According to medieval and modern sources, a number of Byzantine emperors were allegedly Armenian or of partially Armenian heritage. The following list includes the Byzantine emperors to whom sources attribute Armenian origin. Speculation of Armenian ancestry in emperors remains a wide topic of debate.
History and criticism In 1891 John Buchan Telfer reported to the Royal Society of Arts several Byzantine emperors of Armenian origin, including Maurice and John Tzimiskes.
The first work on Byzantine emperors of Armenian origin, Armenian Emperors of Byzantium (), was authored by Fr. Garabed Der-Sahagian and published in 1905 by the Mekhitarist congregation of San Lazzaro degli Armeni in Venice. Anthony Kaldellis suggested that Der-Sahagian extended "western European modes of racial and nationalist historiography to the history of medieval Armenia." Kaldellis believes that it was Nicholas Adontz who "made the search for Armenians in Byzantium into a more scholarly and less romantic nationalist process." However, he is critical of Adontz as he saw "Armenians everywhere and injected them into as many important events as he could."
According to Kaldellis it was later endorsed by Peter Charanis and Alexander Kazhdan and "has spread widely in the field of Byzantine Studies." Kazhdan's book Armenians in the Ruling Class of the Byzantine Empire in the 11th-12th Centuries was published by the Armenian Academy of Sciences in Russian in 1975.
Charanis suggested that "every emperor who sat on the Byzantine throne from the accession of Basil I to the death of Basil II (867—1025) was of Armenian or partially Armenian origin." However, he noted that "in Byzantium the ethnic origins of a person was of not significance, provided he integrated himself into its cultural life." Speros Vryonis listed the Heracleian and Macedonian dynasties as being of Armenian ancestry, along with individual emperors like Leo V, Romanus I, and John Tzimisces.
Robert H. Hewsen counted "no fewer than sixteen emperors and eleven empresses" of Byzantium of Armenian origin and suggested that Armenians ruled "for almost a third of [the empire's] history." He conceded, however, that "[m]ost of these Armenians, of course, were thoroughly hellenized, membership in the Greek Church being the sine qua non for advancement in the Byzantine world."
Anthony Kaldellis is highly critical of what he calls the "Armenian fallacy" in Byzantine studies to which he dedicated a separate chapter (Armenian fallacy) and a sub-chapter specifically about emperors ('Armenian' emperors) in his 2019 book Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, published by Harvard University Press. He wrote, "The consensual mass hallucination that is the Armenian fallacy has populated Byzantine history with a series of alleged “Armenian” emperors." Earlier, in 2008, Kaldellis wrote in Two Romes that scholars incorrectly apply modern ethnic labels like "Armenian" or "Bulgarian" to assimilated Byzantine Romans, stating “what they should be called are Romans of Armenian descent” instead. He suggested this practice is driven by modern nationalist claims rather than historical accuracy.
Kaldellis' criticisms of the "Armenian fallacy" have been subsequently endorsed by historians such as Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, Alexander Beihammer, Marek Klatý, and C.J. Meynell,Meynell, C. J. (2023). Romanness and Islam: Collective Roman Identity in Byzantium from the Seventh to the Tenth Century [PhD thesis]. University of Oxford. p.293-294. "‘Armenians’ were present in large numbers in the empire before the start of our period and became increasingly prominent over the centuries, a fact that is wellattested and well-studied. However, much of the literature regarding them tends to essentialise the ethnic identity presented in the sources by accepting at face-value the label ‘Armenian’ without questioning whether this was a mutable quality. This is the “Armenian fallacy” in Kaldellis’ formulation, whereby Roman and Armenian are placed on the same conceptual level, such that an individual is either one or the other, or ‘mixed’. Fitting Armenians into our framework of Roman groupness raises interesting results. We are almost never given any reason as to why certain individuals are classified as ‘Armenian’.13 Are they Armenians on the basis of their religious doctrine, their language, their place of birth, or, more nebulously, their customs? Did they picture themselves as ‘Armenian’ and identify as such in distinction to being Roman? In the vast majority of cases we cannot know: they are simply ‘Armenian’. One may surmise that the intended reader of such texts may have inherently ‘known’ what was meant by the appellation, but the cases are simply too numerous and diverse for that to be possible in all instances. Should we, therefore, see these people as Armenians and not Romans? The answer must be ‘no’, or, at least, a qualified ‘no’. The picture is far too complex for any easy solution. among others. Toby Bromige wrote that Kaldellis "may at times seem dismissive of the depth and influence that Armenians had within Byzantium, especially the strength of ancestral descent in certain individuals, but he correctly identifies a lack of relevant historical investigation and precision."
