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

5 Kuefler, Manly Eunuch, 36.6 Claudian, In Eutropium 2 112-114: “Nedum mollitiia, nedum, germana, mederi

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.

32 Agathias, Histories 1.16.12 (my trans.).33 Agathias, Histories 1.16.2.

15

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.

24

25