Narses, and Eleutherios had broken through some of the
barriers of the prejudicial Roman attitudes towards eunuchs.
Far from being just a creation of pure political necessity, by
the seventh century, eunuchs in early Medieval Italy had
become a vital signifier of imperial status, and, at times, manly
martial Romanitas.
One, indeed, need only to watch a few episodes of the recent
television drama Game of Thrones to realize that eunuchs
45 An excellent summery of the Byzantine exarchate is found in Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 201-287.46See e.g., John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History16.8 [324]). For a discussion of these later negative accounts, see Tougher, Eunuch, 103-104.
22
continue to translate, transport, and transmit Byzantine
culture over five hundred and sixty years after Constantinople
fell to the Turks.
Thank you
Final slide
Some High-Ranking Byzantine Military Eunuchs 600-1100
Seventh Century
Eluetherios-Koubikoularios under Heraclius. Exarch of Italy.
Leontios-Syrian eunuch who served in a military role in the reign of Phokas (ruled 602-610
Manuel-Armenian general served in Egypt. Retook Alexandria from Arabs, but later killed in battle.
23
Olympius-Koubikoularios and exarch of Italy (649). Defeated by Arabs in battle in Sicily.
Theodore-General of the East, killed at the battle of Yarmuk in 636.
Eighth Century
Eutychios-Exarch of Italy from 727-751.
John-In 781 he led the forces that defeated the Arabs at the battle of Melon.
Staurakios-Supporter of Empress Eirene who campaigned against the Slavs in 783.
Theodore-Strategos of Sicily from 782-788.
Ninth century
Procopius-Co-commander of the troops in Italy during the reign of Basil I (ruled 867-886).
Theoktistos-Served in the reigns of Michael II and Michael III. Led campaign against the Arabs.
Tenth Century
Constantine Gongylios- Served as droungarios of an expedition against Crete in 949.
Damianos-Droungarios during Zoe’s regency for Constantine VII.
Eustathios-Strategos of Calabria in 920.
Michael- Oversaw the fleet in Crete in 960.
Niketas- Droungarios of the fleet in Sicily.
Nicholas-Commander in chief of the army. Defeated the Arabs in battle.
Romanos the Bulgar-Strategos of Abydos.
Peter-Stratopedarch in Cilcia. Served in numerous battles against the Arabs and Rus. Fell in Basil II campaing against Bardas Skleros.
Theophanes-Defeat the Rus in a naval battle in 941.
Eleventh Century
Basil-Killed in battle with Pechenegs in 1053.
Basil Pediates-Shared command of the army in Sicily.
Constantine the Saracen-strategos autokrator who led campaigns in Armnia.
Eustathios Kyminianos- Droungarios under Alexios I who defended Constantinople.
John the protovestiarios- Besieged the Turks in Nicea in 1080.
George Probatas-Headed an army sent against the Serbs in1040.
Leo Nikerites- Commander who escorted the Pechenegs to Constantinople in 1086.
Michael Spondyles-Doux of Antioch, defeated by Arabs in 1027, led campaign to Siciliy in 1038.
Nikephoros- Strategos Autokrator defeated by Pechenegs in battle in 1049.
Orestes-Protospatharios sent by Basil II to fight the Arabs in Sicily.
Stephen- Strategos and autokrator who defeated George Maniakes in 1043.
Symeon- Under Romanus III he was the domestic of the scholai, and led a campaign in the East.