List Portrait Name ReignDynastyComments and notesPre-Macedonian Maurice 582–602(20 years) Justinian Medieval Armenian chroniclers such as Stepanos Taronetsi and Kirakos Gandzaketsi claim Maurice to be of Armenian origin. A 7th century obelisk in Oshakan, Armenia is attributed by a local tradition to Maurice or his mother.
Modern scholarship, however, does not have a consensus. Krzysztof Stopka writes that it is generally regarded as a legend. It has been accepted by Nicholas Adontz, Peter Charanis, Henri Grégoire, Robert H. Hewsen, but rejected by others, such as Paul Goubert.P. Goubert, Byzance avant I'Islam, I. Paris, 1951, pp. 34-41. Walter Kaegi described him as "of probable Armenian origin." Anthony Kaldellis argues that his Armenian ancestry is "largely unknown to historians who study his reign" and that "no contemporary source—and there are many— mentions it." He considers the medieval Armenian chronicles to be "Armenian folktales" and notes that "[n]one of the names in his extended family are Armenian". A. E. Redgate is also skeptical; as the "counter-arguments, in his case, seem overwhelming." Heraclius 610–641(31 years) Heraclian The son of Heraclius the Elder, who is generally recognized by scholars as an Armenian. According to the 7th century Armenian historian Sebeos, Heraclius was related to the Arsacid dynasty of Armenia. Hewsen talked of the Heraclids being "of royal Arsacid origin." Redgate considers his Armenian origin likely. Walter Kaegi notes that Heraclius was presumably "bilingual (Armenian and Greek) from an early age, but even this is uncertain."
Kaldellis argues that his Armenian origin "takes the prize for fiction masquerading as history" and that statements regarding his ancestry "have been woven out of thin air". He notes that "there is not a single primary source that says that Herakleios was an Armenian" and, moreover, "none of the names in his extended family are Armenian, and this in an age when Armenian generals in Roman service kept their native names and did not always switch to Graeco-Roman ones". He writes that this assertion about Heraclius' ancestry is based on an erroneous reading of Theophylact Simocatta. In a letter, Priscus, a general who had replaced Heraclius the Elder, wrote to him "to leave the army and return to his own city in Armenia". Kaldellis interprets it as the command headquarters of Heraclius the Elder, and not his home town, since "[i]t would make no sense in the context of the narrative for Philippikos to send Herakleios “home.”". According to historian Benjamin Anderson, Kaldellis "effectively debunks the received wisdom" on Heraclius's origins. Mizizios 668–669(1 year) Considered Armenian by mainstream scholarship. He came from the Gnuni family. PhilippicusBardanes 711–713(2 years) Considered Armenian by mainstream scholarship. Kaldellis disputes this view, pointing to his anti-Armenian policies such as his decision to expel all Armenians from the empire, forcing them to seek refuge among the Arabs, (though this wasn't fully enforced) and his later decree ordering all Armenians to accept the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople. According to Kaldellis, this "shows that despite his ancestry he was not, and did not consider himself to be, 'an Armenian,' as some modern historians call him" and speculated that he may have been Persian. Artabasdos 741–743(2 years) Considered Armenian by mainstream scholarship. online Nina Garsoïan suggests that he hailed from the Mamikonian house. Kaldellis believes that we "do not know enough about the first [i.e. Artabasdos] to have an interesting discussion of his ethnicity." Leo V 813–820(7 years) Scholars agree that he was at least partly of Armenian origin. According to Jenkins, was certainly of Armenian stock on one side. He is said to have been 'Assyrian', that is, Syrian, on the other: but this is perhaps attached to him owing to his heretical and iconoclastic beliefs, and to the fact that he modelled himself on the great iconoclast conqueror Leo III, to whom Syrian descent was more certainly attributed. He is the only emperor to be nicknamed "Armenian" by Byzantine historians. Armenian chronicles claimed he was an Artsruni. Kaldellis notes that his "ancestry is said to have been Armenian, Assyrian, and Amalekite (a biblical ethnonym), whatever exactly those terms may have meant in a late eighth-century context." He also writes that "we have no evidence for how Leon V acknowledged, tried to hide or counter, or ameliorated his “ethnic” background as emperor". Constantine 813–820(7 years) The son of Leo V the Armenian. Michael III 842–867(25 years) Amorian His mother, Theodora, the wife of Theophilos, is considered by some scholars to have been, at least partly, of Armenian origin. Kaldellis argues that "As the restorer of icons in 843, many texts discuss her, yet none refers to her Armenian ethnicity." Theodora 842–856(14 years) Amorian Empress regnant during the minority of Michael III. Considered by some scholars to have been, at least partly, of Armenian origin. Kaldellis wrote that no source (Byzantine or Medieval Armenian) refers to her as an Armenian, or as being of Armenian descent.Macedonian dynasty